2nd Amendment "rules" should apply to the 14th Amendment

[montana]

Patience, grasshopper. Just because you can spend 16 hours a day on the forum, doesn't mean all of us can. Some of us have other things to do.

And right now I need to take my post-lunch nap.

Master, that is one hell of a post-lunch nap!

[Lemonaid]

A simple question.
Which gun control law has done the most to stop or prevent crime?
Gut response is "Never has and never will", but if someone can point me to the data I would like to evaluate the cost benefit ratio.

[keystone183]

Which questions did I not answer??? Please elaborate. I have no problem with criticism, "but when it is just bitching without any alternatives or solutions" it just becomes a bitch session which is neither constructive or helpful..My ideas maybe wrong and impractical, but I have not heard any ideas at all from the complainers. Complicated or difficult, we will keep losing our 2ndA rights if things do not change. So what are your ideas or suggestions to these problems, "I have asked repeatedly of others" without any replies???

Posts 28,39, 58, 61 after a brief perusal.

Here's a quick idea. We say to the left...... OK, you want to stop mass shootings, get a firearm and learn to use it. This will give you the peace of mind that you want, and more than you will find thru more government regulation.

This seems to me a workable compromise to your suggestion.

[montana]

Posts 28,39, 58, 61 after a brief perusal.

Here's a quick idea. We say to the left...... OK, you want to stop mass shootings, get a firearm and learn to use it. This will give you the peace of mind that you want, and more than you will find thru more government regulation.

This seems to me a workable compromise to your suggestion.

Post 28- answered on post 31, post 39- answered on post 40 , post 59- answered on post 70, post 61 answered on post 63.

We are not going to say anything to the left. They will always try to destroy the 2ndA, and reasoning with the left is pointless. Like I stated before, it is the fence sitting non-gun owners we have to win over. Mandatory safety and firearm instruction requirements with vetting like CC holders would be preferable to gun bans or abused red flag laws in my opinion. If people disagree, "hell I'm open to suggestions" but all I have gotten was bitching and moaning with zero suggestions or alternatives. Giving no more compromises maybe the way to go, but make a credible argument on how this wont alienate the fence sitters that can make or break our 2ndA rights come election time.. In a perfect world there would be no gun laws, mass murderers would be publicly hanged for all to see after a quick trial. The Constitution would be adhered to perfectly with all rights, privileges, and responsibilities given. This is pie in the sky since many people on this gun forum cannot even agree on the meaning of the 2ndA, let alone the millions of leftist in this nation. Bitching like a little girl is easy, but finding real solutions is not. I will give you credit, when forced to put up or shut up "you are the only one who stood up with a suggestion.

[keystone183]

Two part reply.... One of which might wait till my after dinner and drink nap.... ....

Perhaps my reading comp is shot, or I'm just especially dense. But here is my direct question. Do you think your proposed solutions will eleminate (completely stop) these atrocities?

If no, is giving more regulatory power to the government a one time concession?

Please, no soliloquies...

[stanc]

Master, that is one hell of a post-lunch nap!

Yeah, it was about twice as long as usual. I stayed up way too late last night and only got 3 hours sleep, so I was trying to make up the deficit.

But, I didn't say a nap was the only thing I had to do today.

1200-1300 Lunch
1300-1315 Read new posts in 65grendel forum, MG&A forum, 68forums
1315-1500 Nap
1500-1515 Empty ostomy pouch
1515-1700 "Pull" workout (back & biceps)
1700-1800 Dinner
1800-1900 Read new posts in 65grendel forum, MG&A forum, 68forums*
1900-1915 Empty ostomy pouch
1915-2000 Nap
2000-2100 "Push" workout (Shoulders, chest & triceps)
2100-2115 Read new posts in 65grendel forum, MG&A forum, 68forums
2115-2145 Respond to grasshoppers complaint above

*There is a nearly identical discussion in 68forums.

[montana]

Two part reply.... One of which might wait till my after dinner and drink nap.... ....

