(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!!!!!"

The progressive left already communicated quite clearly what was intended in terms of the Brady bill, which outlawed huge swaths of guns based on the highly relevant points (sarcasm intended) of: a) names and model numbers; or b) purely cosmetic features alone. That alone leads one to think that such a slippery slope is actual. But, lets proceed to other points, shall we?

On the next facet, it is the progressive left that seeks to ban swaths of guns based on some mumblety peg vernacular that really doesnt exist.

Considering it is the exact same left that incessantly phrases bans in terms of **** that doesnt even exist (that is, the mumbledy jumble word salad of 'assault weapons', 'military style weapons', and all the other catch phrases that have zero meaning in the real world), please do tell how terrible it is to think the above?

Further, the left falls into two camps on the crap stunt they use with phrases. There are the morons who *actually* believe that 'assault weapons' actually means something; then there are the people who keep fanning the flames using those terms.

Schumer and Pelosi, after using those terms for twenty five years ad infinitum damn well know there is no such thing --- yet they continue to call for them to banned by that phraseology.

That tells me that the leadership of the left arent morons, but they intentionally lie on the subject. Again, given that record of what is obviously an intentional lie, please do tell us how wrong we are for thinking the above.

Put your thinking cap on. Good fing grief. When someone continuously feeds a falsehood, dont use the above to gnash your teeth on. It is *your* side that is lying out of every corner of their mouth on that subject in that manner, so cut the above characterization in light of it.

When *your* side stops the lying in the above manner, maybe I will take your painful sorrow point at face value. The continued and explicit lying by *your* side on that point cuts against any and all good faith in the above issue for me. And, any benefit of the doubt for that matter.

On the final facet, lets take a look at what the left actually does in terms of whether they seek selective removal or simply blanket removal when they actually are empowered by law to do it. When *your* side gets to set the limits on concealed carry, they never opt for a 'shall issue' type license (that is,if you meet an objective criteria, the state apparatus must issue such a permit). They always opt for the 'discretion based issue' --- which in all blue jurisdiction defaults to zero permits. So the left has specifically and explicitly articulated through these policies to what they would prefer --- that is blanket removal of access to firearms when they have the opportunity to do so.

So, 93, we dont make that comment that you caterwaul about above in a vacuum, much to detriment of ode of despair above.

In every single jurisdiction where *your* side has implemented a 'concealed carry license' they have done so in the manner that the local officials determine at their discretion whom can carry. And, in every single progressive jurisdiction, the 'discretion' standard defaults to 'no carry'. Kind of a strong track record and highly germane topic to *what* the progressives *want* to put into place. So, cut the sarcasm on the 'slippery slope' issue above. If you can point to a progressive jurisdiction that *doesnt* use the discretionary standard to shut down carry permits, your sarcasm might have an ounce of credibility to it. As it stands, it is pretty much vapid in that regard.

Not to mention the other two points that lend high credibility that what the left seeks, and seemingly continually seeks, is nothing less than blanket removal.

(04-24-2021 11:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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!!!!!"

The progressive left already communicated quite clearly what was intended in terms of the Brady bill, which outlawed huge swaths of guns based on the highly relevant points (sarcasm intended) of: a) names and model numbers; or b) purely cosmetic features alone. That alone leads one to think that such a slippery slope is actual. But, lets proceed to other points, shall we?

On the next facet, it is the progressive left that seeks to ban swaths of guns based on some mumblety peg vernacular that really doesnt exist.

Considering it is the exact same left that incessantly phrases bans in terms of **** that doesnt even exist (that is, the mumbledy jumble word salad of 'assault weapons', 'military style weapons', and all the other catch phrases that have zero meaning in the real world), please do tell how terrible it is to think the above?

Further, the left falls into two camps on the crap stunt they use with phrases. There are the morons who *actually* believe that 'assault weapons' actually means something; then there are the people who keep fanning the flames using those terms.

Schumer and Pelosi, after using those terms for twenty five years ad infinitum damn well know there is no such thing --- yet they continue to call for them to banned by that phraseology.

