93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

Nobody here - indeed, nobody anywhere that I know of - has suggested that no lines be drawn, as is suggested by some.

But why here and not there? THAT is a matter for discussion.

The reasons that are used to justify most of the proposed changes in gun laws don't hold water, as they are generally more of the same that is already not working. I would like to hear something new, especially something that could perhaps attain the goal of materially reducing mass shootings.

But the vibe I get from the left is that each new restriction is just another step on the way to total gun bans. After the line is drawn here, then in a few years it is moved to there, until there is no further place to move it.

What I "need" should not come into it it. I don't need a Lamborghini, I don't need a motorboat, I don't need a 55" TV, I don't need a backyard pool. Need is not a requirement in a free society.



Aside: Isn't it interesting that whenever some person or group pulls a coup, their first step is to outlaw private gun ownership? Lenin, Castro, Kim, many others - all the same.

(04-23-2021 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?
Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?
I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one?

No, because I don't want to own a machine gun.

Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to own a machine gun?

Actually private citizens *can* own fully automatic firearms. It is highly involved to do so (class 3 federal license)and the firearms themselves are extraordinarily expensive (60k +).

But your comment there kind of devolves to a non-sequitor in light of that. Kind of a rhetorical one at that.

Edited to add: some states outlaw them under state law.

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

(04-24-2021 02:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter. And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18. Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling. That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

(04-24-2021 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 02:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter. And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18. Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling. That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

I agree with all of this, including the last paragraph.

I would also return the minimum age to vote to at least 21.

I wonder what the left would find objectionable with either process.

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

If you're talking to me, I don't think I gave you flak. I think I did a pretty good job of responding not only to your specific questions, but to the more common complaints articulated by 'your side'. You in fact mentioned 'machine guns' when we're talking about assault rifles. They are not at all the same... but many on your side either don't know this or don't care.

The action of an 'Assault Rifle' is more similar to that of a 0.380 handgun than a machine gun. Which is precisely the problem. Most legislative intent on limiting 'assault rifles' actually limits hand guns.

And even there, it seems I'm taking as much flak, from both sides, in a way that is immaterial to the discussion.

(04-22-2021 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Gonna step in here....

First I think there is some vernacular issues.

An AR style chambered for a 22LR is commonly referred to as an AR-22.

An AR or AR-15 is chambered for a 5.56mm or .223 round (while close, they are not the same). If the specific chamber is a .223, you can shoot either. If the chamber is 5.56, you should only shoot 5.56.

A .223, while close in caliber, is a much more lethal round. It has a massively larger shell, more powder, and a much higher bore velocity. Same applies to a 5.56.

An AR style weapon chambered for a .308 (also known as a NATO 7.62 round) is commonly known as an AR-10. This is a much much larger round, much higher bore velocity, and much longer range.

For hog shooting, I dont think I would ever consider a 22LR. Unless you got a perfect shot at 40m or less, this will simply piss off the pig.

A .223 is a popular round for hog hunting, and is effective out to 200 yds. But, I have seen a pig hit on the front leg and this shell literally will bounce. Many private pig guides will not allow you to go with them using a .223.

Going up the ladder, a 7.62 will effectively do a pig out to about 350 400 yds. At 200 yds, a hit center mass with this will insta-drop a pig.

And yes, there are AR styled weapons chambered for .370, .450, and .300. Of those the .300 is probably most prevalent. And there isnt a special designation for an AR style weapon in those calibers that I know of.

While I said AR-15 and you are correct that the numbers 'mean' something... while I appreciate the details, it is inconsequential to the point. I should have simply said 'AR'.... which is a brand as much as a style.... and that is the real problem. Lad was talking about a 22 caliber rifle, not what I called the weapon.

EVEN IF IT IS A FACT, all it does is argue for HIGHER caliber weapons and not lower... which is exactly the opposite of what some are arguing.

I stand by my contention that a 22 can be used for feral hogs at close range, and the first website I pulled up about' what game is a 22 good for' agreed. If you disagree, that's fine.... but that isn't really pertinent to the discussion. It's a preference you are suggesting, not a fact. I use a different deer rifle in east texas than I do in south texas because of the 'typical' shot. We were talking about people owning ARs in 'close quarters'... and a 22 WILL penetrate in close quarters.... and I didn't see the point in arguing specific calibers with someone who is asking VERY basic questions.

