Another mass shooting

[KUTradition]

expanded background checks, red flag laws, reduced magazine capacity, assault-style bans, national registry, bump-stock ban, 3-D printing ban etc…

those are all efforts at compromise, imo

edit: not to mention actually allowing the CDC to study the issue

[DCHawk1]

some days…

The only reason I asked Fish is, as I said, I am curious. He is an anomaly, at least on this board: i.e. a lawyer who was at one point at least marginally right-leaning, who has, moved away from that position.

Given that the origin of rights is one issue that traditionally separates right from left, I am curious what his views on this are and if they had changed as well or remained stable.

I know it's a bit outside the current debate over whether Randy is a violent rube or the rest of you are violent gun grabbers, but...c'est la vie...

violent gun grabber…giggle

you know i own guns, right?

Giggle indeed.

Do you think randy sees himself as a violent rube?

I mean...this isn't hard.

[TDub]

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.

I see the EXACT opposite.

See randylahey for an example.

I think you've been told ad nausea that banning guns is the ultimate goal. I actually don't know anyone personally (correction, I don't know any American personally) who wants to ban guns. But this is the huge fear propagated largely by the NRA.

I just simple don't see it this way, and I think the fear is unfounded. It's constitutionally protected. It's hard to get a constitutional amendment, it would be really hard to amend something from the Bill of Rights. So, I just don't buy this slippery slope argument.

But, freedom of speech, which is a 1st amendment right, and, I'd argue a much more important and fundamental right, than owning a gun, has ALL KINDS of limits placed on it, and we accept that, and I don't think anyone wants to ban speech. You can't buy or sell child pornography, you can't commit fraud, you can't commit slander or libel, you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a movie theater, you can't threaten people in certain ways.

If we trust there to be certain limitations on a more inalienable right, why can't we do the same for guns. We HAD bans on assault rifles...so it's not Un-American, or unprecedented, or unfair. Same with any number of other regulations.

There's just an enormous and powerful lobby convincing a large portion of the country that ANY form of regulation or limitation is a threat to the American way of life and the solution to all our problems is just more guns.

There are many posters here on this very board that have called for the outright removal of guns from society on multiple occasions.


As for the rest of your post I'm not disagree for certain levels of restriction. I've never said differently. I have also, always maintained that a gun is nothing more than a tool.

[TDub]

Returning to the volume of mass shootings from the 80s and 90s would be a profound improvement that would save a lot of lives. Stop with the "All or Nothing" shtick.

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.


(i say...hasn't been enacted....because...anymore. I feel nothing happens because the entire fuxking politically active portion of the country has become team sports and no one will actually compromise or cede anything in order to better America because it would look like they were "losing" )

I couldn't disagree more. I don't see anyone who matters discussing removing all guns from citizens hands and the discussion seems to end with Republicans offering up zero "reasonable changes".

But if it feels better to paint to Dems are the reason those reasonable changes aren't getting made then go for it. I just don't recall actually seeing anything that supports your claim. But if you have, please share a link as I'd like to read it.

See measure 114 in Oregon.

On the surface...it seems almost reasonable.

Until you realize that it is a defacto ban on guns. We've been over this before in other threads.

But, basically....the measure requires a test for gun ownership. Provided by a law enforcement or law enforcement trained individual. Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided. In the 3 month, ongoing battle over the validity of the measure not 1 single source has popped up saying they are willing to provide the training. Until the training is an available, accessible, part of all communities...it is a ban on gun ownership.

[PhDhawk]

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.

I see the EXACT opposite.

See randylahey for an example.

I think you've been told ad nausea that banning guns is the ultimate goal. I actually don't know anyone personally (correction, I don't know any American personally) who wants to ban guns. But this is the huge fear propagated largely by the NRA.

I just simple don't see it this way, and I think the fear is unfounded. It's constitutionally protected. It's hard to get a constitutional amendment, it would be really hard to amend something from the Bill of Rights. So, I just don't buy this slippery slope argument.

But, freedom of speech, which is a 1st amendment right, and, I'd argue a much more important and fundamental right, than owning a gun, has ALL KINDS of limits placed on it, and we accept that, and I don't think anyone wants to ban speech. You can't buy or sell child pornography, you can't commit fraud, you can't commit slander or libel, you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a movie theater, you can't threaten people in certain ways.

