Firearm Expertise

[Weird Harold]

our collective heads together and construct a series of well thought out regulations that will both; allow the majority of sane law abiding citizens to own weapons...but also put a big dent in the access to weapons by those deemed unfit.

It's the "can't do anything" mantra that frustrates me.

We don't need more laws, we just need more nosy granmothers: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...al-detailing-school-shooting-plot-police-say/

 

[yukonnights]

I think the biggest obstacle to finding any solution is a lack of trust. Both sides are very fervent, and while I understand the basis for the emotional need to do something, I also understand the need to do something that actually helps, and isn't just a feel good gesture.

But until both sides can be calm and actually try to communicate and not score points off of each other, the process seems to be at a standstill.

I see this too. Sadly, it always tends to go that way with we humans. But we all do get entrenched in our views.

However, I would say it goes beyond the one-upmanship of debate. The more difficult issue is the difference in world view and the difference in proposed solutions to the same problem. At the foundation of the Libertarian vision, is the strangulation of the so called "nanny state" and the so-called "police state". The libertarian hope is for a day when the Federal Government is stripped of most of it's authority...a day when free market capitalism is unregulated...a day when each individual makes his/her own rules so long as they don't impinge on the rights of another.

While this sounds quite nice, the rub is in the details. For example, I live on a nice pristine creek. It has good flow all year. I also have this pesky problem with trash...you know, seems like the packaging is larger than the thing inside. It costs money to get that stuff hauled away. I know, I'll just throw it in the creek and problem solved! There's no law against it...and if there is, there's not enough cops to enforce it. No way, you say? Is this not what industry has been doing for decades? And that despite the laws prohibiting it and government specifically trying to stop it. How well will it go if we just rely on the "good will" of everyone to be nice?

To me, these are pipe dreams that will never happen. But they do persist, and there is a well funded movement to neuter the various laws and governments of this country.

I will add though; Many of the ideals of Libertarian philosophy are worthy. The wholesale application of them to a modern society of 350,000,000 +/- individuals is unworkable, in my opinion.

This is a terrible format to try and discuss these things and I'm certain I didn't do full justice the the Libertarian dream. So if anyone wants to, please feel free to share your understanding of it. Truly, this is the foundation of the whole gun debate.

 

[Bramblethorn]

So a problem exists, I think we can all agree on that. But an interim suggestion to protect schools is bad?

Yes, it's bad. Because it's not an "interim" solution, it's a snake-oil alternative to actually fixing the underlying problems, and it won't actually make kids significantly safer.

An attacker has a huge advantage. He knows when and where the attack is going to happen, and he can pick whenever people are going to be most vulnerable. He may even know how his targets are likely to react - the latest Florida asshole attended the school's "active shooter" training so he knew just what to expect. He may even use smoke or tear gas to increase the confusion, as this guy did and others have done before him. He may have heavy body armour on. He doesn't have to worry about accidentally hitting an innocent person because that's his objective, and he probably isn't even hugely concerned with self-preservation. He may well know what the guards look like.

Meanwhile, your armed guard hears shots. He doesn't know who the shooter is, or if there's more than one of them. Every person he sees, he has to make a snap judgement about whether that's another innocent bystander, or if that's the guy he needs to shoot. He has to make a snap judgement about whether he has a clear shot or if he's likely to hit bystanders. Once the cops show up, he risks being shot by mistake, and he makes them less effective because they have to figure out whether he is the bad guy. (And you can bet some fucker is going to dress up as a guard and shoot the real guard first.) Protective gear? He has to pick something that's comfortable enough to wear all day, every day on duty, so he can't armour up as heavily as the guy who knows the date and time. Everything in this situation is against him, and there's a real risk that he actually makes the situation worse.

For that guard to overcome those disadvantages, he needs a lot of training. Will schools be able to fund that kind of training?

...well, given that schools are so underfunded that teachers are paying for fucking PENCILS out of their own money, it seems very unlikely.

Even if a miracle happens and he does take down the shooter, it's unlikely to happen before several people are dead.

 

[OTCurve]

Yes, it's bad. Because it's not an "interim" solution, it's a snake-oil alternative to actually fixing the underlying problems, and it won't actually make kids significantly safer.

Even if a miracle happens and he does take down the shooter, it's unlikely to happen before several people are dead.