Perhaps my reading comp is shot, or I'm just especially dense. But here is my direct question. Do you think your proposed solutions will eleminate (completely stop) these atrocities?

If no, is giving more regulatory power to the government a one time concession?

Please, no soliloquies...

No, there is no solution that will eliminate atrocities. That would depend on what you would consider a one time concession. I have seen it go both ways. Now don't avoid my question and answer how you would deal with the non-shooting public that can make or break our 2ndA rights come election time.

[montana]

Yeah, it was about twice as long as usual. I stayed up way too late last night and only got 3 hours sleep, so I was trying to make up the deficit.

But, I didn't say a nap was the only thing I had to do today.

1200-1300 Lunch
1300-1315 Read new posts in 65grendel forum, MG&A forum, 68forums
1315-1500 Nap
1500-1515 Empty ostomy pouch
1515-1700 "Pull" workout (back & biceps)
1700-1800 Dinner
1800-1900 Read new posts in 65grendel forum, MG&A forum, 68forums*
1900-1915 Empty ostomy pouch
1915-2000 Nap
2000-2100 "Push" workout (Shoulders, chest & triceps)
2100-2115 Read new posts in 65grendel forum, MG&A forum, 68forums
2115-2145 Respond to grasshoppers complaint above

*There is a nearly identical discussion in 68forums.

With that schedule, Grass hopper is fortunate to get any amount of time for his complaint

[stanc]

I didn't say firearm training is a bad idea. I asked how is your proposed mandatory training supposed to stop mass shootings?

I'm getting double teamed ;0

Heh, heh. Welcome to my world.

The more trained good guys with guns the higher the % there will be some one to stop them.

That does not explain how requiring federally mandated training is likely to make a discernible difference versus not having federally mandated training.

Your proposed mandatory training won't increase the number of good guys with guns. At best, it just increases their proficiency by an unknown amount.

What is your solutions to these problems Stan?

I don't have a solution. I'm not sure there is a solution. I am sure the problems won't be solved by requiring federally mandated training to own a gun.

[stanc]

This is nothing new to human culture. How many have accepted the rule of a King at the expense of personal freedom for generations?

Reagan may have been prophetic about the tree of liberty needing refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time.

Uh, you misspelled Jefferson...

[Double Naught Spy]

That does not explain how requiring federally mandated training is likely to make a discernible difference versus not having federally mandated training.

Your proposed mandatory training won't increase the number of good guys with guns. At best, it just increases their proficiency by an unknown amount.

We have lots of people who can carry guns by permits in may issue states and there are several states that do not require permits at all, yet the problem isn't the number of people who can carry, it is the number of people who actually do carry. It is only small fraction that actually do. I will tell you what, montana, you want a way that will help, I will give you one to try and it won't depend on the kindness of strangers to fund it. All you need to do is to get the laws changed that will allow people with carry permits to not be excluded from carrying their guns on any property. That will require changes in the law not making landowners and employers liable in any way for actions that result from the discharge of said guns. Once people with carry permits are no longer barred from carrying in many places, a lot more will carry on a regular basis. I still don't think it will be any sort of deterrent, but it will make responses quicker when there are actually permit holders and other who are present and armed. Mandated training won't do a lot of good if people can't take their guns with them EVERYWHERE they go like cops. When they can't, gun management becomes a hassle and people just leave their guns at home. Of course, getting the laws changes is as insurmountable as getting ammo companies to donate free ammo for people to take federally mandated training.

I don't have a solution. I'm not sure there is a solution.I am sure the problems won't be solved by requiring federally mandated training to own a gun.

Remember, it is not a solution if it doesn't work. It is just a response. With that said, mass shootings weren't solved by the presence of trained cops with guns, either. Not at the Detroit Police substation shooting (4 officers shot)
[video=youtube;P21rjGAuhBo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21rjGAuhBo[/video],

the Las Vegas shooting, Tyler courthouse shooting, or the Dallas protest parade officer (and others) shooting. Of course, the finally used a bomb to blow up this shooter.