If we trust there to be certain limitations on a more inalienable right, why can't we do the same for guns. We HAD bans on assault rifles...so it's not Un-American, or unprecedented, or unfair. Same with any number of other regulations.

There's just an enormous and powerful lobby convincing a large portion of the country that ANY form of regulation or limitation is a threat to the American way of life and the solution to all our problems is just more guns.

There are many posters here on this very board that have called for the outright removal of guns from society on multiple occasions.


As for the rest of your post I'm not disagree for certain levels of restriction. I've never said differently. I have also, always maintained that a gun is nothing more than a tool.

I don't know anyone who posts on this board personally.

Dynamite is a tool too.

It's heavily regulated.

[Shirley]

As do I.

As do I, multiple.

[Shirley]

well said

^^^

[randylahey]

[randylahey]

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Not sure what the need is/was for them to release ALL of this. Transparency is great and all but......

[twocoach]

the all or nothing thing is usually something that comes from the "guns are bad" portion of the population.....and a large reason why more legislation hasn't been enacted. Its the whole....starting with reasonable changes and then adding to it until essentially guns are banned and not allowing anything in between to become talking points.


(i say...hasn't been enacted....because...anymore. I feel nothing happens because the entire fuxking politically active portion of the country has become team sports and no one will actually compromise or cede anything in order to better America because it would look like they were "losing" )

I couldn't disagree more. I don't see anyone who matters discussing removing all guns from citizens hands and the discussion seems to end with Republicans offering up zero "reasonable changes".

But if it feels better to paint to Dems are the reason those reasonable changes aren't getting made then go for it. I just don't recall actually seeing anything that supports your claim. But if you have, please share a link as I'd like to read it.

See measure 114 in Oregon.

On the surface...it seems almost reasonable.

Until you realize that it is a defacto ban on guns. We've been over this before in other threads.

But, basically....the measure requires a test for gun ownership. Provided by a law enforcement or law enforcement trained individual. Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided. In the 3 month, ongoing battle over the validity of the measure not 1 single source has popped up saying they are willing to provide the training. Until the training is an available, accessible, part of all communities...it is a ban on gun ownership.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/202 ... wners.html

"Applicants would have to complete law enforcement-approved firearms training. Courses could be taken at a community college, firearms training school, private or public organization or from law enforcement, the measure says. "

It doesn't seem to be quite as restrictive as you painted it. It also states that those training classes are to be paid for by the gun owner (and why wouldn't they) so not sure what this "Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided" is all about. There are companies and groups that offer those types of courses all over the country. There isn't anything that needs to be funded by a government entity from what I can see.

[TDub]

I couldn't disagree more. I don't see anyone who matters discussing removing all guns from citizens hands and the discussion seems to end with Republicans offering up zero "reasonable changes".

But if it feels better to paint to Dems are the reason those reasonable changes aren't getting made then go for it. I just don't recall actually seeing anything that supports your claim. But if you have, please share a link as I'd like to read it.

See measure 114 in Oregon.

On the surface...it seems almost reasonable.

Until you realize that it is a defacto ban on guns. We've been over this before in other threads.

But, basically....the measure requires a test for gun ownership. Provided by a law enforcement or law enforcement trained individual. Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided. In the 3 month, ongoing battle over the validity of the measure not 1 single source has popped up saying they are willing to provide the training. Until the training is an available, accessible, part of all communities...it is a ban on gun ownership.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/202 ... wners.html

"Applicants would have to complete law enforcement-approved firearms training. Courses could be taken at a community college, firearms training school, private or public organization or from law enforcement, the measure says. "

It doesn't seem to be quite as restrictive as you painted it. It also states that those training classes are to be paid for by the gun owner (and why wouldn't they) so not sure what this "Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided" is all about. There are companies and groups that offer those types of courses all over the country. There isn't anything that needs to be funded by a government entity from what I can see.

There has to be someone who is willing and able to dedicate the time and energy to provide the classes, there has to be funding from law enforcement to provide classes for the trainers to be certified.


I live in Oregon. There are currently 0 options for completing a class that qualifies under the new measure. Zero.