The REAL point is that most people buy a single gun, or sometimes 2-3... and those who own 5+ are considered 'crazy'... but the reality is that if you REALLY want to get granular, different prey in different conditions could necessitate a wide variety of calibers.... meaning a number of guns.... OR it means that you will often buy something in the middle... and sometimes you are under-powered and sometimes over. For some people, having the right gun is like having the right fishing lure or tool.

Some people like the look of an AR. Some people like the fact that it 'stays on the target' better, which is helpful if you are under-powered or if the prey is fast. Trying to shoot a coyote with a low caliber bolt action rifle is difficult, because you have to be close and they are fast. Shooting a pig is similarly difficult because their hyde is tough. The ability to stay on target and deliver multiple rounds offsets that somewhat. At 200 yards with a higher caliber weapon, it is somewhat easier to use a bolt action (assuming you're a good shot) because you can be at distance and catch them unaware.

But ALL of that is about hunting tactics, and not about whether or not you can kill a hog with a 22. You can kill one with a baseball bat, but I wouldn't recommend it (unless that was all you had).

(04-24-2021 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 02:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter.

Americans must have very deep issues then.

Quote:And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18.

I love all of these suggestions. Do you think ANY significant Republican would vote for these proposals, though?

It seems that ANY gun control measure... reasonable or not, low-hanging-fruit or not... is immediately met with "UH OH...SLIPPERY SLOPE THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE ALL OF OUR GUNS!!!!!"

Quote:Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling.

I don't think that would be practical. First of all.. what percentage of suicides had previously admitted to their therapist (for those patients that had actually seen a therpist) that they were having suicidal thoughts and were formulating a plan that involved a gun? I imagine that it's a really low percentage. Now imagine that it became known that if you tell a therapist that you have had suicidal thoughts then you would likely have your gun taken away? How many patients will admit to having suicidal thoughts about a gun, then? This proposal could actually backfire. Perhaps less patients would be open to discussing suicidal thoughts if this law was passed. I'm just thinking out loud there but I simply don't think the HIPAA proposal will make a significant dent in the problem.

Quote:That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

I'd be for all of that.

(04-24-2021 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 02:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter. And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18. Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling. That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

I agree with all of this, including the last paragraph.

I would also return the minimum age to vote to at least 21.

I wonder what the left would find objectionable with either process.

What do you think the right would find ojectionable with his proposals?

(04-24-2021 05:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

If you're talking to me, I don't think I gave you flak.

I wasn't referring to you, Ham.

Quote: I think I did a pretty good job of responding not only to your specific questions, but to the more common complaints articulated by 'your side'. You in fact mentioned 'machine guns' when we're talking about assault rifles. They are not at all the same... but many on your side either don't know this or don't care.

I brought up machine guns to draw out a discussion if there is a line that some here recognize or not when it comes to private ownership. My minimal knowledge of guns does include the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle.

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

Inadvertently?

(04-24-2021 05:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

Inadvertently?

Sure seemed that way to me - if you had wanted to be explicit about it, you could have been, but instead you went with So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one? Kind of coming at it through the side door, if it was intentional.

So where would you draw lines and why there?

I think if I lived in Chicago, the lines would be much lower. Oops, they already are, to no avail...

Nobody needs a backyard swimming pool semi-automatic weapon, right? Maybe it is less about what we need and more about our freedom to have what we want.

(04-24-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 02:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 05:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  93 inadvertently brings up a good point - lines have to drawn. Somewhere between pea shooters and nuclear bombs, lines need to be drawn.

What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter. And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18. Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling. That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

I agree with all of this, including the last paragraph.

I would also return the minimum age to vote to at least 21.

I wonder what the left would find objectionable with either process.

What do you think the right would find ojectionable with his proposals?

Some might find the licensing objectionable, especially if the left tried to make the licensing procedures so onerous that only a very few could qualify, which I think they would do. But I think Numbers and I both qualify as on the right. If it were more on the lines of a driver's license or a hunting license, I think it would fly.

(04-24-2021 05:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It seems that ANY gun control measure... reasonable or not, low-hanging-fruit or not... is immediately met with "UH OH...SLIPPERY SLOPE THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE ALL OF OUR GUNS!!!!!"

Quit moving the goalposts, then.

(04-24-2021 05:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  My minimal knowledge of guns

Clearly and obviously.

(04-24-2021 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 02:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What is wrong with the issue as framed in Heller? The weapons that are protected are those 'in common use'.

Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter. And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18. Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling. That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

I agree with all of this, including the last paragraph.

I would also return the minimum age to vote to at least 21.

I wonder what the left would find objectionable with either process.

What do you think the right would find ojectionable with his proposals?

Some might find the licensing objectionable, especially if the left tried to make the licensing procedures so onerous that only a very few could qualify, which I think they would do. But I think Numbers and I both qualify as on the right. If it were more on the lines of a driver's license or a hunting license, I think it would fly.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Do you really think the Ted Cruz's of the world would ever back this?

(04-24-2021 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 05:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  My minimal knowledge of guns

Clearly and obviously.

LOL. I have made it clear ad nauseum that I don't know much about guns and that I'm trying to educate myself but you just can't help yourself, can you? Again... interacting with you guys is awesome (Ham excluded).

(04-24-2021 06:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 05:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  My minimal knowledge of guns

Clearly and obviously.

LOL. I have made it clear ad nauseum that I don't know much about guns and that I'm trying to educate myself but you just can't help yourself, can you? Again... interacting with you guys is awesome (Ham excluded).

I'm actually making a point.

Before opining on what is or is not "common sense gun control," don't you think people should first become knowledgeable about guns?

(04-24-2021 06:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 05:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 09:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 07:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Works for me.

But it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the shooter. And if you want to cut gun deaths significantly, you have to work on the shooter end of the problem.

Gun registries, gun confiscations, that sort of stuff has never worked. And the number of gun deaths per year from anything that could reasonably be called "assault weapons" is so minuscule that the idea that prohibiting them might have a measurable impact is ludicrous on its face. Of course, I think gun control proponents know that full well and that is their point. We'll outlaw "assault weapons" because they look ugly and scary, and when that doesn't accomplish anything then we will just decide that we didn't outlaw enough weapons and pick another, until we get them all outlawed.

What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18. Also, go after the cause of the vast majority of our gun deaths--suicide--by modifying HIPAA so that counselors who identify people as suicidal can communicate with authorities to get them proper counseling. That's counseling, not confiscation. Don't take their guns away without due process--it is a constitutional right, after all, but have a procedure.

And while you're at it, how about having some standards for that other constitutional right--voting. You have to be a real, living person, over the minimum age, and residing in the jurisdiction in which you seek to vote, and you many not vote more than once in any election.

I agree with all of this, including the last paragraph.

I would also return the minimum age to vote to at least 21.

I wonder what the left would find objectionable with either process.

What do you think the right would find ojectionable with his proposals?

Some might find the licensing objectionable, especially if the left tried to make the licensing procedures so onerous that only a very few could qualify, which I think they would do. But I think Numbers and I both qualify as on the right. If it were more on the lines of a driver's license or a hunting license, I think it would fly.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Do you really think the Ted Cruz's of the world would ever back this?

agree to disagree, but to do you the courtesy of answering the question, it would depend on the degree of onerousness demanded by the left. I think Ted would be amenable to compromise. It would help, of course, if the left would ever say this will be all we ask for or define a reasonable end goal.

(04-24-2021 06:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 05:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  My minimal knowledge of guns

Clearly and obviously.

LOL. I have made it clear ad nauseum that I don't know much about guns and that I'm trying to educate myself but you just can't help yourself, can you? Again... interacting with you guys is awesome (Ham excluded).

After listening to what Tanq, Mersey, and Ham have had to say, I have learned just how little I knew about guns and hunting. But at the same time I have learned some things. I’ve had and used guns for over 60 years, but it is safe to say I know more now than I did a few days ago. Still not an expert, but less ignorant than I used to be.

What part(s) of the argumentsstatements I am making do you find “awesome”?

First comment....

I'm good off the cuff. I don't do a lot of specific research on things because I simply don't care to put that much effort into posts 'among friends'. SO I fairly frequently will talk about things like a 22 cal AR-15 (which doesn't exist) when I should have just said a 22cal 'assault style weapon'.... and other similar things. While I often appreciate the corrections, it is important that they not detract from the conversation.

Thanks

(04-24-2021 05:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Americans must have very deep issues then.

Some do. The reality though is that it isn't that many. We are a very large nation. This is usually where someone compares us to other nations.... but ignores that those other nations generally have ALWAYS had lower ownership of guns. For many of them, it is because 'the king' owned all the animals and hunting wasn't allowed, without his consent.... other such cultural differences. IEDs are much more common in some places... especially where collateral damage is the goal.