For mass shooters who don't plan to make it out alive, guns are NOT a deterrent and to suggest otherwise is naive.

[Double Naught Spy]

The Las Vegas shooting where officers were present at the venue where people were shot.
[video=youtube;B6fE2JkvVoo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fE2JkvVoo[/video]

[Double Naught Spy]

Tyler courthouse shooting where officers are always present at the courthouse during court days...
[video=youtube;_lvw8QR26Kc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lvw8QR26Kc[/video]

[Double Naught Spy]

Dallas protest parade officer (and others) shooting. Police were targeted, particularly white officers.
[video=youtube;Y_2ZoVdX5yM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2ZoVdX5yM[/video]

[montana]

We have lots of people who can carry guns by permits in may issue states and there are several states that do not require permits at all, yet the problem isn't the number of people who can carry, it is the number of people who actually do carry. It is only small fraction that actually do.

I will tell you what, montana, you want a way that will help, I will give you one to try and it won't depend on the kindness of strangers to fund it. All you need to do is to get the laws changed that will allow people with carry permits to not be excluded from carrying their guns on any property. That will require changes in the law not making landowners and employers liable in any way for actions that result from the discharge of said guns. Once people with carry permits are no longer barred from carrying in many places, a lot more will carry on a regular basis. I still don't think it will be any sort of deterrent, but it will make responses quicker when there are actually permit holders and other who are present and armed. Mandated training won't do a lot of good if people can't take their guns with them EVERYWHERE they go like cops. When they can't, gun management becomes a hassle and people just leave their guns at home. Of course, getting the laws changes is as insurmountable as getting ammo companies to donate free ammo for people to take federally mandated training.

Being Armed or unarmed, people have a right to choose, but forcing private property owners to allow armed citizens will never occur. This is some real pie in the sky thinking. There are establishments that wont allow cops on their property, so this is a non issue.

Remember, it is not a solution if it doesn't work. It is just a response. With that said, mass shootings weren't solved by the presence of trained cops with guns, either. Not at the Detroit Police substation shooting (4 officers shot)
[video=youtube;P21rjGAuhBo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21rjGAuhBo[/video],

the Las Vegas shooting, Tyler courthouse shooting, or the Dallas protest parade officer (and others) shooting. Of course, the finally used a bomb to blow up this shooter.

For mass shooters who don't plan to make it out alive, guns are NOT a deterrent and to suggest otherwise is naive.

Yup, a lot of crazy people in the world. There will never be a total solution and it will only be a response. Stephen Willford responded and stopped Devin Kelley with his personal AR-15.https://sanantonioteaparty.us/14541-2/ . Micah Xavier Johnson was not the first person to be stopped with a bomb, "in 1985 Philadelphia" the authorities dropped a bomb on a group of black liberation movement's residence. https://mashable.com/2016/01/10/1985-move-bombing/

I grew up with this guy and was good friends with his brother.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Nance

I was also good friends with Ned and was in a Martial arts with him when this piece of work murdered him and his wife.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/deat...ord441.htm

I have other personal stories I wont bore you with. The history of our 2ndA is a history of compromise with give and take. One thing I do know, "as gun owners" we better come up with a plan the average non shooting citizen will feel comfortable with or we will lose our gun rights. .

[bpgast]

No, there is no solution that will eliminate atrocities. That would depend on what you would consider a one time concession. I have seen it go both ways. Now don't avoid my question and answer how you would deal with the non-shooting public that can make or break our 2ndA rights come election time.

The answer is education and truth. I agree education is the answer, but not mandatory training for people how to use their Rights, but to educate the "non-shooting public" what a Right is, what it means, and why these rights are so important. The wrong answer is to give up anymore Rights!

The progressive movement is in this for the long game, and lets be very clear, they want our Rights taken away! Little by little, they are winning, because we are willing to slowly give up our Rights. Maybe not this years, or the next ten years, but maybe our great grandchildren, or their great Grandchildren. If every 50 years we concede to giving up what we precise as a small part of our right, in 200 yrs we would have given up everything.

