PDA

View Full Version : Gun Ban Progress???



Sloth_Fratelli
12-19-2012, 08:20 PM
Okay so im pretty sure you all know more than me about this and i cant find much current news on google. anybody have any updates or lists of whats being proposed?

sethman15210
12-20-2012, 12:23 AM
Here's a general list of what they wanna ban

http://redflagnews.com/opinion/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out-by-alan-korwin

Super Scout
12-20-2012, 08:26 AM
What scares me about this assult weapons bans, is it doen't fix the problem. So the next time some asshole goes insane and takes out a school it will be with a bomb. And no one will have a fighting chance.

joshs1ofakindxj
12-20-2012, 08:32 AM
Here's a general list of what they wanna ban

http://redflagnews.com/opinion/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out-by-alan-korwin

Alan Korwin, the guy that runs gunlaws.com, did not write the above and sets the record straight here: http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2012/11/clarification.html

I really have no idea what this proposed legislation is going to look like, based on the current momentum behind it and all the different directions it could take.

I suggest all who are interested keep an eye on PA Gun Blog (pagunblog.com) which covers not just PA legislation but federal as well. Go back and start reading from Mondays's posts and you will be caught up quick.

The NRA, which has remained silent so far, has scheduled a conference for tomorrow (Friday). Lot's of people are expecting them to offer a big comprimise. Screw that.

The only thing we can do as individuals is call and email our state and congressional representatives and remind them what the people they represent want. Shame on you if you don't do something so simple.

I also saw yesterday that the Philly police commissionaire will be joining Biden's team of gun grabbers. Great. I'm sure next Bloomturd and Chicago's mayor will be on board.

These people want a COMPLETE ban, as in totally gone from our possession. They know the 1994 AWB was superficial so this time they plan to hit hard and without compromise. We can either fight it up front tooth and nail, or let them pass some costly draconian law and hope a court finds it unconstitutional and throws it out.

Just type "gun control" into google news for your daily dose.

justin'sbig7
12-20-2012, 08:48 AM
Feinstein has had a bill prepared for quite a while. Call or email your reps folks, at least once if not then every day or as much as possible.

The thing that scares me the most is obummers abuse of executive orders. I don't like it one bit.

joshs1ofakindxj
12-20-2012, 09:27 AM
Here is contact info:

Senator Casey: http://www.casey.senate.gov/contact/

Senator Toomey: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact



Go here to find what district you're in, and then look up your US Rep and PA Rep contact info

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/find.cfm

oros35
12-20-2012, 11:12 AM
Here is contact info:

Done.

Thanks for the link. That makes it real easy to find your representatives in your county. Their email is linked to their name in most cases.

justin'sbig7
12-20-2012, 11:49 AM
Made my call and email rounds again today

sethman15210
12-20-2012, 12:06 PM
I made my email to the senator, and stopped by my local office. Unfortunately at Costa's office they wouldnt comment about it. So I'm gonna assume that means he's supporting it.

Super Scout
12-20-2012, 12:39 PM
I called I would like to send an email. What do you guys say ? Just don't support and anti gun legislation or ?

JeepSteeler
12-20-2012, 01:14 PM
Emailed both Senators, and local reps. Thanks for the links Josh. I'm not one to get on a soapbox, but this is no time to sit on our hands guys. Let's exercise our rights and inform those that have been elected our representatives how we feel about this issue.

This is basically what i email to them - in case anybody could use some ideas:

Dear Honorable Senator Toomey/Casey,

I appreciate all of the good work you have done for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during your term as Senator. I would like to express to you, that even in light of the recent horrific event with the Sandy Hook school shooting, that banning guns, be it "assault rifle" style guns or guns of any kind, is not an answer, and would not have prevented this tragedy. Please fight to keep the rights of honest, law abiding citizens, to own and use firearms in the responsible manner that we do. I am a gun owner, I enjoy recreational shooting, as does my family, and I do have guns for self defense purposes. The vast majority of gun owners are like me, responsible and safety minded. Not only would a ban on guns be extremely difficult to enforce, it would not stop criminals, and it would cost America jobs. Please stand up for our right to bear arms, and our freedom to choose. I realize the political pressure to ban assault rifles will be high, but that ban would not have saved any lives. Criminals will always find a way to do harm. Let's focus our efforts on identifying and helping those at risk of having a mental breakdown and committing these unspeakable acts, rather than taking the easy, and ineffective, way out by banning any type of firearms.

