Guns In America

originally posted by: AntiTrump
What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items.

None. My rights don't end where sheoply feewings begin.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AntiTrump

While not truly an anti-gun liberal, I will share that I think the statistics over the past 4 decades supports getting firearms out of the hands of most americans. I grew up on US Army bases around the world. Most, not all and I'll get to that, were kept in armories. My father, an officer, kept his sidearm at home, in a gun safe that I never even knew where it was and it was only taken out when he was officer of the day and required to wear one. That's two points 1) verifiable statistics and 2) how the military handles firearms under their purview.

Now to the Responsible Gun Owner trope. I know several gun owners that are very responsible in storing and maintaining their 'arsenal' however few of those practice their 'skill' regularly on a range (and I mean weekly). This ain't the movies folks - if you don't practice you don't hit what you are aiming at which isn't so good for 'sefl-protection' (maybe that's why gun enthusiasts prefer semi or full auto weapons, a simple lack of skill).

Now to a point that includes hunters in it. I have no trouble with hunting per se (see the semi/full auto remark above) so let's get to the 'responsibility' issue once again. Why is no liability insurance required on all weapons for damage to life and property like is required for our home, our vehicles and our professions?

A nationwide insurance mandate (nasty word that - I'll say again mandate) would begin to draw down the sheer number of firearms in the hands of 'responsible' people. Yes, I know you will say that criminals and other less than responsible citizens, will not comply which further argues against the "responsible gun owner' trope. Prove that you are responsible and have thought through your ownership.

It is a shame that there are more weapons designed to kill people in the hands of americans then there are citizens. And those weapons are in only 40% of households.

Think on this.

Cites military experience and knowledge …… never served a minute.
Tells us that we aren’t responsible or skilled enough according to …… his / her standards. Knows nothing about any of us.
Mentions hunting with fully auto weapons.
Announces we should have to buy insurance.
Orders us to prove something or other to their exacting standards.
“Knows some people” who own guns.
Cites pointless stats that prove nothing, but sound ominous.

Yes, we got us a fully trained lefty, large and in charge.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

Take the word "gun" out of "gun control" and that's all that it is at the end of the day.

Shall not be infringed.

Period.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

My guns will never be pointed at you, and will never even be in my hands anywhere near you. I will never be anywhere near your rights. So you are hereby relieved of the right to ask me anything else annoying and pointless.
We know that the vast majority of leftists and liberals have an ultimate goal of no guns in citizens’ hands. So the fake question of them is fake.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

I'll give it a shot. See what I did there?

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

If too many of them were to get their way? None. As that would somehow, magically, make all the bad things go away.

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

Oddly enough, the same answer as above, though for completely differing reasons. None. Why should I, my guns, regardless of type, have harmed no one, God forbid, I ever have to use them to do so.

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .

A federal stamp, eh? To make confiscation easier. Yeah, no. Again, you're attempting to make it more difficult for people who've done nothing wrong--and likely, never will. Why, so some corrupted politician can beat his breast claiming to have saved the Universe as we know it? Again, no.

Shall not be infringed.

If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.

Oh, and they're not already headed in that direction?? Red Flag Laws ring a bell?? Those have already cost innocents their lives.

I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

I know people who hunt with their "tactical" rifles. ...and just out of curiosity, what the devil is a "tactical rifle"? My Savage 30-30 bolt action is a "tactical rifle" under certain circumstances--as I can reach out and touch a target at several hundred yards...is that "tactical"? Or is it just those scary, scary black rifles??

I'm looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

No you're not. It's always the same, those of us who support, without restriction, the 2nd amendment are always the ones who "should compromise", never the Anti-2nd folks.

So, no. NO compromise. You want 'em, come get 'em. Just pack a lunch, it's gonna be a long day.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Nothing. Not one damned thing would they give up.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You can't have my two-shot derringer. No. Not ever. Outta my cold dead hand.

a reply to: beyondknowledge2

They can always call the cops, right??

