Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[mrvlknight21]

It's not that it was an all an act, but it's not like an AWB was ever going to pass to begin with. To think that Obama was going to magically develop dictatorial powers and suddenly come to your house to take your guns was nothing but pure paranoia.

Yes, but there are a LOT who FIRMLY believe it. In fact, you can't convince a friend of mine differently. He even once told me (I am in federal law enforcement) that Obama will use any officer that he can find to enforce his confiscation of firearms and when I (yes, me) arrive at his house to take his guns...he will do what he has to do (insinuating that he will kill me in this imaginary scenario that he firmly believes will happen and I will be a part of).

 

[mrvlknight21]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pa...as-gun-sales-slump-2014-05-20?dist=beforebell

Funny how people calm down when they realize Obama could care less how many guns they own

Regarding Dick's Sporting Goods (the retailer that seemed to be the focus of that article): There are several other reasons that DSG gun sales declined, including many gun enthusiasts refusing to shop there because of their (DSG) policies which changed after Sandy Hook.

PLENTY of articles about this, including this one:EDIT: link won't work because of Dick's being in the name, apparently....
**a quick search will show you that Dick's removed all Ar15s from their shelves after Sandy Hook and anyone who had placed an order for one simply got a small gift card and apology that their order would not be filled.**

Not to mention, about EVERY single gun forum on the internet that I frequent (members of these forums typically buy multiple guns per year in my estimation and my own personal knowledge) who have absolutely refused to buy ANYTHING from DSG ever, as a result of their policy changes.

I would point out a more recent article that will continue to keep many gun (and ammo enthusiasts) far away from DSG.
Edit: same issue
The article I tried to link talks about how DSG is now asking people purchasing ammo to answer a bunch of questions (not law, just their store policy) before the transaction can be made.


So, at least in regards to DSG, there is MUCH more to the story.
Nice try to the author of that article.

 

[Bwahaha!]

it's not that it was an all an act, but it's not like an awb was ever going to pass to begin with. To think that obama was going to magically develop dictatorial powers and suddenly come to your house to take your guns was nothing but pure paranoia.

qft

 

[Destructus86]

I would say that opposing (or supporting) "stricter gun laws" is a little too vague to go labeling anyone "part of the problem of gun violence."

If you are against any stricter gun laws then you are indeed part of the problem. They care more about their little hobby than doing anything useful to save more lives.

 

[mrvlknight21]

If you are against any stricter gun laws then you are indeed part of the problem. They care more about their little hobby than doing anything useful to save more lives.

First of all, as a responsible gun owner and law enforcement officer, I can assure you that I certainly am not a "part of the problem" no matter how you define it (the problem).

Secondly, your generic and extremely broad "against any stricter gun laws" is the basis for my argument.
Does your definition of "stricter gun laws" include no more sales of Ar15s?
Does it include the prohibition of any private firearm sales?
Does it include the banning of "high capacity" magazines?
Does it name what those numbers are that make a magazine qualify as "high capacity?"
Does it include better checks on mental health records before allowing gun permits?
Does it include the banning of certain ammunition calibers?
Does it require the registration of every firearm to every owner on a state or national level?
Does it include restricting gun owners carry permits to certain locations and limit their ability to carry them publicly?
Does it include mandatory safety training before issuing gun permits?

As you can see from the VERY limited list above, there are a multitude of limitations that could be included as a part of "stricter gun laws." Some of the above I am in favor of, others I am not....so how does that make me part of the problem? Simple, it DOESN'T.

By the way, all of the ones I mentioned have been mentioned or considered on the state or federal level as possible ways to create "stricter gun laws." Obviously there are MANY more that could be included, so again, THAT is my main argument against your statement.

For you to say that I am a part of the problem of gun violence is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Zany NRA Video Attacks Media For Labeling Shootings as "Shootings"

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28974763&postcount=84

The NRA truly cracks me up on an almost daily basis with their non-propagand "facts"

 

[Thundercrack85]

Honestly, I think we've reached a new level of crazy with these open carry... protests... demonstrations?