The bill is tied up in litigation still, but parts of it are a real gray area for whether or not they are enforceable at this point. I know of 2 local outdoors shops that have been forced to close down due to the uncertainty and unclear instruction on how to comply. Ive talked to another outdoor store owner who said the state asked them to provide the classes....at their expense and on their own time for a 3 County area. They are a 2 person operation and have no ability to accommodate that request. I asked where we could go to get a class if needed. He said there are currently 0 options, in therm works there is 1 potential option.....outside of Portland. So.....everybody over here is supposed to drive 4, 5,,6 ,7 hours to take a class? To buy a gun we've been handling our entire lives? No, thats ridiculous. Its going to create criminals out of ordinary citizens.

[pdub]

I don't post here often but a lot more than just background checks need to happen.

Background checks mandatory, with a week or two waiting period, paid for with a tax on said gun.

Production of newer guns should halt. Any new gun should have zero semi auto/auto capabilities.
Bolt action. Double barrel or break action. Pump. That's it.
Newer guns should be built to prevent modifications - i.e. break the gun.
Max capacities of these guns should be 4 or 5.
No magazines or clips. You have to individually load each round.

Human beings hunted successfully with bows, spears, boomerangs, bolos.
You can manage with 4 shots from a rifle or shotgun.
I'd say the same thing for self defense - if you don't hit with your first one or two shots, you're probably in trouble anyways.

Buy back programs for guns that exist should be promoted. Give a reasonable x amount of years you have to return any gun that is deemed, on the list, as not one of the grandfathered in guns ( that are close to the gun modifications listed above ). After that time period, any gun not on the list is illegal, with seizure, fines and jail time depending on offense. Any modifications to a gun would face similar penalties.

No silly gun shows. Gun shops would have to be similar to ABC, a controlled centralized business with unified standards and practices.

If you reallly want to fire those more high powered weapons, there can be places you can fire them, renting them, on the premises, like a shooting range.

Either the drinking age should go down to 18 or the gun buying age should go up to 21.
( i'd prefer the latter, honestly, i'd prefer the option not listed above, drinking age to 18, gun buying to 21 ).

The 2nd Ammendment was intended for colonies/commonwealths/states that didn't have a standing army yet as a means to protect themselves. It was a new nation. Washington and the Federalists changed that in the mid 1790s when the Army was created to fight the Native Americans. If the States want to create militias, where people volunteer and train and have access to those weapons, much like joining the military but directly just for your state and not Federally bound in anyway, because they think/feel the State could rise against a tyrannical government, i'm in support of those members having access to the weaponry the National Armed Forces have ( though they would never get even close to the capabilities with pin point distance missiles, high speed jets, drones etc ).

Preach Biden.

Hey this is still valid.

Still valid.

[randylahey]

Any plan that includes "seizing guns" is guaranteed to lead to a civil war. So no, not valid

[twocoach]

See measure 114 in Oregon.

On the surface...it seems almost reasonable.

Until you realize that it is a defacto ban on guns. We've been over this before in other threads.

But, basically....the measure requires a test for gun ownership. Provided by a law enforcement or law enforcement trained individual. Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided. In the 3 month, ongoing battle over the validity of the measure not 1 single source has popped up saying they are willing to provide the training. Until the training is an available, accessible, part of all communities...it is a ban on gun ownership.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/202 ... wners.html

"Applicants would have to complete law enforcement-approved firearms training. Courses could be taken at a community college, firearms training school, private or public organization or from law enforcement, the measure says. "

It doesn't seem to be quite as restrictive as you painted it. It also states that those training classes are to be paid for by the gun owner (and why wouldn't they) so not sure what this "Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided" is all about. There are companies and groups that offer those types of courses all over the country. There isn't anything that needs to be funded by a government entity from what I can see.

There has to be someone who is willing and able to dedicate the time and energy to provide the classes, there has to be funding from law enforcement to provide classes for the trainers to be certified.


I live in Oregon. There are currently 0 options for completing a class that qualifies under the new measure. Zero.