I mean when seconds count, they're minutes away. No problem.

I live in a rural county in Alabama (that's still so strange to type...), the cops/deputies are, through no fault of their own, 10 minutes, or more, away.

There are others here, who would have an even longer wait. That's one of the reasons I own firearms. Not the only reason, but one of 'em.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

None.

We don't have a gun problem in America, we have a criminal problem.

originally posted by: AntiTrump
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

No, that's the exact reason the founders granted us the right to bear arms. They gave us the opportunity to keep our government in check. Not to allow it to steamroll over us like in Britain. The founding fathers meant for us to kill those who would trample us, not guarantee our hunting capability.

And finally, you don't know what a "tactical rifle" is.

a reply to: AntiTrump

I think the key is really to create laws or really enforce existing ones to make sure its much harder for people with felonies and/or mental issues from getting guns.

Also, possibly restricting or making it very difficult for people to buy multiple guns. There is a big market for legal gun owners that buy muliple guns each year at auctions and other events and then sell them to criminals.

Check out "Trafficked with Mariana van Zeller" the guns episode for an example how a family of u.s. citizens buy MANY guns legally each year to turn around and sell to the Cartel.

Non-criminal citizens should be able to defend themselves but there is many issues that are not being address as the paranoia of "they'll take our gun rights away" often prevents reforms. Plus the NRA having massive lobbying power.

a reply to: Ulven

We also have mental health problems as well. It's far too easy for criminals and those with mental issues from obtaining guns. There needs to be further reforms on either enforcing existing laws or creating new ones.

I think the solutions are complex and require multiple approaches that many politicians aren't really seeking to address.

I also do agree with the right to bear arms to prevent the possability of a tyranical government. So I have no issue with people owning rifles. But clearly, we do have a gun issue with all these mass shootings.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: AntiTrump

I think the key is really to create laws or really enforce existing ones to make sure its much harder for people with felonies and/or mental issues from getting guns.

Also, possibly restricting or making it very difficult for people to buy multiple guns. There is a big market for legal gun owners that buy muliple guns each year at auctions and other events and then sell them to criminals.

Check out "Trafficked with Mariana van Zeller" the guns episode for an example how a family of u.s. citizens buy MANY guns legally each year to turn around and sell to the Cartel.

Non-criminal citizens should be able to defend themselves but there is many issues that are not being address as the paranoia of "they'll take our gun rights away" often prevents reforms. Plus the NRA having massive lobbying power.

*Sigh*

It's already illegal to buy guns to sell to others, ie; trafficking.

If the left would stop talking about taking our guns away, then maybe we'd settle down and not worry so much.

oh and another of the first gun laws was each and every able bodied man shall have a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket. no mention as to how many he could carry.

Where are you from? You sound like a person that comes from a country where their government keeps them safe from the scary guns. What are these upcoming gun laws you speak of? Unconstitutional.....

originally posted by: AntiTrump
My questions to the members of ATS are as follows

What guns are liberals willing to accept as constitutional rights to bear ?

What guns are conservatives willing to let go to satisfy the rights of others ?

I for one don’t support a complete ban on guns , but believe that semiautomatic rifles that shoot more than 10rds before a reload should be required to carry a federal stamp like other advanced items .
If the gun lobby continues to cling to semiautomatic high power rifles with high capacity functions, the inevitable gun laws will become more draconian in nature.
I believe that gun people need to end their obsession with tactical rifles designed to kill people rather than animals on a hunt .

Im looking for compromise ideas from both sides.

Long time lurker. Just joined. My 2 cents, wrote this a few years ago.

THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

Lets look at how our Republic was formed and why the basic foundation is “the right of the people.”

There was a big sit-down on March 4, 1789. A sit-down to explain the intent of the soon-to-be-written Bill of Rights:

www.class.uh.edu...