Respectfully,
Your name

Leady
12-21-2012, 01:29 AM
^^^^
This is written 100 times better than what I sent. I hope I don't come off as an ignorant redneck, but I basically said that it wasn't the answer to ban guns and I wouldn't support anyone who supported that cause. I also noted that they should ban fertilizer and bricks if this was to pass. To keep bombers and strong armed fellers at bay. I also said that education and help for those who would be at risk of doing such a thing was the answer.

Hope it helps.

Azzy
12-21-2012, 01:34 AM
FOAC has a legislative tool section to find not only your legislators, but link you to bills they voted on and then others who voted the same way.

FOACpac.org

We are also putting together a podcast, as well as trying to keep the twitter and facebook feeds rolling along. @foacpac

SirFuego
12-21-2012, 12:33 PM
Here is my view, probably a bit different from many on the board -- so I'm sure I'll be lambasted for some of the comments. But what fun is a thread when everyone agrees?

There are a few major things here:
1) A total gun ban is not gonna happen. I don't care how much tin foil is on your head, it's not gonna happen. Way too many people, including a lot of liberals have no problem with allowing certain types of guns such as pistols and long barrel hunting rifles/shotguns. And on the same token, guns are always going to be regulated to some extent.

2) A zombie apocalypse is not gonna happen. It's Dec 21, 2012 today and there are no impending signs of doom.

3) Unless the general public has access to state-of-the-art military equipment on par with what our military has, a "well regulated militia" doesn't stand a chance for any sustained length of time -- even with high capacity clips/magazines/whatever-the-"correct"-term-is-for-them on automatic weapons.

4) Guns are a tool. Their three "proper" uses are for self-defense, hunting, and war (all of which of course require some level of training). So referencing comment #3, they have two uses for the general public. I have no problem with handguns. They are a great tool for self defense and helps to "level the playing field" if you are physically outmatched by an aggressor. Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, too, and in fact necessary for some people depending on where they live and what their lifestyle is (and of course could also be used for self defense).

5) I get that even if they are banned, high capacity clips/assault rifles will still be used by criminals. However, even if you look at the mass shootings in recent memory at "gun free" zones, that still doesn't seem to justify a reason to not ban them. Even if they weren't gun free zones, anyone with the ability to fight back (before the police arrived) would likely have only had access to a handgun. So whether or not high capacity clips are available to the public is almost moot in this situation, IMO.

6) The general public does not need (stressing this word) for high capacity clips. I've been thinking through all possible situations in which they are needed and they all revolve around police and military applications. I get that people feel strongly about the right to own them and many people use them for recreational purposes, but there is no need for them (see #3-5). However, I do get that that argument applies to many other things -- such as our wheeling hobby. So I admittedly am a bit "wishy washy" on justifying the ban of such a product just because it's not NEEDED.

7) Schools (and other traditionally "gun-free" public buildings) should not be true "gun free" zones. However, only properly trained employees (whether it be a teacher, security guard, principal, or janitor -- I don't care who nor do I think there should be a limit) should be allowed to carry as long as they complete annual training courses in gun safety.

8 ) IMO, the major problem is gun education -- the only people that are "educated" on guns typically have a police/military background or continually train themselves in gun safety -- including safe use, safe storage, safe decision-making, and educating their household about guns. How many "gun haters" do you know have trained themselves in proper gun ownership? Many gun haters I know are terrified to even see a gun, let alone touch it. How many households with guns have everyone in the house properly educated (to the extent appropriate for their age) about guns?

Since it's been decided by the Supreme Court that "mandates" are permitted as long as they are a "tax", gun advocates should use this to their advantage and part of the compromise process. And since the tax code is already a cluster**** (and I'm sure taxes will be going up across the board in the near future), why not offer a 10-year tax break for those that have completed a gun safety course? That will motivate those who traditionally would not have taken a gun safety course and perhaps make them more comfortable about them.

