The reason the want to take your guns

[AConcernedCitizen]

The best way to preserve gun rights is the appointment of judges who crush idiotic state government attempts to infringe on our rights. The second is to vote out of office bannerrhoids.

Time will tell, I suppose. You aren't in the majority, and brute force has historically been a poor strategy to employ against a stronger opponent.

 

[TurtleDude]

Time will tell, I suppose. You aren't in the majority, and brute force has historically been a poor strategy to employ against a stronger opponent.

actually we are.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

actually we are.

Most recent data indicates that around 64% favor more strict gun control, around 28% want it to stay the same, and only around 7% favor expanding gun rights.

Whence comes to your confidence that the majority of Americans are going to fight on your side in a civil war over gun control?

 

[TurtleDude]

Most recent data indicates that around 64% favor more strict gun control, around 28% want it to stay the same, and only around 7% favor expanding gun rights.

Whence comes to your confidence that the majority of Americans are going to fight on your side in a civil war over gun control?

most of those polls are outcome based designed to support gun control. Millions of new gun owners were created in the last six months.

 

[rickc]

Republicans always say the democrats are coming for your guns. It hasn't happened yet. They really thought Obama was going to get them. Best salesman for the gun business in history. Looks like Biden will beat Obama’s record for gun sales.

Republicans always run on a pro-life platform. When have they ever done anything after the election is over.

Don't listen to the rhetoric. Judge them on their past actions.

 

[TurtleDude]

Every year, thousands of police officers retire. Federal law enforcement officers such as FBI special agents, Deputy US Marshals, DEA agents, Secret Service Agents, and IRS CID agents are required to retire at age 57 (I know, I litigated this issue and it went to the USSC where the plaintiff was denied a W of C). While some of those people find other law enforcement jobs, most go into the private sector. And guess what, few if any of them want to be disarmed after they retire.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

most of those polls are outcome based designed to support gun control. Millions of new gun owners were created in the last six months.

That doesn't mean they will be against gun control. A lot of those guns were purchased just to pass out to all the Antifa protesters.

At any rate, most gun owners aren't even Republicans, much less extremists who would rather die in a blaze of glory than fill out the paperwork for a gun permit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Republicans always say the democrats are coming for your guns. It hasn't happened yet. They really thought Obama was going to get them. Best salesman for the gun business in history. Looks like Biden will beat Obama’s record for gun sales.

Republicans always run on a pro-life platform. When have they ever done anything after the election is over.

Don't listen to the rhetoric. Judge them on their past actions.

Do you deny that the democrats have done the following

1) caused the price of legally available automatic weapons to skyrocket due to the Hughes Amendment?

2) passed the Hughes Amendment, not for any crime control justification, but rather in a futile effort to derail the pro gun MVFAOPA?

3) tried to ban or have banned the sale and ownership of normal capacity magazines in several states

4) banned the sale of certain commonly owned semi automatic rifles in some states

5) banned the sale of ammunition by mail or required a background check to buy ammo

6) limited how many guns a month an honest citizen may buy

7) imposed waiting periods on honest citizens to buy firearms

 

[TurtleDude]

That doesn't mean they will be against gun control. A lot of those guns were purchased just to pass out to all the Antifa protesters.

At any rate, most gun owners aren't even Republicans, much less extremists who would rather die in a blaze of glory than fill out the paperwork for a gun permit.

you seem to think Democrats just want "permits"

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

you seem to think Democrats just want "permits"

I think the gun banners rely heavily on the inflexibility of folks like yourself. If there was bipartisan support for some kind of middle ground where people could collect as many M16s as they wanted, so long as they passed a background check, jumped through the right hoops, and got a permit, the far-left would no longer have the fuel to fire up their base about it. The gun owners that were willing to reach across the aisle would seem like the reasonable ones, and the gun banners would seem like the fringe extremists.

Instead, you have folks insisting that the 2nd amendment guarantees their right to own an ICBM without any kind of regulation at all. That kind of stuff makes it easy to paint the defenders of the 2nd amendment as the unreasonable extremists, and I think it's going to be their undoing.

 

[VanceMack]

The Dem politicians attack gun ownership because it works. It gets them votes from people who are in fact afraid of mass shootings.