And the name-calling begins. Snake-oil alternative? Whereas I will agree having armed guards/teachers will probably still result in an unfortunate loss of life, now it becomes a very uncomfortable numbers game. If it results in two lost instead of fifty, would it not be worth it while both sides try to figure out a common solution?

For that guard to overcome those disadvantages, he needs a lot of training. Will schools be able to fund that kind of training?

...well, given that schools are so underfunded that teachers are paying for fucking PENCILS out of their own money, it seems very unlikely.

Training is a must, no argument there. I think schools and the system could find the money, yes. When one reads about new hardwood floors (in a school redesign) for the teacher's lounge, estimated cost, 45,000, not to mention in Massachusetts there have been several new schools built, with matching Federal funds, in the one-hundred million dollar range. They look more like hotels. Yes, I think if people were serious, the money could be found.

 

[yukonnights]

It's always telling that the pro-easy-gun-access proponents always fade into silence when these large massacres happen. They know that once all the anger has been vented and energy spent...everything will settle back to normal. Normal is the political activism spearheaded by groups like the NRA who funnel meaningful amounts of cash into political campaigns in order to tilt the debate in their favor.

If I had my wishes; Campaign contributions would be limited to individual citizens. But since that common sense solution is unlikely to ever become reality...the only choice is for advocates of common sense gun laws to adopt the same tactics and elect officials that properly reflects the opinions of the majority of citizens.

For those who are ready to get serious and try to turn this around, here's a timely article (with some snipping):
*****

The plan is the beginning of what is expected to be a major injection of money and action into the 2018 campaign cycle, targeting officials in Congress in state capitals who don’t back gun regulations...“It’s time to throw them out,” said Everytown President John Feinblatt.

A sign of the interest in the cause: Without soliciting any donations, Everytown saw online donations of $750,000 in 24 hours after the latest shooting.

The group also is organizing 200 vigils around the country, building on action that’s been going on nationwide.

The five points of the plan are: Pledge to vote on gun safety; research how much money local officials have accepted from the National Rifle Association, register friends to vote; force candidates to go on the record about gun policy through a provided candidate questionnaire; and urge people who are involved to run for office themselves....

...Shannon Watts, the volunteer head of the affiliated group Moms Demand Action, founded in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, said she believes that the 2017 election wins by pro-gun regulation candidates demonstrate a changing tide.

“This idea that the NRA has multitudes of members and a grass-roots army is a figment of their imagination,” Watts said. “I know we’re all waiting for this cathartic congressional moment, but we are winning and we have the energy on the ground.”

Full article here -> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/everytown-launches-post-florida-action-plan-415655

 

[yukonnights]

And...if you're curious about just which members of Congress are getting the support of the NRA...here's a link to handy graphic-> Who's Getting the Cash?

The biggest winner is sitting at $7,740,521

 

[OTCurve]

If I had my wishes; Campaign contributions would be limited to individual citizens. But since that common sense solution is unlikely to ever become reality...the only choice is for advocates of common sense gun laws to adopt the same tactics and elect officials that properly reflects the opinions of the majority of citizens.

While on the surface it seems like an obvious choice, what if those individual citizens are huge wealth depots like Soros and Bloomberg?

As for Everytown, I don't think you will gain much agreement from the other side using Everytown as a source. Given their establishment and funding from Bloomberg (at least 50 million dollars), whose political views are well known, and their misleading reporting of the number of school shootings, not to mention their inclusion of MAIG (quite the criminal record of their nunbers), Everytown is hardly a trustworthy source.

 

[coachdb18]

It's always telling that the pro-easy-gun-access proponents always fade into silence when these large massacres happen.

It's always telling when liberal gun-haters suddenly find the 'never let a good crisis go to waste' mentality to open their vacuous minds and mouths to spout the blather from their Bloomberg masters about gun-control. They're as predictable as cardboard food at McDonald's.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes, it's bad. Because it's not an "interim" solution, it's a snake-oil alternative to actually fixing the underlying problems, and it won't actually make kids significantly safer.

That is also a fair description of all the proposed "new" gun regulations. Most proposals do nothing about addressing the root causes of mass murders (or serial murders) or reducing the number of guns already in circulation -- which can't be directly outlawed because of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And the name-calling begins.

...er, what? I didn't call you anything.

Snake-oil alternative? Whereas I will agree having armed guards/teachers will probably still result in an unfortunate loss of life, now it becomes a very uncomfortable numbers game. If it results in two lost instead of fifty, would it not be worth it while both sides try to figure out a common solution?