9) Parents need to be more pro-active and seek help for their child if they are showing some sort of mental illness instead of trying to protect them from it. We, as a society, need to better understand mental illnesses and find better ways to treat them without heavily medicating them to where they can potentially become a big danger to society.

JeepSteeler
12-21-2012, 12:58 PM
^I don't completely agree or disagree with any/all your points, I find them to be reasonable. Perhaps I have a slightly different view on #5 (does hi cap mag always mean that person will "win" versus, say, a revolver?...) and #6 (I get your emphasis on the "need" and it is hard to argue against) but your points are not without merit and are certainly two of the more debatable aspects of the entire issue at hand. I don't actually know any "gun haters" myself, thankfully. Or at least none that have made it known to me. I support your point that education is paramount. The only other member of my household, my wife, knows how to use, field strip, clean, and operate all of the guns that she has access to, and training is actually one of the things we like to do as a couple.

As for our elected leaders - it appears that those who share the "status quo" stance for access to black rifles and high cap magazines may wish to direct their feelings toward Senator Casey: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/casey-aside-pa-politicians-guarded-on-gun-control-667244/ who has flipped on the issue.

justin'sbig7
12-21-2012, 02:01 PM
I have a right to have them. The constitution grants that, supreme court has (recently) upheld it. as long as I have broken no law, I have the right, period end of story. They are fun to shoot, they interest me, and I use them legally. Same as some go to the track to race, golf course to golf, etc.

Lets talk needs. We need to survive:
Food
Water
Shelter or some way of sustaining natural elements.

What do you have that is not needed?

What we need is good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns. The .223 is a tiny caliber and is not a super powerful round as the media states. I would hesitate to use a .223 for deer hunting. 2 rounds or 40 rounds, if a shooter has a ton of 2 shot mags, and no one is armed to stop him, does it matter? You can change a mag in a couple of seconds, not long enough to be overtaken by unarmed people... And proof that unarmed people don't have a chance, a couple of Muslims took over an airplane full of people with a box cutter. Ten people couldn't have overpowered a guy with a box cutter? So what difference does it make? Arm and educate the good people and the bad people will deteriorate.

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 02:29 PM
I have a right to have them. The constitution grants that, supreme court has (recently) upheld it. as long as I have broken no law, I have the right, period end of story. They are fun to shoot, they interest me, and I use them legally. Same as some go to the track to race, golf course to golf, etc.

Lets talk needs. We need to survive:
Food
Water
Shelter or some way of sustaining natural elements.

What do you have that is not needed?

What we need is good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns. The .223 is a tiny caliber and is not a super powerful round as the media states. I would hesitate to use a .223 for deer hunting. 2 rounds or 40 rounds, if a shooter has a ton of 2 shot mags, and no one is armed to stop him, does it matter? You can change a mag in a couple of seconds, not long enough to be overtaken by unarmed people... And proof that unarmed people don't have a chance, a couple of Muslims took over an airplane full of people with a box cutter. Ten people couldn't have overpowered a guy with a box cutter? So what difference does it make? Arm and educate the good people and the bad people will deteriorate.


This because I couldn't say it better. We have a right. We are a free nation and that comes with risk. Anyone willing to give up a freedom for security deserves neither.

oros35
12-21-2012, 02:29 PM
Here is my view

I think your more on line with the majority than you think.

One thing is to remember why the amendment in the constitution was put there.... To give the people the ability to protect themselves from their government. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Most of us belong to the free state of Pennsylvania, and have the right to defend ourselves from the federal government.

My opinion is that, with proper mental health and appropriate background checks, we should have access to weapons in the same category as the standard issue military weapon.

justin'sbig7
12-21-2012, 02:45 PM
By the way sirfuego, I do agree with most of your points, but the needs is a wedge that is used to further gun control. First it's "why do you need those black guns" then when those are gone it will be " those high powered hunting rifles shoot too far for our close quartered society, you can shoot a deer with a shotgun and slug. You don't need a rifle" and those will be gone, then once again it will be something about the shotguns and they will be gone. Divide and conquer at its finest

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 02:54 PM
I think what pisses me off is the statement "you don't need an AR-15 to shoot a Deer, and you don't need 30 round magazines for self defense". The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense. EVER the founders never wanted a permanent military. But, in their eyes we should be able to own any weapon the US military has access too. As much as that may sound crazy, that is how they would of wanted it.