The point of the OP is not that guns should be banned. Quite the contrary, the point of the OP is that reducing gun-related violence is the best strategy for preserving gun rights. Take the fuel away from that fire and it will disappear from the public consciousness.

Best way to reduce actual gun violence is to target the perpetrators of gun violence. The people advocating for gun bans...they have no stomach for targeting violent criminals.

 

[rickc]

Do you deny that the democrats have done the following

1) caused the price of legally available automatic weapons to skyrocket due to the Hughes Amendment?

2) passed the Hughes Amendment, not for any crime control justification, but rather in a futile effort to derail the pro gun MVFAOPA?

3) tried to ban or have banned the sale and ownership of normal capacity magazines in several states

4) banned the sale of certain commonly owned semi automatic rifles in some states

5) banned the sale of ammunition by mail or required a background check to buy ammo

6) limited how many guns a month an honest citizen may buy

7) imposed waiting periods on honest citizens to buy firearms

Hughes Amendment? Same one signed by Ronald Reagan

I buy loaded ammo, powder, primers, bullets, rifle components all over the internet.

Some states I wouldn't live in.

I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, or only being able to buy through an FFL. I don't want to buy a stolen gun.

Didn't realize they had a limit on how many you can buy a month.

 

[VanceMack]

I think the gun banners rely heavily on the inflexibility of folks like yourself. If there was bipartisan support for some kind of middle ground where people could collect as many M16s as they wanted, so long as they passed a background check, jumped through the right hoops, and got a permit, the far-left would no longer have the fuel to fire up their base about it. The gun owners that were willing to reach across the aisle would seem like the reasonable ones, and the gun banners would seem like the fringe extremists.

Instead, you have folks insisting that the 2nd amendment guarantees their right to own an ICBM without any kind of regulation at all. That kind of stuff makes it easy to paint the defenders of the 2nd amendment as the unreasonable extremists, and I think it's going to be their undoing.

Inflexibility? 1-why should people compromise on their rights? 2-In 1981 there were already over 20,000 anti-gun laws at the federal, state, and local level. Even if you discount the 40 states where state law supersedes local law and even if you only counted the federal laws you still have several hundred gun laws, to say nothing of the arbitrary findings of individuals in the BATF that gun owners are subject to.

Just how flexible do you expect people to be?

 

[countryboy]

So, what most Generation Z types are afraid of? Getting shot at school, work, a concert, the movie theater, etc.

Anytime one of these mass shootings occur, there's a swell in anti-gun reaction among voters.

Between mass shootings, guns are largely forgotten.

So, if you come up with a way to stop mass shootings, you'll never have to worry about someone taking your guns away.


There was a problem with automatic weapons back in the 1930s. They had too much firepower and crooks could overwhelm local police, robbing banks with impunity.

Congress passed a law restricting the ownership of automatic weapons. Everyone accepts it. It was just a common sense thing to do and it worked.

Why can't we come up with some common sense laws that will reduce mass shootings? The fewer mass shootings, the safer our guns are.

Such as?

Since when are God given rights predicated on the actions of a miniscule few criminals?

 

[TurtleDude]

Inflexibility? 1-why should people compromise on their rights? 2-In 1981 there were already over 20,000 anti-gun laws at the federal, state, and local level. Even if you discount the 40 states where state law supersedes local law and even if you only counted the federal laws you still have several hundred gun laws, to say nothing of the arbitrary findings of individuals in the BATF that gun owners are subject to.

Just how flexible do you expect people to be?

gun banners never ever will concede a gun law fails. Rather, when a gun law fails to reduce crime or violence, gun banners will call for additional restrictions. Ultimately, that is because harassing honest gun owners as a political weapon is their real goal, not crime reduction.

 

[TurtleDude]

Best way to reduce actual gun violence is to target the perpetrators of gun violence. The people advocating for gun bans...they have no stomach for targeting violent criminals.

many SJWs and other lefties, see criminals as the victims of an "unjust society" and loathe the thought of a "victim" being shot for doing something they have been forced to do. When asked about the real victims of violent crime, the gun banners tend to shrug and evade.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Inflexibility? 1-why should people compromise on their rights?

"Why should I bend in the wind?" quoth the oak before it fell.

