Gun Laws

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, Jaymancds said:

I cant say that lobbying for the lack of regulation is bad.  The fact that we have the legal right to guns is one of the things that make America different from the rest of the world.

Many countries offer their citizens the legal right to own guns. Lobbying for no regulation generally says you're a hack for an industry. 

Now the following is not about your post, but if you look at the preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment and read them together -- I think it might give you context as to the Second Amendment and may refute the simplified argument of every GOP politician the news trots in front of the camera for discussion and shouts "Second Amendment!"

If the framers had intended for all people to have all arms, you'd think they would have said so. At the same time, many people believe the framers wanted flexibility in the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not state "all" people or "all" arms. An attorney will tell you that loopholes exist in the phrasing of the Second Amendment and that Congress has the right to limit arms, and  indeed gun control legislation exists. So every time a Congressman screams "Second Amendment!" as that is the end of the discussion, I beg to differ. It is misleading.

At the same time, I see no stats showing that right to carry neither increases nor decreases gun violence. The problem is more than guns -- it is societal, cultural, economic, and now religious. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[Lihu]

23 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

First, I have not stated anything about more gun control laws.

Second, then what do you suggest we do? We have a problem. How do we reduce this from happening? The current state is failing right now. And it is not just with ISIS or ISIS wannabees. It is spread across the spectrum of race, religion, gender and ethnicity. You cannot find this acceptable, can you?

We have a lot of new gun laws in CA. . .they didn't stop these terrorists.

Not sure what to do to prevent this situation in the future, but I find it funny that people are immediately defending their political stances. For example, Obama stated that more gun control laws are needed to prevent these events. It's funny that it would only be changing the situation for people who are already compliant with the current laws and own guns legally.

We are given freedoms by the founding principles of this country. It's the 2nd law ever approved by our first Congress. If this law is potentially to be retracted, then I wonder what other rights will be revoked next when the situation "calls for" such actions to take place?

Are we also going to make some of the Islamic beliefs illegal as well because there are many terror groups associated with these beliefs killing innocent citizens?

We are and should be on a constant vigil for our freedoms that many of us fought hard to obtain, whether you are or were in the military to defend our rights or someone who with all odds against him came across our borders to escape torturous regimes in their own countries.

It's not a simple solution, but by reversing laws that were based upon the founding principles of this country does not seem prudent.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

First, I have not stated anything about more gun control laws.

Second, then what do you suggest we do? We have a problem. How do we reduce this from happening? The current state is failing right now. And it is not just with ISIS or ISIS wannabees. It is spread across the spectrum of race, religion, gender and ethnicity. You cannot find this acceptable, can you?

I find it completely unacceptable, just as I find people who drive while intoxicated or under the influence unacceptable.   The flaw in all our logic is we believe someone willing to take the life of another individual whether it be with a gun, knife, car or machete is concerned or discouraged by the repercussions of breaking a lesser law.

@Fourputt responded to some of my earlier posts and stated a mandatory death penalty wouldn't reduce the number of gun related murders because criminals don't consider getting caught prior to committing a crime.  If he's right and someone isn't afraid to be sentenced to death then what other penalty can you suggest that would discourage someone from acquiring a gun illegally and shooting another individual?

If I had a solution I'd gladly share it but those who are willing to take another persons life aren't rational individuals that will be persuaded to not kill someone because they will be violating a gun law.

16 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Many countries offer their citizens the legal right to own guns. Lobbying for no regulation generally says you're a hack for an industry.

Now the following is not about your post, but if you look at the preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment and read them together -- I think it might give you context as to the Second Amendment and may refute the simplified argument of every GOP politician the news trots in front of the camera for discussion and shouts "Second Amendment!"

If the framers had intended for all people to have all arms, you'd think they would have said so. At the same time, many people believe the framers wanted flexibility in the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not state "all" people or "all" arms. An attorney will tell you that loopholes exist in the phrasing of the Second Amendment and that Congress has the right to limit arms, and  indeed gun control legislation exists. So every time a Congressman screams "Second Amendment!" as that is the end of the discussion, I beg to differ. It is misleading.

At the same time, I see no stats showing that right to carry neither increases nor decreases gun violence. The problem is more than guns -- it is societal, cultural, economic, and now religious. 

 This is where we both agree

[boogielicious]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I find it completely unacceptable, just as I find people who drive while intoxicated or under the influence unacceptable.   The flaw in all our logic is we believe someone willing to take the life of another individual whether it be with a gun, knife, car or machete is concerned or discouraged by the repercussions of breaking a lesser law.