2002wranglerX
12-21-2012, 04:06 PM
Here is my view, probably a bit different from many on the board -- so I'm sure I'll be lambasted for some of the comments. But what fun is a thread when everyone agrees?

There are a few major things here:
1) A total gun ban is not gonna happen. I don't care how much tin foil is on your head, it's not gonna happen. Way too many people, including a lot of liberals have no problem with allowing certain types of guns such as pistols and long barrel hunting rifles/shotguns. And on the same token, guns are always going to be regulated to some extent.

2) A zombie apocalypse is not gonna happen. It's Dec 21, 2012 today and there are no impending signs of doom.

3) Unless the general public has access to state-of-the-art military equipment on par with what our military has, a "well regulated militia" doesn't stand a chance for any sustained length of time -- even with high capacity clips/magazines/whatever-the-"correct"-term-is-for-them on automatic weapons.

4) Guns are a tool. Their three "proper" uses are for self-defense, hunting, and war (all of which of course require some level of training). So referencing comment #3, they have two uses for the general public. I have no problem with handguns. They are a great tool for self defense and helps to "level the playing field" if you are physically outmatched by an aggressor. Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, too, and in fact necessary for some people depending on where they live and what their lifestyle is (and of course could also be used for self defense).

5) I get that even if they are banned, high capacity clips/assault rifles will still be used by criminals. However, even if you look at the mass shootings in recent memory at "gun free" zones, that still doesn't seem to justify a reason to not ban them. Even if they weren't gun free zones, anyone with the ability to fight back (before the police arrived) would likely have only had access to a handgun. So whether or not high capacity clips are available to the public is almost moot in this situation, IMO.

6) The general public does not need (stressing this word) for high capacity clips. I've been thinking through all possible situations in which they are needed and they all revolve around police and military applications. I get that people feel strongly about the right to own them and many people use them for recreational purposes, but there is no need for them (see #3-5). However, I do get that that argument applies to many other things -- such as our wheeling hobby. So I admittedly am a bit "wishy washy" on justifying the ban of such a product just because it's not NEEDED.

7) Schools (and other traditionally "gun-free" public buildings) should not be true "gun free" zones. However, only properly trained employees (whether it be a teacher, security guard, principal, or janitor -- I don't care who nor do I think there should be a limit) should be allowed to carry as long as they complete annual training courses in gun safety.

8 ) IMO, the major problem is gun education -- the only people that are "educated" on guns typically have a police/military background or continually train themselves in gun safety -- including safe use, safe storage, safe decision-making, and educating their household about guns. How many "gun haters" do you know have trained themselves in proper gun ownership? Many gun haters I know are terrified to even see a gun, let alone touch it. How many households with guns have everyone in the house properly educated (to the extent appropriate for their age) about guns?

Since it's been decided by the Supreme Court that "mandates" are permitted as long as they are a "tax", gun advocates should use this to their advantage and part of the compromise process. And since the tax code is already a cluster**** (and I'm sure taxes will be going up across the board in the near future), why not offer a 10-year tax break for those that have completed a gun safety course? That will motivate those who traditionally would not have taken a gun safety course and perhaps make them more comfortable about them.

9) Parents need to be more pro-active and seek help for their child if they are showing some sort of mental illness instead of trying to protect them from it. We, as a society, need to better understand mental illnesses and find better ways to treat them without heavily medicating them to where they can potentially become a big danger to society.


Cars kill 11,000 people a year.

You don't need to drive. You could ride a bike or take public transportation.

So why not outlaw cars? They're not even constitutionally protected?

2002wranglerX
12-21-2012, 04:08 PM
And I love people who comment on the mh system like they know what they're talking about. I worked in it for about five years. There are many many many shortcomings. But that is typically what you get with a liberally run organization.

justin'sbig7
12-21-2012, 04:13 PM
And I love people who comment on the mh system like they know what they're talking about. I worked in it for about five years. There are many many many shortcomings. But that is typically what you get with a liberally run organization.