That tells me that the leadership of the left arent morons, but they intentionally lie on the subject. Again, given that record of what is obviously an intentional lie, please do tell us how wrong we are for thinking the above.

I don't know, dude... lying? You clearly have a bee in your bonnet re: the use of the terms "assault weapon", "assault rifle", "military-style rifle". But lying? I think that they are just referring to semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines and the general associated apparati like bump stocks that make them more useful for taking out dozens of people at once.

Using inelegant terminology doesn't mean that one is lying. I mean... I can't speak for Pelosi but I think, in general, when a gun-control advocate uses the term "assault rifle" they are not doing it with bad intentions.

Quote:Put your thinking cap on. Good fing grief. When someone continuously feeds a falsehood, dont use the above to gnash your teeth on. It is *your* side that is lying out of every corner of their mouth on that subject in that manner, so cut the above characterization in light of it.

When *your* side stops the lying in the above manner, maybe I will take your painful sorrow point at face value. The continued and explicit lying by *your* side on that point cuts against any and all good faith in the above issue for me. And, any benefit of the doubt for that matter.

On the final facet, lets take a look at what the left actually does in terms of whether they seek selective removal or simply blanket removal when they actually are empowered by law to do it. When *your* side gets to set the limits on concealed carry, they never opt for a 'shall issue' type license (that is,if you meet an objective criteria, the state apparatus must issue such a permit). They always opt for the 'discretion based issue' --- which in all blue jurisdiction defaults to zero permits. So the left has specifically and explicitly articulated through these policies to what they would prefer --- that is blanket removal of access to firearms when they have the opportunity to do so.

So, 93, we dont make that comment that you caterwaul about above in a vacuum, much to detriment of ode of despair above.

LOL. There's one guy who's well-known for caterwauling on this forum and it isn't me.

Quote:In every single jurisdiction where *your* side has implemented a 'concealed carry license' they have done so in the manner that the local officials determine at their discretion whom can carry. And, in every single progressive jurisdiction, the 'discretion' standard defaults to 'no carry'. Kind of a strong track record and highly germane topic to *what* the progressives *want* to put into place. So, cut the sarcasm on the 'slippery slope' issue above. If you can point to a progressive jurisdiction that *doesnt* use the discretionary standard to shut down carry permits, your sarcasm might have an ounce of credibility to it. As it stands, it is pretty much vapid in that regard.

So what happens in those CC states where the default is to "no carry"? Do people get permits or not? For those people who are turned down for permits why do they get rejected? Are those rejections performed in a capricious fashion?

Quote:Not to mention the other two points that lend high credibility that what the left seeks, and seemingly continually seeks, is nothing less than blanket removal.

(04-25-2021 07:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 11:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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!!!!!"

The progressive left already communicated quite clearly what was intended in terms of the Brady bill, which outlawed huge swaths of guns based on the highly relevant points (sarcasm intended) of: a) names and model numbers; or b) purely cosmetic features alone. That alone leads one to think that such a slippery slope is actual. But, lets proceed to other points, shall we?

On the next facet, it is the progressive left that seeks to ban swaths of guns based on some mumblety peg vernacular that really doesnt exist.

Considering it is the exact same left that incessantly phrases bans in terms of **** that doesnt even exist (that is, the mumbledy jumble word salad of 'assault weapons', 'military style weapons', and all the other catch phrases that have zero meaning in the real world), please do tell how terrible it is to think the above?

Further, the left falls into two camps on the crap stunt they use with phrases. There are the morons who *actually* believe that 'assault weapons' actually means something; then there are the people who keep fanning the flames using those terms.

Schumer and Pelosi, after using those terms for twenty five years ad infinitum damn well know there is no such thing --- yet they continue to call for them to banned by that phraseology.

That tells me that the leadership of the left arent morons, but they intentionally lie on the subject. Again, given that record of what is obviously an intentional lie, please do tell us how wrong we are for thinking the above.