@Fourputt responded to some of my earlier posts and stated a mandatory death penalty wouldn't reduce the number of gun related murders because criminals don't consider getting caught prior to committing a crime.  If he's right and someone isn't afraid to be sentenced to death then what other penalty can you suggest that would discourage someone from acquiring a gun illegally and shooting another individual?

If I had a solution I'd gladly share it but those who are willing to take another persons life aren't rational individuals that will be persuaded to not kill someone because they will be violating a gun law.

 This is where we both agree

That is what is so difficult about this discussion. We seem to be out of ideas. Improving mental health may reduce some of the instances, but not all. I think this is why both sides of the debate are so passionate about it. It is a horrifying problem, far worse than any disease IMO.

[jamo]

27 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

The problem is more than guns -- it is societal, cultural, economic, and now religious. 

So now what?

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, jamo said:

So now what?

We need to be vigilant of our rights, one of them is the freedom to live and freedom of religion, another is the right to bear arms, another is. . .

[jamo]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

We need to be vigilant of our rights, one of them is the freedom to live and freedom of religion, another is the right to bear arms, another is. . .

I mean, if our issues are societal, cultural, economic, and religious, what do we do now to solve them? 

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, jamo said:

I mean, if our issues are societal, cultural, economic, and religious, what do we do now to solve them? 

As a good citizen, we all need to keep an eye out for trouble, but in doing so should defend someone's rights to believe what they do. We might not agree with their beliefs, but need to defend their rights.

At the same time, we need to watch out for potential acts of violence by being observant of others behaviors without imposing upon their rights to their daily lives.

In short, be vigilant of all of our freedoms.

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, boogielicious said:

That is what is so difficult about this discussion. We seem to be out of ideas. Improving mental health may reduce some of the instances, but not all. I think this is why both sides of the debate are so passionate about it. It is a horrifying problem, far worse than any disease IMO.

It's scary and frustrating.  I know a lot of passionate gun owners (far more passionate than I am), their passion is at least partially fueled by fear.  They fear that when the government takes all the guns away, only the bad guys will have them.  I don't know one gun owner that is excited to use their gun in self defense or defense of their family.  Taking a life is never something a rational person wants to have to do.

We definitely need to change our approach to mental health.  We've been too protective of individuals that could be a harm to themselves or their family and it seems that all the expensive medication the psychiatrists prescribe doesn't work if the individual just decides to stop taking it.

[Mr. Desmond]

54 minutes ago, jamo said:

So now what?

Brainstorming...

1. I'd vote out the politicians that do nothing but stammer "Second Amendment" and show no intelligent response to the issue. These are the guys whom the NRA has bought. ( I think they are all bought, but we are trying to get something done here.) Vote in politicians who understand it is a holistic issue.

2. Change the national discourse from hate and blame to a discussion. I'd flame the Rush Limbaughs of the world and embargo them. They only incite while running to the bank. Same with politicians. Cut the talk about imprisoning women who obtain abortions, ya' know, stuff like that... there are better ways to influence behavior. We need better and more leadership around the country.

3. Education. If we teach people to think, it will help, especially with our own citizenry. People who can think and look at the problems of short term solutions.

4. Mental Health - open it up so people are not ashamed to admit "I have issues" and get them help. The loners, the paranoid, the religious freaks, the racists, the guy who can't get laid - they've all turned up as mass murderers.  Can we reduce that number?

5. Cultural - can we reduce our "John Wayne" tendencies? More talk, less fight, better leadership. Reduce our tendency for quick, in the moment answers. A more intelligent public that doesn't look for instant answers because those do not work -- we need an electorate that does not respond to demagogues like Trump. We need the right kind of propaganda machine.

6. Economic - jobs program. Give hope to those without hope. Community programs to reduce gang influence. Get rid of loopholes on welfare programs and incentivize work.

7. Gun Violence - one can close obvious loopholes, store guns safely, and establish a safer atmosphere where people do not go out and purchase guns out of fear, establish buyback program, begin discussion of the weapons people want/need for protection - of course, one goes down a slippery slope and care must be taken - but at least a discussion begins. No easy answer here. Better security in public places would help - schools, etc.

8. Religious - show people returning from Iraq/Syria who were disillusioned with ISIL and get them to speak up about the terror of that organization. Educate the young so they challenge extremists of their religion - whether  Islam or Christian based extremists.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[chspeed]

7 hours ago, CoachB25 said:

Therefore, I predict that the President will propose to change the Second Amendment and I believe he will mention using Executive Orders to do so.  I'll leave my real thoughts about that to myself for now. 