Two instead of fifty? This is pure fantasy.

There were two armed security guards at the Pulse nightclub. One was a police officer with fifteen years of experience - more than the average school guard is likely to have - and he took some shots at the gunman, but wasn't able to stop him from killing forty-nine people.

The other? Well, he was the shooter. Nine years with G4S Secure Solutions; he didn't do too well in his psych evaluations, but he excelled at the firearms training. Leading to another unfortunate truth: the more you rely on armed guards, the more you have to lower your recruitment and screening standards, and the more likely that those guards will become part of the problem.

Meanwhile, I live in a country with slightly more population than Florida. Twenty-two years ago we decided that mass shootings were not just "unfortunate" but unacceptable. We changed our gun laws, and in all the years since then I think we've had a total of nine people killed by mass shooters (plus one perp who shot himself).

The only school shooting I'm aware of in the entire history of Australia was back in 2002, with two people killed. It might have been much worse, but handguns are limited to 10-round mags here, so the shooter had to stop to change guns and two of his intended victims jumped him.

Training is a must, no argument there. I think schools and the system could find the money, yes. When one reads about new hardwood floors (in a school redesign) for the teacher's lounge, estimated cost, 45,000, not to mention in Massachusetts there have been several new schools built, with matching Federal funds, in the one-hundred million dollar range. They look more like hotels. Yes, I think if people were serious, the money could be found.

You're selecting exceptional cases which are not remotely typical of US schools. But what the hell, let's talk about one of those cases.

Somerville High, estimated $256m price tag (half of that from matching State funds - not Fed) to bulldoze most of the current school and build a new one with a capacity of 1590 students.

First thing to point out is that we're comparing capital costs (a new building) to operational costs (hiring, training, and equipping guards), and that's not meaningful unless you consider the lifetime of the capital. The old school is now 123 years old (built 1895); if the new one lasts for a hundred years, that's $2.56 million per year of use. Let's round up and call it $3m/year.

As discussed in that article, part of the reason for the new high school is that the existing one has very high operating/maintenance costs due to being old and in bad condition. I've spent some time in that part of the country; it gets kinda cold during the winter, and heat is the second-biggest expense for US schools. I'm not sure exactly what Somerville's paying for fuel oil to heat a poorly-insulated school of over 1000 students through New England winter, but it'd probably be hundreds of thousands per year, and that will continue to increase as oil gets more expensive. The new building will save most of that cost through much better thermal efficiency, so right there a significant chunk of the expenditure is paying for itself in the long run.

Meanwhile... how many armed guards do you think it takes to give a school of 1600 students significant protection against a shooter? How much does it cost every year to hire and equip those guards, and to keep them trained to a level where they're likely to stop an attacker who has all those advantages I talked about earlier? Hundreds of thousands of dollars, minimum, to slightly reduce the expected body count.

...and now, let's take that sort of cost back to the average high school that doesn't have the funding for a $200m new building, the ones that are so badly underfunded that the average teacher spends $600/year of her own money on classroom supplies.

It's a pipe dream.

 

[HisArpy]

Lots of snippets in these last comments.

The one about "where were there any proposed gun bans" is telling to the mindset of those who advocate against "easy access" to guns. The proponents claim they don't want to "ban" guns, just determine who gets to have one and who doesn't. How is that not a gun BAN for those who don't get to play?

The "silence by pro-gun advocates" is another red herring. No 2A supporter that I know of has been "silent" on the Fla shooting. We've been active and vocal, helping to ensure that the media uncovers the FBI's failure to do their job. We've been active in pointing out that Anti-gun nirvana ideals failed the general public. The gun-free school zone didn't work - AGAIN. The background checks laws didn't work - AGAIN. Gun registration laws didn't work - AGAIN. "If you see something, say something" didn't work - AGAIN. More restrictions won't change the fact that the anti-gun ideals DO NOT WORK. You will not get a different result continuing on the same path. If you want to change the results, you have to try something else other than more gun restrictions and bans under the guise of "reasonable regulations."


My take on this:

The guy was a fruitloop. Had those in authority DONE THEIR JOBS, this tragedy wouldn't have occurred. Blaming ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE for that failure is wrong and shows a lack of comprehension on the subject of the way our laws and society works. We do not punish or limit the rights of individuals not involved in criminal behavior. Not even in the name of preventing future criminal behavior by persons unknown.