I don't know, dude... lying? You clearly have a bee in your bonnet re: the use of the terms "assault weapon", "assault rifle", "military-style rifle". But lying?

Yes. Either ignorant or lying. In terms of Democratic and progressive leaders, I am of the firm opinion that it is a lie.

Quote: I think that they are just referring to semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines and the general associated apparati like bump stocks that make them more useful for taking out dozens of people at once.

Using inelegant terminology doesn't mean that one is lying. I mean... I can't speak for Pelosi but I think, in general, when a gun-control advocate uses the term "assault rifle" they are not doing it with bad intentions.

'inelegant' --- how about inflammatory?

Then if not bad intentions, I would ascribe their use of terms that have no meaning to sheer ignorance. Not just mere use, but continued use. And impassioned use of literally cartoon terms.

And, I do like your very impassioned defense of using those cartoon terms. As was elsewhere mentioned before, if you want to make a point, learn something about it. One who uses the term 'assault rifle' in terms of arguing is either ignorant on the subject, or lying. Again, I enjoy your impassioned defense of the usage of the term.

How do *you* feel about having wasted years of effort on a gibberish term? I dont think you enjoy it much, given your very strong defense of the term above.

Again, if you want to ban something, at least learn about it. And we are talking the basics here, basic stuff like 'dont use made up terms'.

Quote:

Quote:On the final facet, lets take a look at what the left actually does in terms of whether they seek selective removal or simply blanket removal when they actually are empowered by law to do it. When *your* side gets to set the limits on concealed carry, they never opt for a 'shall issue' type license (that is,if you meet an objective criteria, the state apparatus must issue such a permit). They always opt for the 'discretion based issue' --- which in all blue jurisdiction defaults to zero permits. So the left has specifically and explicitly articulated through these policies to what they would prefer --- that is blanket removal of access to firearms when they have the opportunity to do so.

So, 93, we dont make that comment that you caterwaul about above in a vacuum, much to detriment of ode of despair above.

LOL. There's one guy who's well-known for caterwauling on this forum and it isn't me.

I see you havent made any attempt at an response to the calling out of your trope. Goodie. Fun fun fun.

Quote:

Quote:In every single jurisdiction where *your* side has implemented a 'concealed carry license' they have done so in the manner that the local officials determine at their discretion whom can carry. And, in every single progressive jurisdiction, the 'discretion' standard defaults to 'no carry'. Kind of a strong track record and highly germane topic to *what* the progressives *want* to put into place. So, cut the sarcasm on the 'slippery slope' issue above. If you can point to a progressive jurisdiction that *doesnt* use the discretionary standard to shut down carry permits, your sarcasm might have an ounce of credibility to it. As it stands, it is pretty much vapid in that regard.

So what happens in those CC states where the default is to "no carry"? Do people get permits or not? For those people who are turned down for permits why do they get rejected? Are those rejections performed in a capricious fashion?

At least here you try and get back to a cogent response.

Every state supposedly allows the carrying of concealed weapons in some form. 46 states require a state permit. 4 states do not have a requirement of a state permit. Of the 46, they are divided into 'shall issue' and 'discretionary issue'.

The default by law isnt 'no carry' -- the default by practice is 'no carry' in progressive jurisdictions. Or, the default is 'no decision to allow to carry'.

Quote:Do people get permits or not?

Take California -- in the rural areas that vote Republican, the decision maker (the sheriff) typically defaults to a 'shall issue' mode. In areas that dont, the decision runs 98 - 99% 'no carry'.

Quote:For those people who are turned down for permits why do they get rejected?

In the specific California case, those turned down are typically not offered a reason.

I put in an application in Santa Clara county. I did not get any response for over 2.5 years. I only got a response when threatening suit. Like 99.6% of the applications made in Santa Clara county that year, it was ultimately rejected. The only underlying reason was noted as the 'Sheriff's office has determined that you have no underlying need to have a need for a concealed carry permit'.

If you bother to, look at the rates for any progressive voting county in California.