That has to stay "PC" I'm sure?

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 04:14 PM
Lol my Dad rants about the Liberals and the Mental Healthcare in this country all the time.

SirFuego
12-21-2012, 05:57 PM
So why not outlaw cars? They're not even constitutionally protected?
I get that -- and alcohol is a primary cause of a lot of lethal wrecks, too -- so why not outlaw alcohol, too? We don't need that to live or have fun either. That's why I'm not sure where I stand on either side of that particular argument.

That said, there is nothing in the second amendment preventing the gov't from restricting certain types of "arms" either -- but is exactly why there won't be a total gun ban. As you probably know from past political posts of mine, I tend to have more conservative views, but I also try to look at both sides of the argument and come up with some sort of compromise. I'd be VERY interested in the founding father's view on the 2nd amendment if (semi)automatic weapons existed back then. The founding fathers also wanted the constitution to be able to be able to change over time -- hence the amendment process. IMO, the gun debate is never going to end unless there is an amendment passed to make the 2nd amendment more applicable to today -- but that's too controversial to happen in the near or long term future.

Sloth_Fratelli
12-21-2012, 05:58 PM
Cars kill 11,000 people a year.

You don't need to drive. You could ride a bike or take public transportation.

So why not outlaw cars? They're not even constitutionally protected?

http://www.facebook.com/BanTheFordMustang

hyperbuzzin
12-21-2012, 06:19 PM
Making guns illegal will stop violence???
OK, so let's make heroin, meth, cocaine... etc illegal. THAT will stop the drug problem!!!
Oh, wait.. . Those drugs are illegal..... so why do we have such a drug problem in the nation?
If someone wants something, even if it's illegal or regulated, they're gonna find other ways to aquire it to avoid those regulations!!

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 06:41 PM
Read these quotes from the founders and decide for yourself. These guys would think we should have every and all available weapons.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

More here:
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 06:46 PM
And my two personal favorites:
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 06:51 PM
More, these guys hated the government. They wanted citizens heavily armed.
http://www.savetheguns.com/quotes.htm#.UNTk73e9t1E

Super Scout
12-21-2012, 06:56 PM
On my box tonight, never heard this one before. Basically Jefferson is saying that we should rise to arms every 20 years or so. Remind politicians who they work. What a dis service we have done them.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

sethman15210
12-21-2012, 08:23 PM
Oh, I like that reference. What a great idea, remind the dirty low down politicans who's signing they're paycheck's.

Azzy
12-22-2012, 07:46 AM
Here is my view, probably a bit different from many on the board -- so I'm sure I'll be lambasted for some of the comments.

3) Unless the general public has access to state-of-the-art military equipment on par with what our military has, a "well regulated militia" doesn't stand a chance for any sustained length of time -- even with high capacity clips/magazines/whatever-the-"correct"-term-is-for-them on automatic weapons.


6) The general public does not need (stressing this word) for high capacity clips. I've been thinking through all possible situations in which they are needed and they all revolve around police and military applications. I get that people feel strongly about the right to own them and many people use them for recreational purposes, but there is no need for them (see #3-5). However, I do get that that argument applies to many other things -- such as our wheeling hobby. So I admittedly am a bit "wishy washy" on justifying the ban of such a product just because it's not NEEDED.



Just a couple points. If #3 was 100% true, our soldiers would be home from the sandboxes years ago. There's no way guys with barely any technology that live in caves and make rifles out of bits of pipe can ever impact on our military. This also assumes that 100% of our military is eager to take their oath and toss it out the window.

and #6... is not about need. There are many things in my life that you may perceive that I do not need. A standard capacity magazine, one that is standard for that firearm, falls under the portion that I love so much of our PA constitution. "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (emphasis added) You also have to remember, that our federal bill of rights, as the President has lamented, is a bill of negative liberties of the government. Its a list of things that the government can not do.

Shall not be questioned. Our law makers are not even allowed to question the very idea that we may keep and bear arms. And going by the opinions on Heller, that includes standard weapons that are military issue.