Quote:

Quote:What does work is a licensing process that works like kind of like a driver's license. You take a training program, take a written exam, do a demonstration, and get a license. You need your license to buy or possess guns and/or ammo. Tie it to the criminal database, and if you abuse your license by being careless with your gun or using your gun to commit a crime, your license gets suspended or pulled, depending on the severity of the abuse. You'd have levels, a mini-CCL license, a CCL license, and higher endorsements for things like semi-automatic or automatic. And maybe a learner's permit for kids under 18.

I love all of these suggestions. Do you think ANY significant Republican would vote for these proposals, though?

It seems that ANY gun control measure... reasonable or not, low-hanging-fruit or not... is immediately met with "UH OH...SLIPPERY SLOPE THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE ALL OF OUR GUNS!!!!!"

It would help if they didn't actually and directly SAY that was their goal... It would also help if the NRA was brought in to develop this training. Instead, you often find it being developed by 'anti-gun' people, and that is why you get the response.

Its like having a nun teach sex ed. A hooker is much more able to tell you how to safely have sex without getting sick or pregnant. The nun is simply going to try and convince you not to have sex.

Most of the CCL programs are sponsored by the NRA, so its simply not true that ANY gun measure is met with that...

It depends on how you ask and whom is asking. If you just got elected promising to get rid of guns, its not unreasonable for someone to 'not trust' that this isn't your goal. If instead you said, MOST Americans can be trusted with guns and we need to focus on those who aren't. We're going to ask the NRA to develop a free and easily available training for a state ID 'stamp' that will also be used for voting. Ids are free. The gun training is free. The voter registration is free and the background check for a gun is free. The people who won't like it are the extreme right... and apparently some Democrats who LIKE being paid in cash and not having a bank account.

(04-24-2021 06:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm actually making a point.

Before opining on what is or is not "common sense gun control," don't you think people should first become knowledgeable about guns?

And this is what I said a few pages ago about having people who know and understand guns, and who uses them for 'what' make legislation and rules impacting them... as opposed to politicians looking to make headlines whom only know about guns that 'if you say they kill children, you get support'

We ask the right questions like 'why would someone in Chicago want, much less need an AR'... and there ARE some answers. If they hunt, they have to travel to hunt... and their guns are safer (for everyone) in their possession as opposed to in some locker in a cabin in the woods.... and if someone breaks into their home in Chicago, that is the gun they have. Why does someone who lives in CHicago need a 3/4 ton pick-up? Why does ANYONE need a Ferrari?

Here are some common sense laws already on the books in almost every place
Unless there are extenuating circumstances (usually immediate risk of life)
It is illegal to brandish a firearm
It is illegal to threaten someone with a firearm
It is illegal to shoot a firearm within a building or within most city limits
Those are all common sense laws.

What is NOT common sense is where someone is allowed to own a gun, as long as he doesn't use it to protect his life in his own home (Heller)... or that he can use THIS gun, but not THAT gun in that event (the calibre/style discussion).

Where it gets gray for me is rules like magazine capacities. A magazine is a pez dispenser. They generally don't even need to be made of metal because the explosion doesn't happen inside them... They are merely a 'spring loaded feeder'. While I understand that nobody needs a 100 round canister or even perhaps a 20 or 30 round clip... the reality is that you can't stop people who want these from having them.... so what's the point, other than to 'add a charge' to someone who is using a gun illegally. How about this? If you use a gun illegally, whether to commit a crime or illegal possession or discharge or whatever, and you use a clip larger than say 9 bullets, there is an 'add on' to the charge? I say that because I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST making it illegal to safely own an operate a weapon.... and regardless of what we think of the WISDOM of a 30 round mag or a 1,000 hp engine, it is only when you use it to shoot (or drive) in an unsafe manner where that is a problem.

And this is why the right and NRA push back.

Because there is a MEANINGFUL portion of the left on this issue that wants to eliminate all private legal ownership of guns. They GLOAT all the time about how passing this law will take 'hundreds of thousands and even millions of guns off the streets'......

But the people they are taking them from are the people LEAST likely to use them to commit a crime... and the criminals will still have them.

It is their entire focus to confuse 'volume' with 'risk'. 300mm guns in the hands of 100mm safe Americans is VASTLY less risky than ONE in the hands of a sociopath.