And, the machinations are common for the rest of the states enabling 'discretionary carry'.

And yes, I feel comfortable in saying that where progressives are in charge of 'discretionary carry', the overarching end result is blanket denial of CC permits.

And I feel absolutely comfortable in expanding that very ongoing situation to saying that your comic book level complaint about us stating 'slippery slope' has a real world test for it -- one that shows that in every instance where discretionary carry is the mode of permit, progressives put into place essentially a blanket ban on gun freedoms.

Coupled with their impassioned wish to use inflammatory made up terms to describe the issue with respect to broad classes of weapons simply strengthens that viewpoint.

Further, it is only progressive jurisdictions that still maintain bans on, literally, 'assault weapons'. I **** you not on their use of the term.... And when you actually read the statutes, they are, again, bans on weapons having a specific name or model number, coupled with a ban on firearms having specific cosmetic items (that is items that in no way affect the cycle time of a repeated shot or rate of fire). So again, we have another point of reference in that it is progressive jurisdictions that seek blanket bans on broad classes of firearms.

I think we just finished four years of concentrated lying by the Democrats. But that is now history.

I think the biggest lies being told now by the Democrats are not the ones about guns, but the ones about voter suppression, led by Stacey Abrams.

I think the difference between the parties is that the Dems know they will have the aid of the MSM in selling the lies, while the GOP will have to face the opposition of the MSM against any lie and often any truth.

(04-25-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we just finished four years of concentrated lying by the Democrats. But that is now history.

I think the biggest lies being told now by the Democrats are not the ones about guns, but the ones about voter suppression, led by Stacey Abrams.

I think the difference between the parties is that the Dems know they will have the aid of the MSM in selling the lies, while the GOP will have to face the opposition of the MSM against any lie and often any truth.

Is Fox not the MSM?

(04-25-2021 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we just finished four years of concentrated lying by the Democrats. But that is now history.
I think the biggest lies being told now by the Democrats are not the ones about guns, but the ones about voter suppression, led by Stacey Abrams.
I think the difference between the parties is that the Dems know they will have the aid of the MSM in selling the lies, while the GOP will have to face the opposition of the MSM against any lie and often any truth.

Is Fox not the MSM?

Relatively small part, yes. And pretty much shouted down by the rest.

(04-25-2021 07:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know, dude... lying? You clearly have a bee in your bonnet re: the use of the terms "assault weapon", "assault rifle", "military-style rifle". But lying? I think that they are just referring to semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines and the general associated apparati like bump stocks that make them more useful for taking out dozens of people at once.

Using inelegant terminology doesn't mean that one is lying. I mean... I can't speak for Pelosi but I think, in general, when a gun-control advocate uses the term "assault rifle" they are not doing it with bad intentions.

I don't think I could disagree more. These are not uneducated people, nor is this something new for them. Most of them have had decades to learn the differences that we've been talking about on here... and have IN EVERY CHANCE, declined to become educated. The clearest evidence is how many people like you who support them don't know the differences. If they were okay with 'some' weapons, you would likely know which ones those were... because people you believe and trust would have told you what they are. The term 'assault rifle' carries with it a stigma that it is intended to be used to 'assault' people.... that's SPECIFICALLY why the term is used.



Seriously, Let's start with this...
The safest weapon is an accurate one. Like in a kitchen, you want a sharp, not a dull knife. Anything that improves your ability to kill an animal will BY DEFINITION improve your accuracy against a human. Bump stocks allow you to 'stay on target' and reduces the spray of a weapon. Other aspects of an 'assault rifle' do that as well, reducing recoil etc... meaning that it REDUCES the risk of an accidental shot...

which is specifically what you started this conversation with.... is an AR 'safe' in close quarters... and the point is that an AR is SAFER than most other hunting rifles (all other things being equal) specifically BECAUSE of the characteristics of an AR.