If someone walks into a restaurant with an AR-15 or an AK-47, my first reaction is not "oh he's just exercising his constitutional right to bear arms". I'm going to assume you're about to start shooting.

 

[Anubis]

You'd think that woulda backfired on them by now. You know, they walk into Cracker Barrell, and some other concealed carry nut thinks they're about to shoot up the joint and pulls his relatively reasonable hand gun and plugs a few of em?

 

[SV Fan]

Personally I don't get laws like this

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ll-nullify-local-regulation-of-guns/?page=all

Kansas will nullify local regulation of guns

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Kansas will strip cities and counties of their power to regulate guns and nullify local gun regulations in July, ensuring it will be legal across the state to openly carry firearms and adding to a string of victories in recent years by gun-rights advocates.

Gov. Sam Brownback announced Wednesday that he signed a bill late the previous day preventing local officials from restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition or regulating how guns are transported and stored. The National Rifle Association has described the legislation as a model for states seeking to strip local officials of gun-regulating powers.

I thought Republicans are all about States Rights(ie Less Big Government interference from higher up the better), so shouldn't an offshoot of that be localities can make up rules for themselves that suit their community? This is generally why I hate the "We Hate Big Government" crowd, they usually seem to hate Big Government until it works in their advantage.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

While I'm all for open and concealed carry, these morons are giving the rest of gun owners a bad name and exercising pretty bad judgement. I know they're trying to make a point by having a weapon people will see instead of a holstered handgun many would miss, but carrying a loaded rifle/shotgun into a place of business or in public is just beyond practical since they're kind of cumbersome in while doing normal tasks and storing while driving. It's just going to take one incident of someone getting careless for this to backfire.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Honestly, I think we've reached a new level of crazy with these open carry... protests... demonstrations?

If someone walks into a restaurant with an AR-15 or an AK-47, my first reaction is not "oh he's just exercising his constitutional right to bear arms". I'm going to assume you're about to start shooting.

You'd think that woulda backfired on them by now. You know, they walk into Cracker Barrell, and some other concealed carry nut thinks they're about to shoot up the joint and pulls his relatively reasonable hand gun and plugs a few of em?

While I'm all for open and concealed carry, these morons are giving the rest of gun owners a bad name and exercising pretty bad judgement. I know they're trying to make a point by having a weapon people will see instead of a holstered handgun many would miss, but carrying a loaded rifle/shotgun into a place of business or in public is just beyond practical since they're kind of cumbersome in while doing normal tasks and storing while driving. It's just going to take one incident of someone getting careless for this to backfire.

Agreed fellas.
File this one under the "just because you CAN do something does not mean that you SHOULD."

And yes, they are giving legal gun owners a bad rap with this. For every one of these clowns, there are probably 100 or more legal gun owners who see no need in showing everyone what they are carrying, demonstrating in this fashion, etc. I am on several active gun forums and every time that someone posts about one of these "events" there are typically hundreds of replies speaking out against it.

While open carry is a right in some states and with permits in some states, I personally abide by the mantra that it is best not to show your hand.

 

[Destructus86]

This isn't the old west. We don't need to walk around carrying our guns while we go buy a six pack of beer at the local grocery store.

We need hard restrictions on guns. Stronger control. Until that happens we'll just keep seeing mass shootings.

 

[dnno1]

Shooters identified in slaying of Metro Police officers, bystander
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/

• They killed two police officers in a pizza parlor.
• Rumor has it that they were protesters at the Cliven Bundy ranch.
• Were known to walk around town dressed as Joker and Harley Quinn.
• A "good guy with a gun" was supposed to stop them, but he was killed by the shooters at a WalMart (so much for that theory).
• The mayhem was finally stopped by a suicide pact.