Our court system here in PA has had something to say on the matter as well, "A right conferred by the Constitution is beyond the reach of Legislative interference." McCafferry v. Guyer, 59 Pa. 109. 111. 9 P.F. Smith J09, 11 (Pa. 1868).

Let me add a personal touch to this. In an area where there are break-ins related to drugs, with multiple persons entering a home, intent on doing what they need to get money to fuel their high, and in an area where police response is in the 45 minute range, how dare you tell me that my only need is a tool of self defense that only holds x amount of rounds.


As for our elected leaders - it appears that those who share the "status quo" stance for access to black rifles and high cap magazines may wish to direct their feelings toward Senator Casey: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...ontrol-667244/ (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/casey-aside-pa-politicians-guarded-on-gun-control-667244/) who has flipped on the issue.

Casey never flipped, he only got his NRA ratings after voting against things that he saw had no political chance in hell of passing. Thats the issue with NRA ratings, they do not take into account the person's words or actions behind the scenes.

The_War_Wagon
12-22-2012, 08:58 AM
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL black 'assault' vehicle. :010:

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/Ramcharger/HALF3.jpg


It's GOING to assault Mother Gaia, by crushing the blessed mud, rocks, dirt, and precious blades of grass!!!! :roll:



SEE!!! This inanimate object is ALREADY corrupting our tender youth!!!! :kyle:


http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/Ramcharger/ZACH3.jpg



http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/helenlovejoy.jpg:120:

joshs1ofakindxj
12-22-2012, 09:23 AM
1) A total gun ban is not gonna happen. I don't care how much tin foil is on your head, it's not gonna happen. Way too many people, including a lot of liberals have no problem with allowing certain types of guns such as pistols and long barrel hunting rifles/shotguns. And on the same token, guns are always going to be regulated to some extent.

My concern is with the slippery slope effect. Today assault rifles, tomorrow any semi, then anything with a magazine, and finally you can't be trusted with anything in your home and your rifle has to be kept at the local police station where you can request to use it while you pay costly permits to own it (this is how some areas in Germany are currently). I consider any attempt to legislate against our 2A rights to be unacceptable, and I would rather see laws repealed. Right now the anti-2A crowd has enough momentum to get a lot of moderates to take a side on the issue, so I do think a far reaching, ridiculous bill is possible, especially if these shootings continue to happen and are sensationalized by the media.



3) Unless the general public has access to state-of-the-art military equipment on par with what our military has, a "well regulated militia" doesn't stand a chance for any sustained length of time -- even with high capacity clips/magazines/whatever-the-"correct"-term-is-for-them on automatic weapons.

Seriously? Red Dawn might be Hollywood fiction, but our military is still getting jacked around by people in Afghanistan that wipe their asses with their hands and ride camels.



4) Guns are a tool. Their three "proper" uses are for self-defense, hunting, and war (all of which of course require some level of training). So referencing comment #3, they have two uses for the general public. I have no problem with handguns. They are a great tool for self defense and helps to "level the playing field" if you are physically outmatched by an aggressor. Hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, too, and in fact necessary for some people depending on where they live and what their lifestyle is (and of course could also be used for self defense).

5) I get that even if they are banned, high capacity clips/assault rifles will still be used by criminals. However, even if you look at the mass shootings in recent memory at "gun free" zones, that still doesn't seem to justify a reason to not ban them. Even if they weren't gun free zones, anyone with the ability to fight back (before the police arrived) would likely have only had access to a handgun. So whether or not high capacity clips are available to the public is almost moot in this situation, IMO.

6) The general public does not need (stressing this word) for high capacity clips. I've been thinking through all possible situations in which they are needed and they all revolve around police and military applications. I get that people feel strongly about the right to own them and many people use them for recreational purposes, but there is no need for them (see #3-5). However, I do get that that argument applies to many other things -- such as our wheeling hobby. So I admittedly am a bit "wishy washy" on justifying the ban of such a product just because it's not NEEDED.

What we have here is a fundamental disagreement on what the 2A represents today. Those that see it as protection from tyranny and oppression by their government are one side. Those that think it's just about Elmer Fudd hunting and having a revolver in case of a break in are on the other side, which I consider to be incorrect. I think if things continue on the Mexican border like they are, we will see more rural people needing to defend against multiple people, or provide covering fire while their loved ones run for safety. Etc...