NightL, my references to Abortion Rights was clear. I stand with those who hold the line against limitations on the Right. A Right is a RIGHT, not a privilege for Gov to "regulate" as they see fit. If Gov wants to change the Right, then it is up to Congress to draft an Amendment to the BOR and then ratify it. Failing that, the Right stands as written and no State, or any Court, can alter or "regulate" it because that would be usurping the privileges and powers of CONGRESS and the people.

For example; if society wants to alter the 4th Amendment Right against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, then CONGRESS must draft an amendment to the 4A and ratify it before the Right will include the new parameters. Unless Congress does so, the laws and court decisions that alter the express language are illegal because those laws and decisions do not have the authority to change what is written. The same applies to the 2A as well as the Right to an abortion and any other Constitutional Right.

Our Rights are not privileges that can be altered willy-nilly by any State legislature or governmental bureaucrat that comes along and believes differently. There is an established procedure to alter them. Failing to follow that procedure is illegal. thus, as I have said, if you want to "regulate" arms, Congress must redraft the 2A and ratify it. Good luck with that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That is also a fair description of all the proposed "new" gun regulations. Most proposals do nothing about addressing the root causes of mass murders (or serial murders) or reducing the number of guns already in circulation -- which can't be directly outlawed because of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.

I'm not sure I follow the ex post facto argument. That prohibition means that an action can't be retroactively criminalised, but it doesn't prevent laws from outlawing future possession of something that was previously legal.

For example, in 1933 FDR outlawed private ownership of gold; with some exceptions for dentists, artists, coin collectors etc., people were required to turn in their gold in exchange for $20.67/oz compensation.

That's roughly how the change in gun laws was handled in Australia - after the legislation was passed, there was an amnesty period during which people could turn in the relevant firearms for compensation, without risk of prosecution.

n.b. I'm talking only about ex post facto considerations there - I'm well aware that there are other legal issues relevant to gun control in the USA, in particular interpretations of the Second Amendment.

 

[Weird Harold]

For example; if society wants to alter the 4th Amendment Right against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, then CONGRESS must draft an amendment to the 4A and ratify it before the Right will include the new parameters. ....

You are consistently misrepresenting the process of amending the Constitution. Congress writing and passing an amendment is only the first step, and it is NOT the only way to get and amendment submitted to the individual States for ratification.

Ratification by the States is the sticking point for amending the Constitution; IIRC, it requires ratification by three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution. Congress has approved several amendments and submitted them to the States for ratification; again working from memory, there are a couple of proposed amendments that have been awaiting ratification by the requisite number of states for a century or more. Newer amendments, like the Equal Rights Amendment, generally have "sunset" provisions that invalidate them if not ratified in a specific time frame.

 

[OTCurve]

...er, what? I didn't call you anything.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Calling the suggestion a snake-oil alternative is what I was referencing, not you.

It's a pipe dream.

Ok, what is your suggestion?

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm not sure I follow the ex post facto argument. That prohibition means that an action can't be retroactively criminalised, but it doesn't prevent laws from outlawing future possession of something that was previously legal.

For example, in 1933 FDR outlawed private ownership of gold; with some exceptions for dentists, artists, coin collectors etc., people were required to turn in their gold in exchange for $20.67/oz compensation.

FDR's executive order was probably unconstitutional, but nobody challenged it so it was enforced.

In the case of firearms, there are numerous examples of firearms that are illegal to own, manufacture or sell, that are legally owned because they were owned before the law was passed. Some are "transferable" and some can only change hands through inheritance.

An ex post facto law banning continued ownership of firearms would be challenged, and probably negated.

Without major changes to the Constitution regarding several of the BOR and the ex post facto prohibition, there is no legal way (in the USA) to remove the 300 million plus firearms in circulation in the US. Nor is there any legal way to force registration or training as a requirement for continued ownership.

Gun control advocates ignore that situation and keep beating their heads against the Constitution. They come up with creative and cosmetic definitions to pass "wedge legislation" to make the opposition look "unreasonable" and nothing substantive gets done.

If they were to put the same amount of effort into reducing the factors that cause people to want to commit mass murder, they'd find the "opposition" would generally melt away and might even become allies.