A guy with a semi-auto high caliber hunting rifle with a 5 shot mag is MUCH more dangerous than a guy with a semi-auto low caliber assault style 'hog' gun with a 15 shot mag. Yes, the latter is more effective at hitting its intended target... which is what makes it safer for 99+% of users.

This dichotomy is perhaps THE most important difference in the conversation.
A legal user of guns sees a bump stock and a barrel that diffuses recoil as something that makes it safer/avoids accidental injury to others. 'YOUR' side has taken something that is a virtue, and turned it into a risk. As long as you support that, you will ALWAYS get resistance from legal gun owners who know a lot about what it takes to make a gun safer. A safe gun is like a sharp knife. It is one that does its intended job with the least amount of resistance.

Quote:So what happens in those CC states where the default is to "no carry"? Do people get permits or not? For those people who are turned down for permits why do they get rejected? Are those rejections performed in a capricious fashion?

Heller in DC was a perfect example. If ever there was someone who should have been issued a permit, it was him. He was a special DC cop who was authorized to carry his service weapon... but he was denied. Even had he been accepted, the rules in DC basically required him to render his weapon inoperable when he was at home.... an inoperable gun is not a gun. It is a paper weight. If you'll recall, Heller was a cornerstone for Obama. He specifically called the DC law 'common sense gun legislation'. Much has been done since then to 'soften' his position and hide that fact, but at the time, he was 100% confident that the DC law would be upheld... and then STILL claimed victory when it wasn't... because it DID make clear that the right to bear arms, like other rights, has limits.

(04-25-2021 07:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I can't speak for Pelosi but I think, in general, when a gun-control advocate uses the term "assault rifle" they are not doing it with bad intentions.

I think when Pelosi uses any term, she does so with bad intentions. I think she is a walking, talking collection of bad intentions.

(04-25-2021 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you'll recall, Heller was a cornerstone for Obama. He specifically called the DC law 'common sense gun legislation'. Much has been done since then to 'soften' his position and hide that fact, but at the time, he was 100% confident that the DC law would be upheld...

Well, he is a constitutional "scholar"

(04-25-2021 08:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 02:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you'll recall, Heller was a cornerstone for Obama. He specifically called the DC law 'common sense gun legislation'. Much has been done since then to 'soften' his position and hide that fact, but at the time, he was 100% confident that the DC law would be upheld...

Well, he is a constitutional "scholar"

Yeah, and Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.

(04-25-2021 07:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2021 07:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 11:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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!!!!!"

The progressive left already communicated quite clearly what was intended in terms of the Brady bill, which outlawed huge swaths of guns based on the highly relevant points (sarcasm intended) of: a) names and model numbers; or b) purely cosmetic features alone. That alone leads one to think that such a slippery slope is actual. But, lets proceed to other points, shall we?

On the next facet, it is the progressive left that seeks to ban swaths of guns based on some mumblety peg vernacular that really doesnt exist.

Considering it is the exact same left that incessantly phrases bans in terms of **** that doesnt even exist (that is, the mumbledy jumble word salad of 'assault weapons', 'military style weapons', and all the other catch phrases that have zero meaning in the real world), please do tell how terrible it is to think the above?

Further, the left falls into two camps on the crap stunt they use with phrases. There are the morons who *actually* believe that 'assault weapons' actually means something; then there are the people who keep fanning the flames using those terms.

Schumer and Pelosi, after using those terms for twenty five years ad infinitum damn well know there is no such thing --- yet they continue to call for them to banned by that phraseology.

That tells me that the leadership of the left arent morons, but they intentionally lie on the subject. Again, given that record of what is obviously an intentional lie, please do tell us how wrong we are for thinking the above.

I don't know, dude... lying? You clearly have a bee in your bonnet re: the use of the terms "assault weapon", "assault rifle", "military-style rifle". But lying?

Yes. Either ignorant or lying. In terms of Democratic and progressive leaders, I am of the firm opinion that it is a lie.

Quote: I think that they are just referring to semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines and the general associated apparati like bump stocks that make them more useful for taking out dozens of people at once.