Our Founders left no ambiguity. They were afraid of absolute power in anyone’s hands, be those the hands of a despot, president, or even career politicians. They included a preamble to the Bill of Rights. I bet it’s not taught in schools today. I wonder why?

“THE CONVENTION OF A NUMBER OF THE STATES, HAVING AT THE TIME OF THEIR ADOPTING THE CONSTITUTION, EXPRESSED A DESIRE, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, THAT FURTHER DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES SHOULD BE ADDED: AND AS EXTENDING THE GROUND OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT, WILL BEST ENSURE THE BENEFICENT ENDS OF ITS INSTITUTION.”

Read that again. Its the intent behind the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, or the Constitution for that matter, gives nothing to you, grants nothing. Your rights are from God. The Bill of Rights is a limiter on government. It spells out what the government cannot do.

Our Founders fought a war for our independence. They sacrificed their lives in some cases to give us this republic. As Ben Franklin was walking out of the 1787 Constitutional Convention a woman reportedly asked what kind of government the representatives had given the newborn nation. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied. Strong words, strong warning.

Can we keep it? That’s up to us.

Think of it this way: the Second Amendment is the fourth branch of government. It confirms the people’s right to redress grievances on their own if government ceases to respect their rights. It informs the three branches of government that are defined in the body of the Constitution that individual Americans are ultimately the rightful masters of them all. It is our responsibility as citizens to know this. The best definition of the Second Amendment comes from the Silveira v. Lockyer decision from the 9th circuit court:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9thCircuit Court, 2003

I am sure some readers are going, “Wait. Here he goes about a government run amok, trampling our rights, turning citizens into subjects ….” Well, yes, I am going there. Not to sing songs about standing and fighting an oppressive government, but to warn about what a government has to finally do to conquer the populace: the populace must be disarmed.

A Russian journalist from Pravda wrote an article begging Americans not to give up their firearms. He said:

english.pravda.ru...

"Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot. …For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves."

It’s not about gun control, it never was. It’s about people control in the guise of safety. Public safety, police officer safety, or the ever popular “its for the children.”

Safety is not a right. It is every adult’s individual responsibility. No one can protect you but you. The police cannot protect you. They can come and do the report after you are attacked and/or dead. The government cannot protect you. They can strip all your rights from you “for your own good” and still they cannot protect you. It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your interests.

Our Founders knew this. They had a healthy disdain for government, where power rested in the hands of one or a very few. They lived through years of government abuses. That is why the “rights of the people” is the cornerstone of the republic.

The gun grabbers are always the people who believe in big, powerful government. Ever wonder why that is? They want to give us "their notion" of an orderly society. They say this society would be based on shared prosperity, shared sacrifice, and economic justice, with everyone paying their “fair share.”

But are you getting the underlying message? Their idea of justice demands other people making sacrifices to fulfill the goals of elite central controllers. They know those other people — you and I — are going to object.

They can’t achieve what they want with an armed populace. They do not want individuals capable of defending their own interests, their own rights. They need and want drones.

The Second Amendment defines our right — our right to self defense, given to us by God. Any restrictions on the right to bear arms — any — is chipping away at our core. Although all human beings, and all animals, have the right to defend themselves with the best weapons at their disposal, the United States is the only country in the world whose Founders defined and codified that right from the beginning.

As the Pravda article noted:

“These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.”

If we lose the Second Amendment, if we let more restrictions neuter our natural right, we lose the soul of this republic.

I am not going to be a drone. Are you?

a reply to: MPI80

Excellent!👍

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: AntiTrump

While not truly an anti-gun liberal, I will share that I think the statistics over the past 4 decades supports getting firearms out of the hands of most americans. I grew up on US Army bases around the world. Most, not all and I'll get to that, were kept in armories. My father, an officer, kept his sidearm at home, in a gun safe that I never even knew where it was and it was only taken out when he was officer of the day and required to wear one. That's two points 1) verifiable statistics and 2) how the military handles firearms under their purview.