We and the "non-shooting public" have been convinced this is about guns and the 2nd. This is about ALL RIGHTS!

The absolute incorrect answer is to give up anything when it comes to a right. WE CAN NOT GIVE UP ANYTHING, not just for us, but for FREEDOM, our childrens FREEDOM, and generations 200yrs from now FREEDOM. We need to play the long game too!

Will education and Truth be easy, no! Is it right and Just, YES! My generation lives in the now, what will I get from this, how will this help me, what is the least amount of work/effort I can give to accomplish my goal. For this Truth, I apologize to all that have came before us and given the ultimate sacrifice for Freedom. We need to learn from the generations before us what it truly means to be a man, and fight for Freedom and Truth.

[stanc]

The history of our 2ndA is a history of compromise with give and take.

There has been no give. All of the compromise has resulted only in take. The laws being advocated here will only result in more take.

One thing I do know, "as gun owners" we better come up with a plan the average non shooting citizen will feel comfortable with or we will lose our gun rights.

Trying to make the average non-shooting citizen "feel comfortable" will likely accomplish only one thing: More erosion of those rights.

You want a plan? How about this. Take a page from the Civil Rights playbook: Get gun owners to refuse to comply with all gun laws.

[Double Naught Spy]

Being Armed or unarmed, people have a right to choose, but forcing private property owners to allow armed citizens will never occur. This is some real pie in the sky thinking. There are establishments that wont allow cops on their property, so this is a non issue.

And yet your solution to a deterrent to mass shootings is to get ammo companies to donate ammo, instructors to provide free instruction, etc. to millions of gun owners. The idea I presented (which isn't actually mine at all) may be a pie in the sky, but it isn't the whole dinner like yours.

Even if they got the training, they aren't going to carry. They don't carry now. Only a fraction of the people who can carry do carry on any sort of a regular basis. That won't be corrected by teaching them to shoot better.

[montana]

And yet your solution to a deterrent to mass shootings is to get ammo companies to donate ammo, instructors to provide free instruction, etc. to millions of gun owners. The idea I presented (which isn't actually mine at all) may be a pie in the sky, but it isn't the whole dinner like yours.

Even if they got the training, they aren't going to carry. They don't carry now. Only a fraction of the people who can carry do carry on any sort of a regular basis. That won't be corrected by teaching them to shoot better.

I never said CC would end all mass shootings, "but with a better trained populace" the odds would be much better than an armed, untrained populace. With your logic drivers ed is a waste of time. Plus, "and the main point"" it would shut down the narrative that gun owners are not trained or vetted.
So what you are saying is there will be millions of gun owners that can afford guns, but can not afford a small registration fee and a few boxes of ammo for qualification instruction and testing as they do for hunters safety. In hunter safety, we have donations and volunteers to help under privileged kids get into hunting, but this is an impossible task on a national scale in your opinion. Must be the same group of millions who can purchase hunting rifles, but can not afford the hunting license. Yet some how, the Congress and President will pass a must allow armed citizens on private property with over half the nation voting anti-gun democrat.OK........... next opinion!

[montana]

There has been no give. All of the compromise has resulted only in take. The laws being advocated here will only result in more take..

In my past, conceiled carry was illegal but is legal today. Dealers don't have to record all ammunition sales from a federal mandate like they use too. Cities can not ban handguns like they use to since the last ruling from the Supreme court. The federal assault weapon ban was not reinstated. Sounds like we got to take some there.

Trying to make the average non-shooting citizen "feel comfortable" will likely accomplish only one thing: More erosion of those rights.

You want a plan? How about this. Take a page from the Civil Rights playbook: Get gun owners to refuse to comply with all gun laws.

This I can not argue with, since I have no way of knowing how any mandate for increased vetting or instruction could play out. Your last suggestion maybe the right or only way that could work. Thanks for playing