 

[NightL]

deflection, distraction and clutching at straws - "god given rights" and libertarianism - FFS!

should there be changes - yes
can the changes happen - yes
can laws change - yes

Those who have been fighting these changes have blood on their hands, blood of children.

HisArpy your "god given rights" are killing children and it is happening over and over and over again.

I look upon those spouting such nonsense with disdain and disgust. Miserable scum of society! How dare you place your desire for unfettered access to military style weapons and opposing tighter back ground checks and registration over the lives of children. How dare you!

The rest of the world watches and is sickened beyond belief as US gets so caught up the nauseating repeat cycle of "thoughts and prayers", "too soon to talk about it" and "the Democrats are just trying to politicise it" as if doing nothing isn't.

Now people will get caught up in mountains of discussion of "but this, but that" over trivialities to continue the deflection and distraction.

My opinion of the gun glee & glorification club and my support for tighter gun laws does not kill people. Doing nothing, however, has proven time and time again to fail with the frequency of these shootings and mass murder of children increasing.

This is not a knee jerk reaction as any regular here will be well aware I have voiced up against the gun glee & glorification club for years. I have no illusions into changing the minds of these nutters, how can you change the minds of people who are content in knowing children are mass murdered while actively voicing their opposition for preventative measures because it interferes with their "god given rights". I am aware, however, that there will be many reading on and if just one person viewing understands that the gun glee & glorification club is seriously not cool and joins the growing swell demanding increased gun control laws, one life may be saved. That is why I speak up.


Australia’s National Firearms Agreement
https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Firearms/Documents/2017-national-firearms-agreement.pdf

 

[NightL]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Calling the suggestion a snake-oil alternative is what I was referencing, not you.

Fairly apt description, works for me.

Obviously this is an area of sensitivity for you OTCurve and I have found it curious how personally you take this on when comments have not been directly aimed toward you. You were highly sensitive, as well, toward my holding a mirror up to toerag in the last gun nutter (intended) thread, yet surprisingly, by lack of offered chastisement, appeared supportive of toefungus's greetings. Is this a selective thing for you?

Could you ever consider your selective chastisements over "name calling", especially for what is not personally directed toward you, actually becomes a form of "name calling" in itself? Your polite version.

Communication takes on many forms. I choose clarity of understanding and intent as my guidelines.

As for toerot (oh, I had lots of practice with JBJ with this), well at least his fascination for the GLBT Chatter section was abundantly clear with his attempts of name calling and referencing. I had no doubt over that.

 

[OTCurve]

Fairly apt description, works for me.

Obviously this is an area of sensitivity for you OTCurve and I have found it curious how personally you take this on when comments have not been directly aimed toward you. You were highly sensitive, as well, toward my holding a mirror up to toerag in the last gun nutter (intended) thread, yet surprisingly, by lack of offered chastisement, appeared supportive of toefungus's greetings. Is this a selective thing for you?

Could you ever consider your selective chastisements over "name calling", especially for what is not personally directed toward you, actually becomes a form of "name calling" in itself? Your polite version.

Communication takes on many forms. I choose clarity of understanding and intent as my guidelines.

As for toerot (oh, I had lots of practice with JBJ with this), well at least his fascination for the GLBT Chatter section was abundantly clear with his attempts of name calling and referencing. I had no doubt over that.

I wouldn't call it sensitivity, rather curiosity. How two sides of a discussion can devolve into name calling and emotional ranting instead of trying to focus on the issue at hand.

Again, not highly sensitive, merely pointing out your constant reaction in discussion, which is the aforementioned name calling.

I did consider that, actually, that pointing out behavior would be construed by some as itself examples of that very behavior, but as I did try to keep my comments polite, I felt there might be a chance that everyone could get past that and get on to the actual issue. I see I am still not successful in that aspect. From your commentary, it is quite obvious as to your general take on the situation, but I find myself not understanding your actual point. You say you want a change, yet you act in a manner that all but guarantees no rational discussion is possible. So where does the change part come into play? You still fail to actually suggest something concrete, unless I've missed a post?

What changes would you enact? What law would you pass that would have any effect on a criminal's behavior?

Communication does take on many forms, and for someone that professes clarity, I'm looking forward to reading your ideas on how to solve the problem.

 

[yukonnights]

Just another reminder for that silent reader who might be following this conversation: NO ONE HERE HAS ADVOCATED A "BAN ON GUNS". That's 'buzz speak'. Realistic, effective, and workable regulation...yep, guilty as charged

Common sense will inform which approach makes more sense:

A> Pass out more guns and more powerful guns to every citizen...and the bad guys will be too afraid to do their bad deeds.