 

[TurtleDude]

"Why should I bend in the wind?" quoth the oak before it fell.

you never answered the question-you want gun owners to compromise and claim if they don't, they will lose more. That is not an answer

 

[Chillfolks]

I think the gun banners rely heavily on the inflexibility of folks like yourself. If there was bipartisan support for some kind of middle ground where people could collect as many M16s as they wanted, so long as they passed a background check, jumped through the right hoops, and got a permit, the far-left would no longer have the fuel to fire up their base about it. The gun owners that were willing to reach across the aisle would seem like the reasonable ones, and the gun banners would seem like the fringe extremists.

Instead, you have folks insisting that the 2nd amendment guarantees their right to own an ICBM without any kind of regulation at all. That kind of stuff makes it easy to paint the defenders of the 2nd amendment as the unreasonable extremists, and I think it's going to be their undoing.

Flexablility is a two way street. Most of the people I've run across who want more regulations are not willing to offee up any flexablility.

 

[Integrityrespec]

So, what most Generation Z types are afraid of? Getting shot at school, work, a concert, the movie theater, etc.

Anytime one of these mass shootings occur, there's a swell in anti-gun reaction among voters.

Between mass shootings, guns are largely forgotten.

So, if you come up with a way to stop mass shootings, you'll never have to worry about someone taking your guns away.


There was a problem with automatic weapons back in the 1930s. They had too much firepower and crooks could overwhelm local police, robbing banks with impunity.

Congress passed a law restricting the ownership of automatic weapons. Everyone accepts it. It was just a common sense thing to do and it worked.

Why can't we come up with some common sense laws that will reduce mass shootings? The fewer mass shootings, the safer our guns are.

Just how many mass shootings have we seen? Where do the mass shootings take place? Nobody walks into an armed establishment and starts that. You want to take guns form law abiding Americans and only criminals will have guns. Are you silly enough to believe that crooks are going to give up their guns?

 

[TurtleDude]

Just how many mass shootings have we seen? Where do the mass shootings take place? Nobody walks into an armed establishment and starts that. You want to take guns form law abiding Americans and only criminals will have guns. Are you silly enough to believe that crooks are going to give up their guns?

gun control has nothing to do with crime control. its a weapon against conservative voters while pandering to the stupid

 

[post]

you're absolutely wrong. The Dems attack gun ownership because gun owners are one of the GOP's largest voting blocs. Mass shootings are not what motivates gun banners

Just the facts, please. 500+ wounded or killed in just one, "Lone Wolf" Las Vegas shooting incident. Responsible government prioritizes problems by the degree of threat to health, safety, and the economy, and is responsive, adaptive. IOW does not resort to denial or cave to special interests.

Ronald Reagan, the NRA and the 1994 assault weapons ban ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-nra-ronald-reagan-took-on-the-gun-lobby/
Mar 2, 2018President-elect Ronald Reagan introduced James Brady as his press secretary on Jan. 6, 1981. Brady became a crusader for gun control after the assassination attempt on Reagan left him partially ...

Las Vegas marks 3rd year since deadliest US mass shooting

The Courier|18 days ago
relaxed some statewide COVID-19 pandemic crowd restrictions. Authorities said more than 850 people were injured in the attack by a lone shooter firing from upper-floor windows of the Mandalay Bay ...

Many school buildings first floor windows were permanently sealed in response to school shootings. What is the security protocol
for conducting outside classes during a LINGERING pandemic?

As We Return To Work And School During The Pandemic, Can ...
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/20/9035...ing-the-pandemic-can-the-air-inside-be-kept-s
Aug 20, 2020Changes to ventilation — everything from opening windows to making pricey upgrades to HVAC systems — can help reduce the risk of the coronavirus being spread inside a building.

 

[TurtleDude]

Just the facts, please. 500+ wounded or called in just one, "Lone Wolf" Las Vegas shooting incident. Responsible government prioritizes problems by the degree of threat to health, safety, and the economy, and is responsive, adaptive. IOW does not resort to denial or cave to special interests.

Ronald Reagan, the NRA and the 1994 assault weapons ban ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-nra-ronald-reagan-took-on-the-gun-lobby/
Mar 2, 2018President-elect Ronald Reagan introduced James Brady as his press secretary on Jan. 6, 1981. Brady became a crusader for gun control after the assassination attempt on Reagan left him partially ...

