Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1937 New London Texas natural gas explosion takes out a school. Legislation is passed ordering gas companies
to add an odor to their product to make it detectible.
1982 Tylenol was intentionally poisoned. Tamperproof packaging was implemented.
1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombed, sales and transfers of ammonium nitrate now regulated.
1996 ValuJet Flight 592 onboard fire caused by oxygen tanks stowed improperly onboard. Smoke detection
systems and restrictions on hazardous materials stowage now enforced.
Ted Kaczynski is captured, you now must legally declare hazardous materials shipped in mail, mail
can be searched, etc.
2001 Airplanes hijacked on Sept. 11th, box cutters used by terrorists to overtake crew. Passengers and
cargo must now pass thru x ray and human security to board aircraft.
Richard Reid "The Shoe Bomber" is caught. Shoes must now be removed prior to security check
at airports and x rayed for hazardous material screening.
2016 Caleb Schwab is decapitated on the Verruckt waterslide. Verruckt closed down immediately,
torn down and dismantled.
Those are just a few small examples I can think of. Changes that were enacted as a response to a clear and
present danger.
Last edited by Tylerrose; 03-25-2021 at 01:46 PM..
1937 New London Texas natural gas explosion takes out a school. Legislation is passed ordering gas companies
to add an odor to their product to make it detectible.
1982 Tylenol was intentionally poisoned. Tamperproof packaging was implemented.
1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombed, sales and transfers of ammonium nitrate now regulated.
2016 Caleb Schwab is decapitated on the Verruckt waterslide. Verruckt closed down immediately,
torn down and dismantled.
Those are just a few small examples I can think of. Changes that were enacted as a response to a clear and
present danger.
And none of the thing you listed is protected by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Mexico has extremely strict gun laws (by USA standards), yet twice as many murders with 1/3 the population.
Please explain without politics or emotion.
You get the drift I'm sure. You not liking or being in agreement with them regardless, your denial has no weight in point of fact.
Understanding that your denial and your rigidity of stance regarding the inability to discuss this topic rationally with the anti crowd must change if some form of consensus is to be arrived at.
Otherwise - just as the vaunted 2nd amendment has already been modified from it's origins, so to will your ability to remain in denial. Either negotiate or lose the fight.
Yes it really is that simple.
The majority will eventually speak and when they do you won't like the outcome.
The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals and mentally ill using them to commit these deeds. Surely you must realize they will speak loudly. You must either compromise or lose.
This is all I'm saying. Firearms are far too many and widespread in the U.S. for anyone to consider confiscation. There would be massive upheaval of the likes that would make the attack on the Capital Buildings pale in comparison to even suggest such a tactic. BUT, something has to be done and until the firearm crowd speaks to actually forcing compliance and upholding of those thousands of laws already on the books instead of demanding a total hands off - you'll continue to lose support from your own demographic.
You do realize that those definitions are not the same - they can't even agree on what is an assault weapon. The CA example includes guns that are hunting rifles, shotguns and hand guns and major parts of the law have already been ruled unconstitutional several times.
Assault weapon is a made up term if it has to be defined in legislation, especially if they cannot even agree on the definition. Most of the definition are merely about cosmetic items "because they look scary" and about number of rounds. Maybe we should ban all body piercings and tattoos because some think they look scary. Taking away freedoms is tyrannical in nature, exactly what the constitution is trying to prevent.
The 2nd amendment of the constitution can ONLY be changed by subsequent amendments - it CAN NOT be modified from its origins by wishing it or threats like "Either negotiate or lose the fight."
Compromise can be found by enforcing many of the current laws (and maybe immigration laws also) - criminals and mentally ill are already prohibited from possessing firearms. Compromise is unlikely to be found by trying to tax ownership or trying to ban the most common type of rifle in the US, the AR.
I propose we just make it so that you can only buy a gun on one Tuesday in November, once every two years. There's also only one place in your country where you can buy a gun, you have to physically wait in line on that day. You are required to have ID to buy it, and it's illegal for someone to give you water when you wait in line to buy that gun.
That is the very definition of tyranny. Lets try it first for abortion, pot or iPhones that are not rights specifically in the constitution and see how long it lasts.
What part of rights "shall not be infringed" do you not get?
First, I do not hunt and the Second Amendment CLEARLY has NOTHING to do with hunting.
All my firearms training is related to my military wartime service and my law enforcement career, which is why “I” prefer modern sporting arms that are semi-automatic, like the AR series of rifles and semi-automatic pistols. They are very user friendly, reliable and very durable, WHICH is my reason for my preference for them, over a bolt action rifle, a shotgun or a 5-6 shot revolver.