OR

B> Require real training, actual testing of competency for anyone who owns a weapon, well funded and complete background checks, federal 'red flag' laws to intervene in mental crisis situations, regulation on specific categories of the weaponry common in mass killings, adequate funding for research into the causes of the mentality of gun violence, and etc.

( To those in other countries: This is the kind of insanity we've been reduced to here. I think the entire USA needs your 'thoughts and prayers' )

 

[OTCurve]

Just another reminder for that silent reader who might be following this conversation: NO ONE HERE HAS ADVOCATED A "BAN ON GUNS". That's 'buzz speak'. Realistic, effective, and workable regulation...yep, guilty as charged

Yet bans occur. I wonder why that is exactly? I have seen these politicians push for more and more restrictions. Look at New York and their SAFE act. Or Connecticut with their laws. If someone there used to be able to legally carry a handgun with a magazine of over ten rounds and now must use a smaller capacity magazine, how is that not a ban on those original magazines?

There is a background check system in place. The people running it, the same people you would have us trust to enforce any new regulations, keep dropping the ball. Not a confidence builder.

Regulation on specific categories of weaponry common in mass killings. Could you be more precise please, exactly what weapons are you putting on the list and what regulation you have in mind?

I also think since these shooters keep targeting schools and other gun-free zones, perhaps we should do something about that, maybe guard the schools? Why is that such a horrible idea?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Just another reminder for that silent reader who might be following this conversation: NO ONE HERE HAS ADVOCATED A "BAN ON GUNS". That's 'buzz speak'. Realistic, effective, and workable regulation...yep, guilty as charged

Common sense will inform which approach makes more sense:

A> Pass out more guns and more powerful guns to every citizen...and the bad guys will be too afraid to do their bad deeds.

OR

B> Require real training, actual testing of competency for anyone who owns a weapon, well funded and complete background checks, federal 'red flag' laws to intervene in mental crisis situations, regulation on specific categories of the weaponry common in mass killings, adequate funding for research into the causes of the mentality of gun violence, and etc.

( To those in other countries: This is the kind of insanity we've been reduced to here. I think the entire USA needs your 'thoughts and prayers' )

I see big problems with both suggestions...not that they are bad but...who will pay for them? I have had my training, twice. Once in the service of our country and again to get a carry permit in three different states. The training in the service the taxpayer paid for. The carry permit training I paid for out of my pocket.

So who pays for your training or the passing out of guns to everyone?

I suggest using the laws we have in place now...make they work correctly, make them weed out those who might be "nuts" until they can prove they aren't. And all that needs to be taken away from the government...any government...Because the only thing government can do is spend other peoples money. And they are real big on losing most of that...where...no one knows.

 

[Bramblethorn]

FDR's executive order was probably unconstitutional, but nobody challenged it so it was enforced.

FDR's EOs were reinforced by an act of Congress. The constitutionality of those measures was challenged in Campbell v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, 5 F. Supp. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1933), and the court rejected the challenge.

As far as I can see from the decision, the ex post facto issue wasn't specifically considered, and the constitutional argument hinged on other issues... which would rather seem to suggest that Campbell's lawyer didn't think the ex post facto argument had any chance of succeeding.

If the EPF angle was as clearly unconstitutional as you're saying, it's curious that nobody at all, from the entire gold-owning population of the USA, tried to challenge it on those grounds. Can you point me to case law that supports your interpretation of this issue?

 

[NightL]

OTCurve, this list has been doing the social media rounds - seems a reasonable place to start.

14 day waiting periods
No sales by private owners
No sales at gun shows
10 rounds magazine limit
No bump stocks
No cranks
Licenses for all arms
Child lock requirements
Minimum age of purchase at 21
Assault rifle ban
Universal background checks
Domestic violence ban​

Obviously "Domestic violence ban" is banning the sale of weapons to anyone who has been found guilty of domestic violence.

Certainly I would prefer laws more similar to the Australia’s National Firearms Agreement but I am realistic enough that it would be impossible to gather up hand guns in USA and I have never stated as such, though certainly pleased that other countries have managed this. I see no place for automatic weapons or even semi automatic weapons in the hands citizens.

