Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 74 Posts

· Registered
Benelli SBE, Savage Fox 16, Browning Citori
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Connecticut Vermont California Illinois New Mexico come to mind in recent news for all sorts of restrictions, bans, registration, etc. Law abiding gun owners are constantly under attack. Always on defense. Always spearheaded by Democrats. For the first time in my life I own a gun that will be illegal unless I modify it or apply for a license to keep it. I don’t think they will stop until we reach the point of confiscation.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
There is only one way we can put an end to mass murders involving guns like in schools and religious institutions. It is not by gun control, repealing the 2A, confiscating guns, outlawing assault weapons or any of the other impossible and ineffective ideas for removing the gun threat. And it is not by treating the mentallyt ill. Those are all partial measures with at best very minor success rates. I kow it sounds callous, but it is true. A killer could carry four 18-round SA pistols, 2 in holsters and 2 in their hands, into a building and do as much damage as a pair of assault rifles. If you outlawed assault rifles with their 30 round magazines, a killer could carry two bolt action hunting rifles into a school and kill 8 instead of 30. Big improvement, right? I don't think so. This problem isn't about how many are dying, or reducing the number by 10% so we can claim a shallow victory, but the fact that people are dying period. Same for the mentally ill. What fraction of them could you hope to institutionalize or cure? Fractions aren't good enough.

What we need is for every school, church, synagogue, mosque, post office, office building, etc. to have limited and secured entry points, full time security teams, metal detectors, and capable armed guards. I figure it would cost about $2-300,000 per school per year for the equipment and manpower. I think we can afford that. Texas is talking about reducing property taxes due to surpluses in school funding. There is no such thing as a surplus if the children are at risk. Use that money to fix the problem.

Forget about getting a few of the assault rifles and/or a few of the crazies. Let's just cut them off at the pass.

So what is the problem with this? I doesn't appeal to the left or the right. The left wants to take away guns and won't be satisfied with protecting poeple any other way. The right wants to flog the mental illness shtick to take the focus off gun. So the real solution doesn't appeal to either side. The both have other fish to fry while the kids are dying.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
Connecticut Vermont California Illinois New Mexico come to mind in recent news for all sorts of restrictions, bans, registration, etc. Law abiding gun owners are constantly under attack. Always on defense. Always spearheaded by Democrats. For the first time in my life I own a gun that will be illegal unless I modify it or apply for a license to keep it. I don’t think they will stop until we reach the point of confiscation.
This is not random, this is all being orchestrated. They want to go to no cash bail for criminals in IL and at the same time outlaw and register guns of law abibing citizens. They do not enforce maximum sentences for gun crimes now and usually plea bargain away the charges when a felon is in possession of a weapon.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
There is only one way we can put an end to mass murders involving guns like in schools and religious institutions. It is not by gun control, repealing the 2A, confiscating guns, outlawing assault weapons or any of the other impossible and ineffective ideas for removing the gun threat. And it is not by treating the mentallyt ill. Those are all partial measures with at best very minor success rates. I kow it sounds callous, but it is true. A killer could carry four 18-round SA pistols, 2 in holsters and 2 in their hands, into a building and do as much damage as a pair of assault rifles. If you outlawed assault rifles with their 30 round magazines, a killer could carry two bolt action hunting rifles into a school and kill 8 instead of 30. Big improvement, right? I don't think so. This problem isn't about how many are dying, or reducing the number by 10% so we can claim a shallow victory, but the fact that people are dying period. Same for the mentally ill. What fraction of them could you hope to institutionalize or cure? Fractions aren't good enough.

What we need is for every school, church, synagogue, mosque, post office, office building, etc. to have limited and secured entry points, full time security teams, metal detectors, and capable armed guards. I figure it would cost about $2-300,000 per school per year for the equipment and manpower. I think we can afford that. Texas is talking about reducing property taxes due to surpluses in school funding. There is no such thing as a surplus if the children are at risk. Use that money to fix the problem.

Forget about getting a few of the assault rifles and/or a few of the crazies. Let's just cut them off at the pass.

So what is the problem with this? I doesn't appeal to the left or the right. The left wants to take away guns and won't be satisfied with protecting poeple any other way. The right wants to flog the mental illness shtick to take the focus off gun. So the real solution doesn't appeal to either side. The both have other fish to fry while the kids are dying.
You don’t think the shooter will just go someplace else ?