Plus, the .223 caliber bullet that the AR fires are NOT as powerful as say a 30-06 Springfield bullet, which is a common hunting caliber, that has a far greater chance of over penetrating through the criminal and hitting an innocent person in an urban environment, which I live in, than a .223 fired from an AR.
I would rate myself as a slightly better than a average shooter, due to my training, but in a high stress and critical situation having a firearm that is semi-automatic only increases your chances of survival, especially against two or more attackers that are moving. Plus, people, who’s only knowledge of firearms is from the movies and TV do not understand that bullets don’t “blow you away,” they just punch holes in you and if you do not hit a vital organ within the first or second shot, there is a very good chance that your attacker(s) can still carry out an murderous attack on you and others... Even after being shot over 10 plus times... Please research this for the actual stats, which is a proven fact in numerous situations. Especially if your attacker is high, crazy or whatever. Even being hit several times, they can still fight on and kill you after you put those 10 or more rounds in him.
Yes, after being shot that many times, the person will most likely die, but not after inflicting more harm onto innocent people... Before being remanded to a “higher court” for judgement.
...It’s a false believe, from the movies and TV, that people will stop their criminal attacks, if shot once in the arm or leg... That’s pure BS. Yes, some will, but many more will not and in a gun fight, “I” WANT every advantage so I might survive this deadly encounter and having a semi-automatic firearm with with more than 6-10 rounds slides all or most of the advantage towards me.
Plus, not too many people can hit a moving man size target in the arms or legs.
FYI, I use to carry a revolver as a law enforcement officer when I first started that career. Reloading a standard 6 shot revolver is far more difficult than reloading a semi-automatic pistol for the average person with little to no real training. Especially in a life or death fight where you are under severe stress. Unless you are highly trained in reloading a revolver or bolt action rifle where it’s burnt into your “muscle memory,” in a stressful situation, you will most likely fail since most humans tend to loose most of their fine motor skills in a high stress situation, which again, is a proven fact, which I’ve seen several times before in my careers.
By stating the above, that is why “I,” as a law abiding citizen of the United States, prefer both a semi-automatic pistol and rifle/carbine over a revolver or a bolt action rifle. Plus, most law abiding citizen are not as highly trained as our military and law enforcement to fight and survive, so in any possible fight for their’s and their loved one’s lives, semi-automatic firearms gives them the advantage or at least an equal footing with a criminal.
Also, semi-automatic firearms gives both a female and/or a small statured male the advantage or acts as an equalizer in a fight against a much bigger AND stronger person(s).
I’m leaving out the pump action shotgun since many females have great difficulties with that type of firearm since it has a pretty “stiff” recoil for a small statured person AND required a lot of training on how to load it, chamber a round and manually re-chamber another round, after firing the first round automatically without stopping to think about “what do I do next to make this thing fire again!! That will get you killed, if you have to stop and think... Not a good thing... Trust me on that!!
Plus, a 1oz slug shot from a shotgun will go through several people, doors and walls before stopping... Not a good thing in an urban area. As for double odd buckshot, which contains 8 or 9 .32 caliber pellets and if you do not get a good center-mass hit on a human sized target, most, if not all of those .32 caliber pellets could possibly miss the criminal and hit an innocent person.
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for over 25 years and not being sexist, but many and yes, not all females, but many simply have issues AND fears with a common 12 gage pump-action shotgun’s recoil... Like the Remington 870... I love the shotgun, but I’m also 6 foot tall and 250lbs.
FYI, the shotgun is starting to be replaced in many law enforcement agencies with AR series of rifles and carbines... For all of the above reasons, which IMHO, is a mistake.
In the United States and currently, the two most popular calibers are .223 Remington and the 9x19mm. Both of these calibers are basically mid-range performance calibers. To be honest, I would be far more worried if I was hit with say a .357 or .44 Magnum round that are commonly fired from 5-6 shot revolvers or being hit with a 30-06 Springfield or .270 Winchester round fired from a common hunting rifle since all four of those common “hunting” calibers are high-performance calibers that will often penetrate through a human target AND do massive damage to the human body in the process (If somebody is worried about that.)... Verses what a .223 or 9mm does to the human body.
Most hunting calibers are meant to take down Bears, Elk and Moose, which are a lot bigger, which greater mass than a human.
FYI, the media makes the .223 and the 9mm to be the most powerful and most dangerous calibers out there AND available to the public... Which is a myth at best, but I’ll lean towards a lie to purposely confuse the people with no knowledge of firearms.
I just told you my background, so what is your background relating to firearms, to include any training involving the legal and safe usage of them to qualify your statements on why you do not believe that private citizens should have ARs, AKs and High Capacity magazines?