Now to the Responsible Gun Owner trope. I know several gun owners that are very responsible in storing and maintaining their 'arsenal' however few of those practice their 'skill' regularly on a range (and I mean weekly). This ain't the movies folks - if you don't practice you don't hit what you are aiming at which isn't so good for 'sefl-protection' (maybe that's why gun enthusiasts prefer semi or full auto weapons, a simple lack of skill).

Now to a point that includes hunters in it. I have no trouble with hunting per se (see the semi/full auto remark above) so let's get to the 'responsibility' issue once again. Why is no liability insurance required on all weapons for damage to life and property like is required for our home, our vehicles and our professions?

A nationwide insurance mandate (nasty word that - I'll say again mandate) would begin to draw down the sheer number of firearms in the hands of 'responsible' people. Yes, I know you will say that criminals and other less than responsible citizens, will not comply which further argues against the "responsible gun owner' trope. Prove that you are responsible and have thought through your ownership.

It is a shame that there are more weapons designed to kill people in the hands of americans then there are citizens. And those weapons are in only 40% of households.

Think on this.

Like you, I grew up in a military family and had the exact same experience. Like you, I'm not anti-gun... but I do have a problem with some aspects of the gun culture. And I'm also liberal (as we all know.)

It strikes me that we're talking about two different kinds of homicide and injury here - acts that are directed against a single target (person or family) and acts that are directed against a lot of people (mass shootings.) An example here in Texas is this story of a woman shot and killed by an abusive husband versus the Uvalde Texas shooting and it highlights how different the situations are.

One was from a known offender, where "red flag" laws can help stop them (yes, in some cases it's overreach. However... in many cases it's not.) In other cases (mass shooting) there aren't many laws that could prevent this, and some of the ones that could have in the past were taken off the books by lawmakers.

I'm a fan of "treat them like cars" - NATIONAL licensing (state licensing is... all over the place), insurance, and safety training (some parents who have had family members shot by toddlers who found guns clearly didn't have any safety training or common sense).

It won't, of course, solve the problem entirely because sometimes guns are used as a political statement (to start a "race war" as an example) so the truth is there's no easy answer. Community programs may or may not help in a situation like this.

So... (going Full Metal Academic here) what you see is called a "wicked problem" - a "problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize"

Looked at as a "wicked problem" you can recognize that there's actually no solution. You can make a situation better or you can make it worse but you're not going to be able to solve it. What works for one area won't work for another area.

So maybe the real approach is something like "women are often shot to death by husbands who are legal gun owners with no criminal history. How do we reduce this statistic?" or "what can we do to reduce the number of family killings by family members?" Look at small chunks of the problem and see how it can be addressed.

If the government/military can own an A-10 warthog then SO SHOULD I.

2nd.

originally posted by: Turquosie
a reply to: AntiTrump

I think the key is really to create laws or really enforce existing ones to make sure its much harder for people with felonies and/or mental issues from getting guns.

Also, possibly restricting or making it very difficult for people to buy multiple guns. There is a big market for legal gun owners that buy muliple guns each year at auctions and other events and then sell them to criminals.

Check out "Trafficked with Mariana van Zeller" the guns episode for an example how a family of u.s. citizens buy MANY guns legally each year to turn around and sell to the Cartel.

Non-criminal citizens should be able to defend themselves but there is many issues that are not being address as the paranoia of "they'll take our gun rights away" often prevents reforms. Plus the NRA having massive lobbying power.

A FAMILY.

Out of ~ 350 million people.

Nice try. No wait, not even a nice try.

Your whole belief system formed by one silly TV show.
Can only lol.

originally posted by: VrilSeeker
If the government/military can own an A-10 warthog then SO SHOULD I.

2nd.

Other than not having one single example of this in real adult world ….. what point were you trying to make ?
And it’s probably possible to do, anyway. Weapons decommissioned / removed, just an airplane. Somebody like Bezos or Musk could buy one. Maybe even keep the Gatling gun with a proper ATF license.