 

[Kelly]

Not necessarily posting this "against" what you have posted dnno1, just saying that there are stories where the person with the CHL ends up stopping something from becoming even worse.

War veteran shoots and kills alleged game store robber

http://www.click2houston.com/news/3...s-police-search-for-robbery-suspects/26230464

It's just to say that every incident is different, we can't use one to tell an entire story or back an argument.

I would like us to

1. Enforce the laws already on the books much better than we do...
2. Enforce IF NOT ban all internet buying and selling of guns and ammo...I KNOW that some will hate this, but we just cannot regulate this like we should.
3. Make sure that gun shows follow the same laws and regulations that gun shops have to follow...
4. Do a much, much better job of screening buyers with mental illnesses.

I don't necessarily think that a huge reform of gun laws is needed, simply better enforcement and some additions in the area of gun sales.

 

[dnno1]

Yeah, Kel, there have been some cases where that has worked, but Wayne LaPierre has gone on record several times to say that a "good guy with a gun" is the only way to stop a "bad guy with a gun" and that's is clearly not true. The only guarantee here is that the "good guy with a gun" is putting himself at risk of getting killed.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Shooters identified in slaying of Metro Police officers, bystander
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/

• They killed two police officers in a pizza parlor.
• Rumor has it that they were protesters at the Cliven Bundy ranch.
• Were known to walk around town dressed as Joker and Harley Quinn.
• A "good guy with a gun" was supposed to stop them, but he was killed by the shooters at a WalMart (so much for that theory).
• The mayhem was finally stopped by a suicide pact.

First of all, I feel extremely bad for these police officers and other victim and their families. This was a nonsensical, crazed for attention killing that has done NOTHING but hurt everyone involved.

Secondly, I want to address your "so much for that theory" comment. I may have overlooked the part about the victim (Joseph Wilcox, according to the article) being armed and attempting to stop these two nutjobs, but I didn't see any real information about that in the article that you linked. I just read it a second time and still am not seeing it.
If I did overlook it, it is not reasonable to simply discard the idea that armed citizens can help stop a crime in progress. Without details on what this citizen did or attempted to do against two armed individuals on a shooting rampage, I think you should drop your little argument.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Not necessarily posting this "against" what you have posted dnno1, just saying that there are stories where the person with the CHL ends up stopping something from becoming even worse.

War veteran shoots and kills alleged game store robber

http://www.click2houston.com/news/3...s-police-search-for-robbery-suspects/26230464

It's just to say that every incident is different, we can't use one to tell an entire story or back an argument.

I would like us to

1. Enforce the laws already on the books much better than we do...
2. Enforce IF NOT ban all internet buying and selling of guns and ammo...I KNOW that some will hate this, but we just cannot regulate this like we should.
3. Make sure that gun shows follow the same laws and regulations that gun shops have to follow...
4. Do a much, much better job of screening buyers with mental illnesses.

I don't necessarily think that a huge reform of gun laws is needed, simply better enforcement and some additions in the area of gun sales.

Agreed, EVERY incident is different and "active shooter" situations are dynamic, rapidly evolving scenarios that are always extremely dangerous for anyone responding, anyone nearby, etc. Unfortunately, they almost always end in death for multiple people and if there was a simple solution, I would be all for it.

Kelly, what do you mean about banning the internet sales of firearms? The buyer still has to go to an FFL for background check to pick up the firearm, so its not any different than buying directly from the store.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Shooters identified in slaying of Metro Police officers, bystander
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/

• They killed two police officers in a pizza parlor.
• Rumor has it that they were protesters at the Cliven Bundy ranch.
• Were known to walk around town dressed as Joker and Harley Quinn.
• A "good guy with a gun" was supposed to stop them, but he was killed by the shooters at a WalMart (so much for that theory).
• The mayhem was finally stopped by a suicide pact.

I just checked some of the other news stories and you were right........well, sort of.