The second amendment was abused by the gun industry with the promotion of the black rifle. It fetishized the gun. We are paying the price. My opinion.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
11,626 Posts
The only abuses to the second amendment are coming from the government. They are the only ones who can abuse it. It is a citizen’s right and the government’s limitations. But those like you will vote it away with no regrets.
You don’t think the shooter will just go someplace else ?

The second amendment was abused by the gun industry with the promotion of the black rifle. It fetishized the gun. We are paying the price. My opinion.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Guns have been around for a very long time but this mass shooting stuff is relatively new. Why??? It's a people problem not a gun problem in my opinion. Road rage is off the charts too. Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act you could buy guns and have them mailed to your house. Now we have a wait period here where I live meanwhile Chicago continues with gun violence but I am sure the gang bangers will comply with Pritzker's new laws (sarcasm)
His new laws will accomplish nothing other than making honest, law abiding citizens become criminals. Registration (and of course a fee) will lead to confiscation I believe.
Rant over!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
29,984 Posts
This post was in violation of this rule
#5b. You must have an opinion of your own posted along with the article or editorial you reference; don't just post a link or an article without comment; if you don't care enough to comment on your article--why should we?
Steve
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
Thanks for that. It would be good to have research on the causes of the declines as well as the increases. The Dickey amendment kinda threw cold water on all that.

“The amendment was the result of intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in response to a 1993 study, which the CDC funded. The study’s authors found that owning a gun was linked to a higher risk of homicide in the home.
The NRA argued that the study’s findings were biased and constituted anti-gun advocacy. They lobbied the government to shut down the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control entirely.
To compromise, Congress settled on the Dickey Amendment, which states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

source: Gun Violence: Why the CDC Doesn't Study It
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Guns have been around for a very long time but this mass shooting stuff is relatively new. Why??? It's a people problem not a gun problem in my opinion. Road rage is off the charts too. Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act you could buy guns and have them mailed to your house. Now we have a wait period here where I live meanwhile Chicago continues with gun violence but I am sure the gang bangers will comply with Pritzker's new laws (sarcasm)
His new laws will accomplish nothing other than making honest, law abiding citizens become criminals. Registration (and of course a fee) will lead to confiscation I believe.
Rant over!
Yes, it is a mental problem, but that is too hard to fix. Let's harden our schools, churches and homes. Sure the shooters could go somewhere else, but we need to follow them and harden everything they can think to attack. Expensive? Yes. But at least it has a chance of being successful.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Very surprised to see the op didn't mention N.Y. The democratic controlled government of NY continues to pass pro criminal legislation. Bail reform,[RTA] raise the age law. After the SCOTUS Bruen decision they passed a new gun control law that's blantly unconstitutional and infringes on the rights of law abiding gun owners. Law enforcement is particularly concerned about the RTA law. Regardless of the crime an individual must be 18 years old to be prosecuted as an adult. Now much of the gun violence is being committed by 15-17 year Olds who are back on the streets in no time. On the flip side if I stop at the local store with my licensed pistol and full carry permit I've committed a class E Felony. I so need to get out of this state
 

· Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
There needs to be a national gun ownership and licensing paradigm. State-by-state patchwork of laws is unworkable and divisive.
Things I remember...
1. Racks in the back of trucks.
2. Mass shootings were virtually unheard of.
3. The qualifier of "a well regulated militia" was integral to interpretation of the 2A
4. The closest thing to a tacticool black rifle was the Mini-14
5. There is a consequence to shooting things in real life - they bleed and die. Not the case with violent video games.
6. The 1st answer to being sad or depressed was not a pill bottle.
 

· Registered
Fabarms L4s Initial Hunter Compact
Joined
·
897 Posts
I know lots of people won't like my post, but here goes:

"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. " That's what it says, but what does it mean? That part about 'well regulated Militia' being put in the same sentence, first, seems confusing!