The bill is tied up in litigation still, but parts of it are a real gray area for whether or not they are enforceable at this point. I know of 2 local outdoors shops that have been forced to close down due to the uncertainty and unclear instruction on how to comply. Ive talked to another outdoor store owner who said the state asked them to provide the classes....at their expense and on their own time for a 3 County area. They are a 2 person operation and have no ability to accommodate that request. I asked where we could go to get a class if needed. He said there are currently 0 options, in therm works there is 1 potential option.....outside of Portland. So.....everybody over here is supposed to drive 4, 5,,6 ,7 hours to take a class? To buy a gun we've been handling our entire lives? No, thats ridiculous. Its going to create criminals out of ordinary citizens.

https://oregonsheriffs.org/chl/

This class claims to meet the criteria for Measure 114.

[TDub]

yea, any new agreed upon laws will have to be "from this point forward" type laws. There are too many out there....and if you go door to door to try and collect .... its gonna be real ugly, real fast.


Which is also where it gets difficult.....there so many out there already....how are you ever gonna get a handle on what exists and where? There are so many unregistered, illegal guns out there.....no chance they all get accounted for.

[TDub]

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/202 ... wners.html

"Applicants would have to complete law enforcement-approved firearms training. Courses could be taken at a community college, firearms training school, private or public organization or from law enforcement, the measure says. "

It doesn't seem to be quite as restrictive as you painted it. It also states that those training classes are to be paid for by the gun owner (and why wouldn't they) so not sure what this "Nothing in the bill provides any funding or provisions for facilitation of any such courses to be provided" is all about. There are companies and groups that offer those types of courses all over the country. There isn't anything that needs to be funded by a government entity from what I can see.

There has to be someone who is willing and able to dedicate the time and energy to provide the classes, there has to be funding from law enforcement to provide classes for the trainers to be certified.


I live in Oregon. There are currently 0 options for completing a class that qualifies under the new measure. Zero.

The bill is tied up in litigation still, but parts of it are a real gray area for whether or not they are enforceable at this point. I know of 2 local outdoors shops that have been forced to close down due to the uncertainty and unclear instruction on how to comply. Ive talked to another outdoor store owner who said the state asked them to provide the classes....at their expense and on their own time for a 3 County area. They are a 2 person operation and have no ability to accommodate that request. I asked where we could go to get a class if needed. He said there are currently 0 options, in therm works there is 1 potential option.....outside of Portland. So.....everybody over here is supposed to drive 4, 5,,6 ,7 hours to take a class? To buy a gun we've been handling our entire lives? No, thats ridiculous. Its going to create criminals out of ordinary citizens.

https://oregonsheriffs.org/chl/

This class claims to meet the criteria for Measure 114.

thats also one of the main fights about 114. There is a huge debate about whether online courses and pre recorded videos will count. Thats the sheriffs offices solution. It costs very little and provides the information quickly and effectively. The other side of the aisle is demanding hands on, in person classes only. Its a big messy fight and won't be resolved soon.

Several counties in the east side have filed lawsuits and several sheriffs departments have issued official statements saying they won't enforce the measure.

[jfish26]

Any plan that includes "seizing guns" is guaranteed to lead to a civil war. So no, not valid

I don't support broad-based seizure plans, for a lot of reasons. Some legal, some practical.

That said: people like you need to grow the fuck up, and realize that the overheated rhetoric ("civil war", and so on) is very much a you problem.

Not every restriction on gun ownership means King George III, or Barack Obama, is coming for your homestead.

[pdub]

Then civil war it is.
Fucking moranic hive mind “IMA TOUGH MAN you can take my guns one bullet at a time” persons are the worst.

[TDub]

Any plan that includes "seizing guns" is guaranteed to lead to a civil war. So no, not valid

I don't support broad-based seizure plans, for a lot of reasons. Some legal, some practical.

That said: people like you need to grow the fuck up, and realize that the overheated rhetoric ("civil war", and so on) is very much a you problem.

Not every restriction on gun ownership means King George III, or Barack Obama, is coming for your homestead.

I think whether or not you consider a reality or rhetoric may depend on where you've spent your time.

In the suburbs of KC, perhaps sounds like over dramatic blah blah statements.

In other places, perhaps not.

There are people here that, 100% without a doubt, would hunker down and draw arms if there was a plan drawn up to require the forfeiture of their already owned weapons.

That might sound silly, they can't win,....but its not unrealistic or rhetoric. It is 100% fact that a portion *larger than you may want to admit) of the population would indeed refuse to give them up.