According to what I just read, Wilcox, the armed civilian, confronted the male suspect, and according to one article, was shot in the back by the female suspect....without ever firing a shot. A "good guy with a gun" has to be willing to use it in order to potentially prevent further violence. Good training will teach that you do not pull a firearm as a threat, you do not fire warning shots, you use the firearm to immediately stop the threat (assuming, of course, there is a valid threat of serious bodily injury or death to you or a third party).

That said, my friend just told me that he heard that Wilcox DID shoot the male suspect before being shot by the female. So, if that is the case, then while Wilcox died, there is no doubt that he slowed down the assault that was taking place and likely saved many lives. For clarification though, this is only what my friend told me that he saw on the news. I have not read any articles confirming that information yet. Although, I will say that would make sense as to why 1) they did not kill anyone after Wilcox and 2) the female killed the male suspect before killing herself...if he was already shot and injured, he may have not been able to continue, which would have put an end to their shooting spree.

Either way, your little comment should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

 

[dnno1]

First of all, I feel extremely bad for these police officers and other victim and their families. This was a nonsensical, crazed for attention killing that has done NOTHING but hurt everyone involved.

Secondly, I want to address your "so much for that theory" comment. I may have overlooked the part about the victim (Joseph Wilcox, according to the article) being armed and attempting to stop these two nutjobs, but I didn't see any real information about that in the article that you linked. I just read it a second time and still am not seeing it.
If I did overlook it, it is not reasonable to simply discard the idea that armed citizens can help stop a crime in progress. Without details on what this citizen did or attempted to do against two armed individuals on a shooting rampage, I think you should drop your little argument.

Yeah, that report didn't go into detail about Wilcox, but there are police reports that say he was shot in the back while attempting to end the ordeal. It did not work and the "good guy with a gun" theory is not a sure fire way to stop hostile shooters. About the only good that Wilcox did was when he fired a warning shot and told people to leave the WalMart, but then again he could have done that without a gun.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Yeah, that report didn't go into detail about Wilcox, but there are police reports that say he was shot in the back while attempting to end the ordeal. It did not work and the "good guy with a gun" theory is not a sure fire way to stop hostile shooters.

Wrong, for the most part. See my post above yours.

A "good guy with a gun" that does not use it is nothing more than another potential victim.

I would agree that a "good guy with a gun" is not a sure fire way to do anything. That said, I HOPE you do not think that a NRA president speaks for every gun owner on every issue.

Edit: I see you edited your post to include that he fired a warning shot. If that is true, then THAT was not smart. Lots of reasons, you could be targeted by other gun owners, you give away your position and the fact that you are armed, if others see you as the potential shooter it can cause a multitude of problems, etc. IF he fired a warning shot, then that, IMO, was a mistake.

 

[dnno1]

Wrong, for the most part. See my post above yours.

A "good guy with a gun" that does not use it is nothing more than another potential victim.

I would agree that a "good guy with a gun" is not a sure fire way to do anything. That said, I HOPE you do not think that a NRA president speaks for every gun owner on every issue.

The wrong here is the statement that a "good guy with a gun" is the only way to stop a "bad guy with a gun". That was what Wayne LaPierre stated last year. He was wrong, and that is my point.

 

[KevanG]

As someone whose city just came out of a lockdown due to a gunman killing cops I'd just like to throw out my two cents. Gun control isn't perfect, as evidenced recently, but it has drastically cut down on things like this from happening. There's evidence from a number of countries around the world that instituted gun laws after shootings and it has helped immensely in that regard. I'm happy with the gun control we have here in Canada and hope the USA institutes some stricter controls as well.

 

[Anubis]

Oh, so we'll be unarmed when you dirty Canadians move in for the takeover? I think not Cuknucklehead!

 

[KevanG]

Have you seen our airforce? Look it up.

 

[wiegeabo]

They're plotting something with all that lumber their hoarding.