The one thing that is missing from the above list is comment about regulated secure storage of weapons and ammunition. If you want an example then read the Australia’s National Firearms Agreement pdf that I provided before. I have posted that link before along with many links to research and comparative statistics - and you know that well OTCurve, I have offered all this up before.

I have asked this question before - how many recorded cases have there been of a vigilante taking out a "baddie" with an open carry military style weapon?

If there are professional shooters who control feral animals requiring semi automatics, then they would undergo strict licensing and regulation.

Personally I see no great issue if highly regulated gun clubs can store levels of weaponry that general public are not to have ownership of or not to have ownership beyond the weapon ever leaving the premises and secure storage of the regulated gun club. The pew pew nuts can still get their jollies, but in a controlled, highly secure environment where the weapons are much less likely to fall into the wrong hands.

I view the current gun situation in the US as the most hideous virus leading to cancer of a population. I don't want this evil spreading. I speak up for the families of friends I hold dear who live in USA. I speak up because even from the other side of the world this insidious carnage impacts well beyond your borders. I speak up against the nightly run of slaughter portrayed as normal on American television shows and entertainment games directed toward teenagers which of course even younger children often have access to. I speak up against a country that has lost its way so much that guns and death are nightly entertainment, but freak out about nudity and displays of consensual love making (not suggesting early evening television swap to porn channels). There will be censorship about the display of a female nipple yet throw in all the blood and gore of shooting while eating dinner in the evening - your country is seriously fucked up.


As for the gun glee and glorification nutters here at Literotica I will continue to voice my opinion of them. This salivating fervour of all things guns followed hurled abuse because someone dared to place up statistics and research indicating their "hobby" and values are killing people on a ever increasing scale of grand carnage - and so much of it is preventable. This is not talking of a fetish I personally find distasteful this is about idiots so caught up in one of the deadliest cons of all time. A con led by the NRA. The NRA that spreads fear with their blatant lies and their control over your government in shutting down anything that would stop them from their continued fleecing of money from your public. The NRA is more insidious than all the tobacco companies in their peddling of death.

The NRA should be held accountable for their assisting of countless mass murders. It should be stripped of all ability of government influence and control.

I'll offer another apt quote doing the rounds at the moment:

1967 - Jayne Mansfield is killed when her car runs under the rear end of a tractor trailer. Since then, all trailers have a DOT bar at the rear to keep cars from going under them.

1982 - Seven people die when Tylenol packaging was tampered with. Since then, it takes a PhD, channel locks, and a sharp object to get into a bottle of pills.

2001 - One person attempts to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. Since then, all air travelers have to take off their shoes for scanning before being allowed to board.

Since 1968 - 1,516, 863 people die from guns on American soil. Since then, the problem apparently can't be solved except with thoughts and prayers.

AND JU$T WHY DO YOU THINK THI$ I$???​

Of course the next best thing to thoughts and prayers is to talk round and round over endless trivialities.

OTCurve, as for that politeness and name calling thing - well I usually only hold the mirror up to those who use abuse as their only response - as with tinytoe (look it amuses me). I am however very content with my use of the words "scum" and "fucking idiots" for people who hold their deluded self interests over and above the lives of children.

Trump wants a monument to himself - blatantly clear, whether it be a wall or the biggest military parade ever or starting a nuclear war - he wants to be remembered not as a failure (which he is) but recognition of achievement - even if that achievement is a nuclear war. Here is his golden opportunity - he is not going to get a second term and he has trashed the GOP so he may as well be the president who had the guts to stand up against the NRA, strip them of their political influence and enact gun control laws that will save lives. He would be remembered.

 

[SissySalina]

Sorry NightL but unlike Australia (which is a country that sissy likes) America is free and not a penile colony. When Australia opens its borders as America does then you may have something to talk about. Australia is a very selective country and can afford such other niceties'. But people will be people and kill each other with what ever the have and people that want some thing will still take them anyway they can. Is Australia totally crime free?
The dumb thing people do not realize is that is should not be gun control but if you cannot get the bullets you can't fire the gun. Then the price of baseball bats will go up.

 

[coachdb18]

OTCurve, this list has been doing the social media rounds - seems a reasonable place to start. [yada tads yada...]

IOW, you’re Anti-Constitution, and the Infringement begins on your bugle-blast? No, thanks just the same...

Good example of a hard-lefty talking louder and faster to simulate thought, though!!!