Using inelegant terminology doesn't mean that one is lying. I mean... I can't speak for Pelosi but I think, in general, when a gun-control advocate uses the term "assault rifle" they are not doing it with bad intentions.

'inelegant' --- how about inflammatory?

Then if not bad intentions, I would ascribe their use of terms that have no meaning to sheer ignorance. Not just mere use, but continued use. And impassioned use of literally cartoon terms.

And, I do like your very impassioned defense of using those cartoon terms. As was elsewhere mentioned before, if you want to make a point, learn something about it. One who uses the term 'assault rifle' in terms of arguing is either ignorant on the subject, or lying. Again, I enjoy your impassioned defense of the usage of the term.

How do *you* feel about having wasted years of effort on a gibberish term? I dont think you enjoy it much, given your very strong defense of the term above.

Again, if you want to ban something, at least learn about it. And we are talking the basics here, basic stuff like 'dont use made up terms'.

Quote:

Quote:On the final facet, lets take a look at what the left actually does in terms of whether they seek selective removal or simply blanket removal when they actually are empowered by law to do it. When *your* side gets to set the limits on concealed carry, they never opt for a 'shall issue' type license (that is,if you meet an objective criteria, the state apparatus must issue such a permit). They always opt for the 'discretion based issue' --- which in all blue jurisdiction defaults to zero permits. So the left has specifically and explicitly articulated through these policies to what they would prefer --- that is blanket removal of access to firearms when they have the opportunity to do so.

So, 93, we dont make that comment that you caterwaul about above in a vacuum, much to detriment of ode of despair above.

LOL. There's one guy who's well-known for caterwauling on this forum and it isn't me.

I see you havent made any attempt at an response to the calling out of your trope. Goodie. Fun fun fun.

Quote:

Quote:In every single jurisdiction where *your* side has implemented a 'concealed carry license' they have done so in the manner that the local officials determine at their discretion whom can carry. And, in every single progressive jurisdiction, the 'discretion' standard defaults to 'no carry'. Kind of a strong track record and highly germane topic to *what* the progressives *want* to put into place. So, cut the sarcasm on the 'slippery slope' issue above. If you can point to a progressive jurisdiction that *doesnt* use the discretionary standard to shut down carry permits, your sarcasm might have an ounce of credibility to it. As it stands, it is pretty much vapid in that regard.

So what happens in those CC states where the default is to "no carry"? Do people get permits or not? For those people who are turned down for permits why do they get rejected? Are those rejections performed in a capricious fashion?

At least here you try and get back to a cogent response.

Every state supposedly allows the carrying of concealed weapons in some form. 46 states require a state permit. 4 states do not have a requirement of a state permit. Of the 46, they are divided into 'shall issue' and 'discretionary issue'.

The default by law isnt 'no carry' -- the default by practice is 'no carry' in progressive jurisdictions. Or, the default is 'no decision to allow to carry'.

Quote:Do people get permits or not?

Take California -- in the rural areas that vote Republican, the decision maker (the sheriff) typically defaults to a 'shall issue' mode. In areas that dont, the decision runs 98 - 99% 'no carry'.

Quote:For those people who are turned down for permits why do they get rejected?

In the specific California case, those turned down are typically not offered a reason.

I put in an application in Santa Clara county. I did not get any response for over 2.5 years. I only got a response when threatening suit. Like 99.6% of the applications made in Santa Clara county that year, it was ultimately rejected. The only underlying reason was noted as the 'Sheriff's office has determined that you have no underlying need to have a need for a concealed carry permit'.

If you bother to, look at the rates for any progressive voting county in California.

And, the machinations are common for the rest of the states enabling 'discretionary carry'.

And yes, I feel comfortable in saying that where progressives are in charge of 'discretionary carry', the overarching end result is blanket denial of CC permits.

And I feel absolutely comfortable in expanding that very ongoing situation to saying that your comic book level complaint about us stating 'slippery slope' has a real world test for it -- one that shows that in every instance where discretionary carry is the mode of permit, progressives put into place essentially a blanket ban on gun freedoms.