You've already made the best example for a counter argument; wheeling. Every now and then a lifted vehicle is involved in an accident. If the media sensationalized that like they do with the shootings, then we would be battling legislation against larger tires and lift kits. Although these things aren't as inherently deadly, the example is valid. Punishing the majority that are responsible owners of "excessive things", either by locking up their guns, or getting their lifted vehicle maintained properly, isn't the answer for stopping those who are mentally incapable, and morally corrupt.



8 ) IMO, the major problem is gun education -- the only people that are "educated" on guns typically have a police/military background or continually train themselves in gun safety -- including safe use, safe storage, safe decision-making, and educating their household about guns. How many "gun haters" do you know have trained themselves in proper gun ownership? Many gun haters I know are terrified to even see a gun, let alone touch it. How many households with guns have everyone in the house properly educated (to the extent appropriate for their age) about guns?

Since it's been decided by the Supreme Court that "mandates" are permitted as long as they are a "tax", gun advocates should use this to their advantage and part of the compromise process. And since the tax code is already a cluster**** (and I'm sure taxes will be going up across the board in the near future), why not offer a 10-year tax break for those that have completed a gun safety course? That will motivate those who traditionally would not have taken a gun safety course and perhaps make them more comfortable about them.

I agree, gun education needed. I made a mistake with a gun when I was about 14, and a negligent discharge taught me a lesson that will stay with me forever and I work to pass on to everyone I encounter with a firearm. I think it needs to be part of our K-12 curriculum. I'm sure some left wing teachers would go crazy, so bring in a guest speaker once a year to remind everyone about firearm safety. If we're going to remain an armed society, then let's act like it.

I'm glad you didn't say it, but if you did suggest making a costly training course a per-requisite to gun ownership, I would say no way. That would be bigoted towards poorer people. For example, in NYS where a pistol permit can cost $250, it keeps people from the right to convenient and concealable self defense, just because they're poorer.

I'm struggeling with the mental health issue with someone in my family. The first move was to remove all the firearms in that residence. It has been a struggle to get help for this person. Its not easy with our current system. That is what we really need to be addressing with legislation.

tceraso
12-22-2012, 06:27 PM
In PA a Republican Governor (Tom Ridge) Cut mental health funding and closed most of the facilities. What all do you want the govt to fund?

oros35
12-23-2012, 06:14 PM
I too had an experience when I was about 13 with an accidental discharge of a rifle. It was not in my hands, but the hands of an experienced person. Solidified my understanding of muzzle control. This was shortly after taking my hunters safety course.

I also have family with mental ilness. They cannot get help until they hurt themselves or others, and even then their inusrance sends them out ASAP. It comes down to money, not what is best for the person or the public. ..... I do not have an answer how to correct the problems in this system. I just know from experience it does not work.

joshs1ofakindxj
12-24-2012, 09:27 AM
In PA a Republican Governor (Tom Ridge) Cut mental health funding and closed most of the facilities. What all do you want the govt to fund?

I can't find the article I read before but it basically said PA hasn't turned in a single mental health record to the background check system. I guess we can start there...BUT now it's a privacy issue! It's really not an easy thing to fix.

To paraphrase Col. Jeff Cooper, the only way to stop bad guys with guns is to get good guys with guns.

tceraso
12-24-2012, 03:21 PM
I would say that the mentally ill aren't necassarily bad guys. I guess it like everything else if neither side won't budge there will never be a compromise. I own a lot of guns including so called assault weapons with high capacity clips. I don't have a perfect solution but things can't remain the same as they are now. Has the NRA costed out what it would take to properly secure every school in America with armed guards? It would be nice to see that number abd find out how many people want to pay the cost of it.

Super Scout
12-24-2012, 03:50 PM
Considering the ammount of money public schools piss away, an armed guard seems nominal.
That said, I would think it would be pretty easy to sync mental health and back ground checks. I understand that not mental cases seek treatment but it would be a start.
I also believe that we live in a free society, and try as we may we can not prevent every tragedy. As a society we should never let that be a reason to limit our rights. That may seem shallow, but its how I feel.

tceraso
12-24-2012, 04:58 PM
Would it be fair if all fire arms were taxes to cover the cost of protecting the schools? On rights, I have the right to vote but for some reason people want to infringe on it by requiring voter ID when no one can show me the stats on when voter fraud has changed the outcome of an election anywhere in the US. If we are going to be firm on one right then lets be firm on them all.

