Here We Go Again! Shooting at Oregon Community College. (Representatives, Congress, legal)

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by And D

What is wrong is that for the most part strong NRA types will stand in the way of gun control measures in every way possible, even when their ownership and use of guns is for the most part not affected, regardless the effectiveness, regardless the constitutional soundness. The objections are suspect, because there is the obvious agenda to make sure nothing gets done to impede gun sales whether to good guys or bad.

Again, why stand in the way of a gun control initiative, even if there is debate as to effectiveness, if gun enthusiasts can still do all they want in the way of owning and using guns while gun control advocates are made to feel safer?

Without getting too much more complicated, this seems like the only way to go that allows some headway toward reasonable compromise at no expense to gun enthusiasts.

Does not take too much common sense or reasonableness to see there is far more upside than downside when it comes to that compromise, except of course for gun manufacturers who want no part of any measure that might impede sales.

Because we've already seen what happens when we stand idle by. Calguns has worked to reverse many of these backwards laws that we had here in CA. The 10 day wait, the stupid assault weapons ban, the roster.


The foolish "bullet button" is hopefully next on the radar.

Here's one that makes sense. Armed guards or regular police like we have in San Diego. Instead, Brown goes the other way and puts up another invisible fence in a gun free zone, which it would make it the reverse of a gun free zone. The creation of stupid laws are why we have the NRA.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by And D

You don't understand. What I have suggested with regard to Constitutional compliance applies to both sides of the issue. I don't waste time considering what either side believes is Constitutional or not, because more often than not, the layman is in no position to judge and is entirely too emotional to judge impartially, as the law should be judged.

If we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion, than why even have a democracy at all? The average person couldn't possibly posses the intellect to be able to vote and make decisions on their own. They simply aren't smart enough to make these decisions. They need the government to do it for them.

I don't know if you heard, but the United States was formed on the premise that it is We The People who are in charge. The government serves US. WE are the masters, THEY are the servants, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by And D

We have all the debate as to whether a law is constitutional or
not, sound off as we will as if we really know one way or
another while those involved in the legislative
process get all their lawyers on both sides to do the same thing, only from a
bit better informed point of view.

The small value to which you give your own judgment, and the exaggerated value you give to a lawyer or judge for the simple fact that they have a degree is frankly astounding.

Then..., all the vetting goes on until finally there is legislation
that seems to pass constitutional muster.

Just because something might pass constitutional muster doesn't mean it's A'OK to do. As far as that goes, a national gun registry would technically be Constitutional, but that doesn't mean I'd support it.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by And D

As I have asked countless times before, if you are going to quote me or
anyone else for that matter, quote verbatim. These misrepresentations of my
words and/or point of view are shameless!

We should question the effectiveness of laws, I never said we shouldn't. What
I tried to explain is that we should not ASSUME they are not effective

What do you mean "assume".....? Every time a mass killer goes on one of these sprees, they start the drumbeat of "universal background checks".... but most of these killer have passed a background check, so as it relates to mass shootings, one not need assume, they have more than reasonable cause to believe that they WON'T stop these spree killers. It's not an uninformed shot in the dark so to speak, it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
It would be like if someone got in a car crash and died and WAS wearing a seatbelt, and lawmakers said, "we need to pass a law mandating everyone wear seatbelts...."

My point is that if the law offers what to gain and little to lose, we owe it
to give the gun-control advocates their shot (pun intended) at whatever measures
they think might help.

There are plenty of reasonable objections and concerns with the measures that are currently being proposed. I'm not about to rehash all the arguments that can be found on thousands of pages throughout this forum, but you should give them a read.

Originally Posted by And D

Without getting too much more complicated, this seems like the only way to go
that allows some headway toward reasonable compromise at no expense to gun
enthusiasts.

Compromise? Do you know what compromise means? Compromise involved both sides giving something up to get something that they want. What are gun control advocates willing to compromise in this debate?

Also, when discussing free speech, for example, do you refer to those exercising their rights as " speech enthusiasts"? Is someone concerned about religious liberty a "religion enthusiast"? So why do you diminish the seriousness of gun rights by basically reducing them to the level of a hobby?

except of course for gun manufacturers who want no part of any measure that
might impede sales.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Although every good horror story needs a boogeyman, right? And the NRA and the evil gun manufacturers fit that bill, right? It couldn't possibly be that there are just some very real differences of opinion on this issue between good Americans who all want the best thing. It's the evil corporations and lobbying groups that are standing in the way of the people, right?