You can discuss what "the founders" meant all day, and you can discuss what the founding fathers would make of a society with a professional military and personal firearms unimaginable to them as this was written before 1800, and the third amendment- well, you all know what that is and how it points at how the British housed the Red Coats during the Revolutionary War... but all that really matters is

The 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. The court was divided. Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded that the phrase bear arms against would always refer to service in a militia. But bear arms by itself—could sometimes refer to an individual right. Justice John Paul Stevens, intimated that the phrase keep and bear arms was a fixed term of linguistics that always referred to militia service.

As you can read at the Opinion Summary, there is something about an "Ordinary Type of Weapon", which leads to another push as to what that means, considering the time from 1800 to 2008 to now, and the 1934 National Firearms Act.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. You can look that text up yourself. The important thing is that this case, for the first time, overturned the principle of Stare Decisis (which means to 'let things stand as they have been decided.') for the first time. The precedent has been set by a conservative court- previous Supreme Court decisions can now be overturned by new courts. That's simply the logical conclusion, or "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", as my mom used to say.

In 1920, 50% of the population lived in an urban area. WWI would be the first major mechanized war, gun historians can argue about which year the semi-automatic was invented but it's just about this time. By the time WW2 rolls around, gang violence (mostly regarding profits from the prohibition of alcohol) had newspaper headlines about tommy gun massacres in the streets and the 1934 Gun Control act highly regulated automatic weapons, explosive devices (artillery, I think), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and oddly even brass knuckles and knives that shot the blade out of the shaft by spring tension. It's still in place.

I was not around in 1934, but I am sure that there were fellows with firearms that felt that like someone was coming for all their guns, but things were not really settled until 2008. In 2022, a very conservative supreme court put it all back on the table again. Yet almost 100 years have passed, and the number of firearms and the amount of firepower per person has increased greatly. (I'm not gonna site anything but what I can put in my pocket now compared to a state of the art common Smith and Wesson revolver of 1934 (6 rounds) or 1911 acp (7 +1)).

People here have asked things like "How does a thumbhole stock make a rifle more lethal?" and the response might be "It does not, so why do you need it?"

"Because I have a right to it" is now a matter for the courts to decide.

"Because I want to dress my firearm up like kids dress up a doll and it's my hobby... these things don't change the function".. shows my bias against or indifference for this hobby. If they don't matter they are silly and might lead to some subconscious bias that they are toys (I am simply suggesting a possibility) or they actually increase lethality. "I just want to" isn't a reason.

"Because I make a profit selling these things" is, to me, a great deal at the heart of this issue.

The number one cause of death to children and teens is presently 'firearms related injury'. Look that up to see the graph and the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most respected national sources for medical professionals.

Anyways, there is some source material.

The bottom line answer is "Now we let the courts work this all out, because the definition of what the second ammendment means now is up in the air because of another Supreme Court decision that the court can now reverse itself on what is a right."

ps. I remember...
- The President of the United States, the Attorney General and Martin Luther King all being assassinated. Then the Gun Control Act.
 

· Registered
Benelli SBE, Savage Fox 16, Browning Citori
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Sorry I left out New York. Obviously problems there. Oregon, Washington the list goes on. My main point I guess is that I’ve never seen so much going on at once. All over.
Too many states. Too many articles about proposed legislation to share links.

The bad thing about always playing defense is giving up a point once in awhile. Never on offense. Relentless pressure. Like it or not they are winning only because of this. It’s a numbers game at this point. They will take every small step they can get.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
It's always been about confiscation and controlling the masses. They are scared of us. As they well should be.

The twits inside the beltway don't care about the children, or you and I. The only thing that matters is passing legislation that pads their pockets faster than inflation can steal their extortions.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
You don’t think the shooter will just go someplace else ?

The second amendment was abused by the gun industry with the promotion of the black rifle. It fetishized the gun. We are paying the price. My opinion.
Step back and look at this through the lens of the gun control crowd. The only word that matters is CONTROL. They don't care about the gun or kids dying they only care about controlling YOU and making YOU dependent on gov't. That is the goal.

As far as your actual statement; I'm being kind when I say lacking a critical thought process. To somehow put this on the gun industry? You may be so weak that it seems reasonable but it isn't. Processed foods are far more devilish and sneaky with their advertising campaigns BUT they didn't make you ftr or unhealthy; whoever chooses their foods made a conscious decision. Thoughts like you express here is exactly what gov't wants...sheep easily lead to slaughter.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top