The President has nothing to do with constitutional amendments, and has no control over them.

The President is trying to find out what he can do to improve gun control by Executive Order. The answer as of now has been "not too much".

[Mr. Desmond]

As to changing the national discourse on all topics, the following is an example of what needs changing. We could start with Fox and other news organizations:

"Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a Fox News strategic analyst, and Stacey Dash, a Fox contributor, were both suspended Monday for two weeks after using profane language on the air, CNN Money reports. Peters called President Obama "a total p***y while appearing on the Fox Business Network and, an hour later, Dash said the president doesn't "give a shit" about fighting terrorism. Dash was partially bleeped as she made her remark, but Peters' could be heard in its entirety."

And then there is Donald Trump...

While I agree that the President is too cautious, and one needs to shut down ISIS quickly and aggressively,  can we urge people to email the White House to petition him to do so... let's cut the drama.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[Fourputt]

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

I just wanted to make a note for all those who seem to hate the NRA, that the NRA was founded on the principle of making more people "marksmen". One Union general noted that the average confederate soldier required 1000 Union bullets to kill him. Thus, he wanted to create an association to improve the accuracy of the average shooter.

This, of course, required that all NRA personnel be trained in shooting and be graded according to their knowledge of using and caring for their weapons and their surroundings.

They are taught to respect the weapon they are holding.

I do not understand why NRA members are shunned. If all gun owners were required to become NRA members before purchasing them, I think the country would be a lot safer.

People would not be selling their guns to unknown buyers and guns would be owned only by people capable of using them properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

https://home.nra.org/

I look at some of the things that people have written, and do not understand the hatred many have for this organization while it seems like they advocate improving skills and gun safety?

These days the NRA is far more political (and more than a little bit right wing radical about it) than they are instructional.  That makes them the bad guy even for many moderates, and for left wing anti-gun radicals they are the devil incarnate.

[CoachB25]

Boogielicious, I'll concede the aerosol.  I am a certified welder and a machinist as well as a teacher.  In fact, I was a machinist for a very long time.  It is amazing the things you work on and learn doing that trade.  So, I'll have to pass on explaining my expertise when it comes to certain things. 

[boogielicious]

Just now, CoachB25 said:

Boogielicious, I'll concede the aerosol.  I am a certified welder and a machinist as well as a teacher.  In fact, I was a machinist for a very long time.  It is amazing the things you work on and learn doing that trade.  So, I'll have to pass on explaining my expertise when it comes to certain things. 

No worries! 

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

So every time a Congressman screams "Second Amendment!" as that is the end of the discussion, I beg to differ. It is misleading.

Makes me wonder if they understand the definition of the word "amendment."  

(Read:. 18th/21st)

[CoachB25]

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Makes me wonder if they understand the definition of the word "amendment."  

(Read:. 18th/21st)

So you would deny all Americans the ability to defend their families?

BTW, that young lady you see in my avatar, my daughter, can shoot with the best of them.  She was dating a guy who was "trained" in the ROTC to use firearms.  My nephew took that young man down to the creek with my daughter to shoot.  When that young man came back he had a new understanding of what sharpshooter looks like.  Like me, she started early with firearms and education and so, can rock and roll.  For my family, gun ownership is a way of life.  If some of you want to see a civil war, watch what happens when the government/liberals try to take guns away.  Do any of you understand the number of people out there that own guns?  Do any of you know the paramilitary groups out there?  Like I just saw stated on TV, most people that are anti gun don't understand the benefits of guns.

 

BTW, the 18th and 21st Amendments are not the same as the #2.  The Second Amendment is contained in The Bill of Rights.  You know, when the government (King/King's Men) tried to take guns away from the colonists.  There are those out there that feel that the government will attempt to do the same again as we become socialist.  (If you don't believe this, you haven't spent any time around paramilitary groups.)

Edited to add:

I need to leave this thread as I'm posting way too much in it.  I hope none of you ever need someone like me.  However, for those that do, me and my family among others are out there. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by CoachB25

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Brainstorming...

1. I'd vote out the politicians that do nothing but stammer "Second Amendment" and show no intelligent response to the issue. These are the guys whom the NRA has bought. ( I think they are all bought, but we are trying to get something done here.) Vote in politicians who understand it is a holistic issue.

Technically, it's called the "Bill of Rights" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

I'd also add that we should remove all the politicians who tell us to amend out bill of rights without giving the consequences any kind of thought or explanation other than "guns kill people".