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by And D

What is wrong is that for the most part strong NRA types will stand in the way of gun control measures in every way possible, even when their ownership and use of guns is for the most part not affected, regardless the effectiveness, regardless the constitutional soundness. The objections are suspect, because there is the obvious agenda to make sure nothing gets done to impede gun sales whether to good guys or bad.

Strong NRA types? What exactly does that mean? The NRA consists of people from all walks of life, there is no set demographic. However, if you are talking about people who own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment, we don't want the bad guys to have guns either. On the other hand, we aren't willing to just hand over our 2nd Amendment rights to people who don't even know what to call the different parts of a firearm, much less how they work.

Originally Posted by And D

Again, why stand in the way of a gun control initiative, even if there is debate as to effectiveness, if gun enthusiasts can still do all they want in the way of owning and using guns while gun control advocates are made to feel safer?

If there is debate as to its effectiveness, that debate needs to be worked out before new laws are passed. Gun owners have compromised numerous times in the past, and for the most part those compromises have led to more demands from the anti-gun crowd. Can you blame us for being a bit skeptical when we're told that we need to compromise again?

Originally Posted by And D

Without getting too much more complicated, this seems like the only way to go that allows some headway toward reasonable compromise at no expense to gun enthusiasts.

There is no reasonable compromise, as has been proven by the anti-gun crowd. It's the proverbial "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" conundrum. Firearms owners compromised on background checks (actually, we're the ones that supported them in the first place) and now the gun grabbers want to keep making those background checks more and more restrictive. Firearms owners compromised on the GFZSA law, and now the gun grabbers won't even admit that they created hunting preserves out of our children's schools. Firearms owners have tried to be reasonable and compromise, and nearly every time we've seen that the end result is a bad deal for us.

Originally Posted by And D

Does not take too much common sense or reasonableness to see there is far more upside than downside when it comes to that compromise, except of course for gun manufacturers who want no part of any measure that might impede sales.

Using the words common sense when talking about gun control advocates is an oxymoron.

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. When you can come up with a gun law which does not infringe upon my right to own or carry a firearm, and which still effectively stops those with criminal intent from obtaining firearms, then we'll talk. Until then, your words are just the same words which have been repeated over and over by the rest of the gun control advocacy crowd, and we no longer believe them.

[And D]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Because we've already seen what happens when we stand idle by. Calguns has worked to reverse many of these backwards laws that we had here in CA. The 10 day wait, the stupid assault weapons ban, the roster.

The foolish "bullet button" is hopefully next on the radar.

Here's one that makes sense. Armed guards or regular police like we have in San Diego. Instead, Brown goes the other way and puts up another invisible fence in a gun free zone, which it would make it the reverse of a gun free zone. The creation of stupid laws are why we have the NRA.

The 10 day wait, for example and/or to keep things simple. What is the big heartburn that comes from a 10 day wait? If I call my dentist today, I am about as likely to get an appointment in 10 days as I am to to get shot by a stray bullet. Help me understand the heartburn over a 10 day wait, I mean beyond the obvious want of immediate gratification, like kids have trouble accepting, please.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by And D

The 10 day wait, for example and/or to keep things simple. What is the big heartburn that comes from a 10 day wait? If I call my dentist today, I am about as likely to get an appointment in 10 days as I am to to get shot by a stray bullet. Help me understand the heartburn over a 10 day wait, I mean beyond the obvious want of immediate gratification, like kids have trouble accepting, please.

Does the newspaper have to wait 10 days before exercising their freedom of the press?

Does anyone have to wait 10 days before exercising their freedom of speech?

Curtailments on the rights of law abiding citizens is a bad proposition, period, especially when that is not the problem.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by And D

The 10 day wait, for example and/or to keep things simple. What is the big heartburn that comes from a 10 day wait? If I call my dentist today, I am about as likely to get an appointment in 10 days as I am to to get shot by a stray bullet. Help me understand the heartburn over a 10 day wait, I mean beyond the obvious want of immediate gratification, like kids have trouble accepting, please.

People, most often women, have been killed by waiting periods. Restraining orders don't stop stalkers, abusive spouses or any other criminal. The police don't protect individuals, if someone has an immediate threat they need protection now not in2 or 7 or 10 or 30 days.