Coupled with their impassioned wish to use inflammatory made up terms to describe the issue with respect to broad classes of weapons simply strengthens that viewpoint.

Further, it is only progressive jurisdictions that still maintain bans on, literally, 'assault weapons'. I **** you not on their use of the term.... And when you actually read the statutes, they are, again, bans on weapons having a specific name or model number, coupled with a ban on firearms having specific cosmetic items (that is items that in no way affect the cycle time of a repeated shot or rate of fire). So again, we have another point of reference in that it is progressive jurisdictions that seek blanket bans on broad classes of firearms.

This SCOTUS case seems apropos to your Santa Clara experience and to your point.


The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home, teeing up a potentially landmark dispute over the scope of the Second Amendment.

In an unsigned order, the justices took up a bid by two gun owners and a New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association to challenge the state's denial of their applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/24/opinions/...index.html

The author reviews gun licensing laws in Canada and suggests that the US should adopt similar measures. No mention of restricting certain models of rifles.

Would anybody here oppose this type of legislation?

(04-26-2021 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/24/opinions/...index.html

The author reviews gun licensing laws in Canada and suggests that the US should adopt similar measures. No mention of restricting certain models of rifles.

Would anybody here oppose this type of legislation?

Yes. You forget that you are talking about a fundamental right accorded to each individual under the Constitution.

Thought experiment: go to the proposed changes, and substitute 'printing a book' or 'making a speech' for 'obtaining a gun'.

Or, being the progressive, substitute 'obtaining an abortion' for 'obtaining a gun'.

Funny thing, those things called 'fundamental rights'. That gets lost in the progressive shuffle pretty quickly for the 'keep[ing] .... arms'.

But the concept of infringing a 'fundamental right' doesnt get lost in the shuffle when talking about obtaining an abortion.

No offense 93, but you dont seem to really bother with the concept that 'keep[ing] ... arms' actually is a fundamental right, that portion seems to be blipped over. To be fair, the CNN piece forgets that concept there as well. And, to be fair, most progressives dont seem to be in tune with that concept --- except for those fundamental rights that they are proponents of, that is.

(04-26-2021 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/24/opinions/...index.html

The author reviews gun licensing laws in Canada and suggests that the US should adopt similar measures. No mention of restricting certain models of rifles.

Would anybody here oppose this type of legislation?

I would neither kneejerk oppose or support it. Depends on the details and expected practices.

One concern I have is this:

"These checks are not exhaustive enough and the suspects in the recent shootings in Indiana, Boulder and Atlanta sailed through this system, even though they had documented personal struggles, mental health histories or family members and friends who flagged them as unwell."

There appears to be no provision in the Canadian system to account for this. They have to provide two references. Big deal. Hitler could list Himmler and Eichmann, who would certify Der Fuhrer as a jolly good fellow of fine character. And if my good friend 93 wants to turn me in as "unwell", then what? Nothing? Or banned? Mental Health officers at my door?

The 28 day automatic waiting period would not have stopped any of the shootings listed in the article. In fact, I do not know of any mass shootings where the shooter picked up his gun and immediately went after people.

Licensing, if reasonable, is good, and a gun safety course is good. Texas requires a Hunter Education course, and most all the wild eyed gun nuts in Texas are OK with that.

So, my original question remains the same - what is proposed that would have prevented or even mitigated these shootings?

I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I do not attribute their lower rates of gun violence to their licensing law. You apparently do - why? Is that the sole difference between them and us? I can think of many others., like 10X the population. Correlation is not causation. But if you think they have an effect, you can start with explaining to me why a 28 day waiting period will result in less mass shootings than, say, a 7 day waiting period, and why. Are there a lot of crazies who will become sane during days 8-28?

I have sai8d that licensing, if done correctly, is good, and gun education course are good. But here is what I think; We could exact the Canadian program word for word, and after two-three years, mass shootings will not have abated, and "your side" will be calling for more of the same that has not worked. All it takes is for one crazy to set the chirping going.