Las Vegas marks 3rd year since deadliest US mass shooting

The Courier|18 days ago
relaxed some statewide COVID-19 pandemic crowd restrictions. Authorities said more than 850 people were injured in the attack by a lone shooter firing from upper-floor windows of the Mandalay Bay ...

Many school buildings first floor windows were permanently sealed in response to school shootings. What is the security protocol
for conducting outside classes during a LINGERING pandemic?

As We Return To Work And School During The Pandemic, Can ...
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/20/9035...ing-the-pandemic-can-the-air-inside-be-kept-s
Aug 20, 2020Changes to ventilation — everything from opening windows to making pricey upgrades to HVAC systems — can help reduce the risk of the coronavirus being spread inside a building.

its amazing watching this spewing of nonsensical articles. Paddock was a multimillionaire, with two planes and spent 3 years plotting his massacre. What laws would have stopped him?

 

[post]

its amazing watching this spewing of nonsensical articles. Paddock was a multimillionaire, with two planes and spent 3 years plotting his massacre. What laws would have stopped him?

I own a semi-automatic assault style rifle and since the state I reside in has no restrictions, I purchased an extra capacity magazine.
I've resided in NY state and in NYC in the past, so I am aware of pros and cons of strict gun control laws. I'm willing to cooperate in any coherent, restrictive scheme, for the greater good. I do not trust government or politicians, but I am not CT "altered". I deeply admire former Senator Russ Feingold for his "no vote" on the Patriot Act,
but found his official fealty to the state of Israel incompatible with his representation of the population of a U.S. state.

IOW, I consider myself a reasonable, informed, U.S. citizen.

New Zealand Ban on Most Semiautomatic Weapons Takes Effect ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/world/australia/new-zealand-gun-ban.html
Dec 20, 2019A sweeping nationwide ban on most semiautomatic weapons took effect in New Zealand on Saturday, as a monthslong gun buyback and amnesty program ended amid debate over its success.

What Joe Biden Can Learn from Jacinda Ardern

The Nation|6 hours ago
The reelection of New Zealand's prime minister was "one for the history books." Her formula for success was simple.

Landslide victory for Jacinda Ardern

The Telegraph|5 hours ago
The prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, delivered the biggest election victory for the centre-left Labour Party in half a century last Saturday, with voters rewarding the leader for her effective response in combating the Covid-19 pandemic ("Jacinda in biggest election victory",

Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"....Decision
On May 15, 1939, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, decided on the National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In addition, Justice McReynolds wrote:....[6]..."

 

[TurtleDude]

I own a semi-automatic assault style rifle and since the state I reside in has no restrictions, I purchased an extra capacity magazine.
I've resided in NY state and in NYC in the past, so I am aware of pros and cons of strict gun control laws. I'm willing to cooperate in any coherent, restrictive scheme, for the greater good. I do not trust government or politicians, but I am not CT "altered". I deeply admire former Senator Russ Feingold for his "no vote" on the Patriot Act,
but found his official fealty to the state of Israel incompatible with his representation of the population of a U.S. state.

IOW, I consider myself a reasonable, informed, U.S. citizen.

New Zealand Ban on Most Semiautomatic Weapons Takes Effect ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/world/australia/new-zealand-gun-ban.html
Dec 20, 2019A sweeping nationwide ban on most semiautomatic weapons took effect in New Zealand on Saturday, as a monthslong gun buyback and amnesty program ended amid debate over its success.

What Joe Biden Can Learn from Jacinda Ardern

The Nation|6 hours ago
The reelection of New Zealand's prime minister was "one for the history books." Her formula for success was simple.

Landslide victory for Jacinda Ardern

The Telegraph|5 hours ago
The prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, delivered the biggest election victory for the centre-left Labour Party in half a century last Saturday, with voters rewarding the leader for her effective response in combating the Covid-19 pandemic ("Jacinda in biggest election victory",

Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"....Decision
On May 15, 1939, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, decided on the National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In addition, Justice McReynolds wrote:....[6]..."

what sort of restrict schemes do you support and how do they "advance" the greater good? NZ laws have zero relevance to us. Would you agree that Miller can be read as supporting citizens being able to keep the standard issue infantry rifle?