Sounds like you need a new dentist, if I have a serious toothache I can get an appointment tomorrow if not today.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by And D

What is wrong is that for the most part strong NRA types will stand in the way of gun control measures in every way possible, even when their ownership and use of guns is for the most part not affected, regardless the effectiveness, regardless the constitutional soundness. The objections are suspect, because there is the obvious agenda to make sure nothing gets done to impede gun sales whether to good guys or bad.

Again, why stand in the way of a gun control initiative, even if there is debate as to effectiveness, if gun enthusiasts can still do all they want in the way of owning and using guns while gun control advocates are made to feel safer?

Without getting too much more complicated, this seems like the only way to go that allows some headway toward reasonable compromise at no expense to gun enthusiasts.

Does not take too much common sense or reasonableness to see there is far more upside than downside when it comes to that compromise, except of course for gun manufacturers who want no part of any measure that might impede sales.

So you won't even debate my point above. Nor will any other gun control advocate ON THIS ENTIRE BOARD.

Funny how the claims of "emotion" are very much thrown against the pro-gun crowd, yet the facts have yet to be debated by the anti's only the cry of "who cares about effectiveness, it feels good!"

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Perhaps you could elaborate on this? I am only aware of one split, out of the 7th circuit, and it isn't even a true split....

Deny the 2nd Amendment:
1st (Hightower.. but you can call it a waffle because they made a silly claim of having to jump through hoops before appealing)
2nd (Kachalsky)
3rd (Drake)
4th (Moore)

vs

Affirm the Second Amendment:
5th (forgot the name)
7th (Moore)
9th (Peruta/Baker)
DC Circuit (Wrenn)

And yet the SCOTUS said there isn't a split between courts. The funny part is that you can read the decisions in the denials and they are all different, yet all the affirming cases pretty much hold the same story. If you want some giggles read them back to back, it gives a lot of pause.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by And D

The 10 day wait, for example and/or to keep things simple. What is the big heartburn that comes from a 10 day wait? If I call my dentist today, I am about as likely to get an appointment in 10 days as I am to to get shot by a stray bullet. Help me understand the heartburn over a 10 day wait, I mean beyond the obvious want of immediate gratification, like kids have trouble accepting, please.

There are very legitimate arguments against a waiting period....

#1, why should someone who already has 5 or 10 guns at home in the safe have to wait 10 days to buy another? I mean, the waiting period is supposed to be a sort of "cooling off" period so that someone who's angry with a spouse or a neighbor doesn't go buy a gun and do something irrational, right? But if I already own several guns and wanted to kill someone, I could just use one that I already have. So for that reason, placing a ten day waiting period on people who already own guns is an undue burden and frankly makes no sense....

#2, when talking about waiting periods, gun control advocates always want to conjure up scenarios of estranged boyfriends, husbands, or stalkers going out and buying a gun and shooting their ex.... What they fail to even acknowledge, is the other side of that coin. While a waiting period might stop an enraged person from getting their hands on a gun and taking their vengeance, they also have the potential to prevent the hypothetical victim from getting a gun so that they can defend themselves, which is their constitutional right. A woman named Carol Bowne of New Jersey ( a gun control utopia ) learned this the hard way, unfortunately...

Woman fatally stabbed in Berlin Twp.

When Carol Bowne felt the threat of domestic violence, the petite hairdresser
took steps to protect herself. The Berlin Township woman got a restraining order
against a former boyfriend, installed security cameras and an alarm system to
her home and began the months-long process of obtaining a handgun, friends said.
But it wasn't enough...

Bowne, 39, was stabbed to death in the driveway of her Patton Avenue home on
Wednesday night. Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check said Bowne applied
for a gun license on April 21, and that she had inquired Monday about her
request. The application process typically takes two months or more as police
collect information on the applicant, including fingerprints and reference
checks. "We did not get the fingerprint information yet," said Check.

Admittedly, we don't know if things would have turned out differently if Bowne had been able to obtain a gun. We don't know if she would have been able to better defend herself, but what we do know, is that NJ's draconian gun laws deprived her of the chance.

So, you asked us to help you understand why someone might oppose a waiting period. I did the best I could and believe I brought up some very real and reasonable concerns. Will you acknowledge the legitimacy of those concerns, or will you just shrug them off?

[GHOSTRIDER AZ]

Allow Law bidding citizens with CWP protect themselves. Works every time!