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I already did!

Quote:I do not attribute their lower rates of gun violence to their licensing law. You apparently do - why? Is that the sole difference between them and us? I can think of many others., like 10X the population. Correlation is not causation. But if you think they have an effect, you can start with explaining to me why a 28 day waiting period will result in less mass shootings than, say, a 7 day waiting period, and why. Are there a lot of crazies who will become sane during days 8-28?

I assume that they have looked at higher density places like Toronto and compared like-for-like with American cities but I have not seen this data.

Quote:I have sai8d that licensing, if done correctly, is good, and gun education course are good. But here is what I think; We could exact the Canadian program word for word, and after two-three years, mass shootings will not have abated, and "your side" will be calling for more of the same that has not worked. All it takes is for one crazy to set the chirping going.

I could also see a scenario where the numbers are going down but the first time there is another mass shooting "your side" will be calling for the repeal of the licensing.

(04-26-2021 12:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 12:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I agree with Tanq on this one.

If we weren't talking about a fundamental right, all sorts of things make more sense... but the first words of the second amendment, AND the preamble to the BOR (of which the 2nd is a key element) BOTH speak to the idea of providing assurances to the people and the states that the feds will not become overly restrictive. These are KEY elements... and its not about being able to 'fight them off' in an armed conflict against the government per-se... but mostly about being able to feed or defend yourself against animals and criminals.

People who live in close quarters like in NYC, especially laws about unlawful discharge of weapons makes total sense. It's almost impossible to shoot a gun in an apartment and not put someone else in danger... but in lots of places in this country, or even in the state of NY, the risk of accident is close to zero.

The removal of the right to bear arms to lawful citizens in an effort to curtail unlawful citizens is wrong-headed. The focus needs to be on rules that directly impact unlawful citizens (or actions).

Exactly why I keep asking how the currently proposed "common sense" gun laws would have alleviated the perceived problem. At least I do them the courtesy of answering their questions.

For the 3rd or 4th time I answered your question to the best of my ability. I didn't have the time to go back and research the details of the recent shootings to which you had referred.

*edit* If you think these laws wouldn't do much do you have an explanation as to why Canada has such lower rates of gun violence than the US?

All I have asked is for you to tell me the post number.

I already did!

Wouldn't it be easier to type in a 2 or 3 digit number?

Quote:I do not attribute their lower rates of gun violence to their licensing law. You apparently do - why? Is that the sole difference between them and us? I can think of many others., like 10X the population. Correlation is not causation. But if you think they have an effect, you can start with explaining to me why a 28 day waiting period will result in less mass shootings than, say, a 7 day waiting period, and why. Are there a lot of crazies who will become sane during days 8-28?

I assume that they have looked higher density places like Toronto and compared like-for-like with American cities but I have not seen this data.

I don't assume that. Even for cities of similar population, the demographics racially and financially are different. Does Toronto have a gang problem? Calgary? I don't now, and I think you don't either.

BTW, I have been to Toronto - cleanest city I have ever seen.

Quote:I have said that licensing, if done correctly, is good, and gun education course are good. But here is what I think; We could exact the Canadian program word for word, and after two-three years, mass shootings will not have abated, and "your side" will be calling for more of the same that has not worked. All it takes is for one crazy to set the chirping going.

I could also see a scenario where the numbers are going down but the first time there is another mass shooting "your side" will be calling for the repeal of the licensing.

As useless? maybe. How mass shootings will it take to convince "your side" that more of the same useless stuff is still useless? 6? 14? 2? Infinity + 1. Bingo!

We have shootings now that were not stopped by the laws y'all passed in the last few years, so harsher and harsher laws are called for by y'all. And yet you sneer at the idea that some of us worry that the slippery slope will take to North Korean levels.

Was there an epidemic of shootings, and then when they passed these laws it subsided? Some before-and-after stats would be helpful. Maybe it is like Australia - no appreciable difference.