Sloth_Fratelli
12-24-2012, 05:34 PM
when i was in highschool, we always had cops around and i diddnt go to a necessarily "rough" school, i went to seneca valley. i thought more schools allready did this

justin'sbig7
12-24-2012, 08:12 PM
heres what worries me about venturing down the mental illness/no guns tie. most psychiatrists would probably be able to find something wrong with most folks and be able to claim them mentally unstable to own a firearm. depressed, oh sorry no gun for you... the govt wouldnt need to do a ban, no one would be mentally capable.

SirFuego
12-25-2012, 09:17 AM
Two firefighters in Webster, NY were shot and killed by an assault rifle when arriving at the scene of the fire. Suspect was a convicted felon from the 80s and was not legally allowed to possess any gun. The house on fire was the suspect's so it seems like he planned everything out.

Super Scout
12-25-2012, 10:36 PM
He did, he was convicted of murder, so why the hell was he even out of jail. Unreal, asshole commits murder, released, than kills again. And for sure they will use this as an example to ban guns.

2002wranglerX
12-25-2012, 11:22 PM
He did, he was convicted of murder, so why the hell was he even out of jail. Unreal, asshole commits murder, released, than kills again. And for sure they will use this as an example to ban guns.

Ya something about this smells.

Azzy
12-26-2012, 09:56 PM
Ya something about this smells.

His DA's conscience has to. Big time. Most of the gun law violations out there on real criminals get pled away, or are not even enforced. Then us honest people get stuck.


In PA a Republican Governor (Tom Ridge) Cut mental health funding and closed most of the facilities. What all do you want the govt to fund?

Well, here's the issue. What is to stop those in power fron declaring us mentally ill for thinking that we have a right to defend ourselves from the state? How many other nations have institutionalised those who do not think correctly, are not politically correct, and need to have their thinking adjusted?

Much like anyone can go out and get a PFA and have most of your rights taken away in an instant, but you have a waiting period (for a LTCF in some counties) for those who really do need protection for abuse and need to carry.

DMG
12-27-2012, 09:39 AM
I would say that the mentally ill aren't necassarily bad guys. I guess it like everything else if neither side won't budge there will never be a compromise.

So Lanza wasn't a bad guy? No one is arguing whether or not the mentally ill are all bad. We don't want them armed. As for compromise, if it is in the constitution, our founding fathers cared about it enough to put it in the constitution so we wouldn't have to compromise. Same as free speech and other less famous rights.
For an issue this contraversial, compromise=loss. Pick a side.


Would it be fair if all fire arms were taxes to cover the cost of protecting the schools? On rights, I have the right to vote but for some reason people want to infringe on it by requiring voter ID when no one can show me the stats on when voter fraud has changed the outcome of an election anywhere in the US. If we are going to be firm on one right then lets be firm on them all.

You just showed your true colors.
You have a right to vote once in the district you are registered in. You do not have the right to vote multiple times (as chicago voters did in WI) Someone pretending to be you does not have the right to vote. Those are crimes.

It is a long-standing law in PA that the first time you vote in a new district you have to show ID. That is a state law.

DMG
12-27-2012, 09:43 AM
Two firefighters in Webster, NY were shot and killed by an assault rifle when arriving at the scene of the fire. Suspect was a convicted felon from the 80s and was not legally allowed to possess any gun. The house on fire was the suspect's so it seems like he planned everything out.

They weren't shot and killed by an assault rifle, they were shot and killed by a guy that should have been in prison and could not legally own a firearm. In a state with strict gun control.

Btw, if you control the language you control the debate. You ascribed intent to an inanimate object and used a made-up term to describe a semi-automatic rifle.

2002wranglerX
12-27-2012, 09:45 AM
Ya way off topic but you need ID for everything these days. Why is voting any different?

On topic. Gander mountain still has lots of ar's in stock.