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but an opinion isn’t a fact and often not based on any factual information.
As for what can be done about firearm violence, the number ONE first step should be to ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS, IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME!!! Until that happens, why do we need more laws AND how are more laws going to work better when they’re not enforcing the laws we already have? In my law enforcement career, one of the FIRST charges that are dropped or pleaded down is the FIREARMS VIOLATIONS... which as a private citizen, now, makes me sick since it’s often done for political AND political correctness reasons. AND the criminal tends to walk with “time served,” often less than a week and some probation, which only makes criminals more bolder to commit more and often, more violent crimes since they see our “Justice System” as a joke... Trust me, they proudly boast about that once arrested.
Cal Guy, hopefully “I” answered all your questions in a respectful manner, so I’m now looking forward to your response.
Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it.
As I stated in my earlier post, I was looking for answers to why some gun enthusiast felt they needed these types of guns, and you have done a splendid job at explaining your personal reasons.
After reading the responses to my questions, and especially your response, I am ready to put forth what I feel is the correct response to once and for all, address this gun issue head on, and to be fair, while doing it.
Some will be in opposition to what I say, while some will agree.
If there is one thing in human nature that will never change, it is the fact that you can't please everyone.
Here is my solution:
First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place.
I am well aware of what it takes for this action, and I would not rule it out, regardless of what political party is in office.
The new amendment would have many articles incorporated into it, unlike the two sentences of the current amendment.
In no particular order, except the first article,(Article numbers not included) I feel this is how a new 2nd amendment would read.
"Article 1. The right of adult citizens with in the United States to bear arms shall be the law of the land with some exceptions, those being, for persons other than military or law enforcement, a firearm that has the ability to fire more than two bullets consecutively will be illegal to own, manufacture, import, export, or otherwise be privately manufactured by any person.
The use of computer software in the manufacture of guns is unlawful.
Firearms manufactured, imported or exported, used for the military and law enforcement shall not be infringed in any way.
Gun sales will be administered by qualified, licensed dealers only.
All gun purchases are to be done in person.
It is illegal to purchase a gun through any electronic device, whatever that device may be.
A background check must be done before any and all gun purchases.
The time allotted for such a check would be within a period of ten days.
A longer time would mean the proposed sale would be null and void, and no purchase would take place.
No sale of guns will be made to anyone unless the person buying the gun has evidence that the person has passed a gun training course in a state approved facility, qualified and licensed by a state in the training and use of firearms.
A certificate will be issues by the facility upon successful completion of the course.
This certificate shall remain in the state records for a period of five years, and will stay in effect for that period of time.
Beyond that time, the gun owner will re-apply for a new certification, by attending another training course.
The states are required to forward all records of firearm sales once yearly to the federal government's ATF department.
All firearms held by citizens , must be kept in a secure location when not in use."
There are perhaps other articles that could be added, but I feel this "new" amendment covers most of what is needed in addressing this firearms issue.
If any reading this have additional points that were not addressed in this posting, please post them.
You do realize that those definitions are not the same - they can't even agree on what is an assault weapon. The CA example includes guns that are hunting rifles, shotguns and hand guns and major parts of the law have already been ruled unconstitutional several times.
Assault weapon is a made up term if it has to be defined in legislation, especially if they cannot even agree on the definition. Most of the definition are merely about cosmetic items "because they look scary" and about number of rounds. Maybe we should ban all body piercings and tattoos because some think they look scary. Taking away freedoms is tyrannical in nature, exactly what the constitution is trying to prevent.
The 2nd amendment of the constitution can ONLY be changed by subsequent amendments - it CAN NOT be modified from its origins by wishing it or threats like "Either negotiate or lose the fight."
Compromise can be found by enforcing many of the current laws (and maybe immigration laws also) - criminals and mentally ill are already prohibited from possessing firearms. Compromise is unlikely to be found by trying to tax ownership or trying to ban the most common type of rifle in the US, the AR.
What is it about you folks that prohibits you from understanding what I'm patiently and repeatedly stating agreement with you about the plethora of definitions of assault weapons.
Those definitions however, do exist in laws of a variety of States. You can't just ignore that, they are a fact.
Burying your head in the sand leaves the largest part of you up front, loud and proud for the legislators to easily target.
And I will repeat, until you finally get the point that the constitutional amendment you speak of was done by mere men involved in politics, what is about your 2nd that elevates it to the degree that mere men cannot force it's amendment through the two houses and the SCOTUS if the majority of the population get fed up with the status quo.
Either sit down and reasonably craft laws you can all agree upon or lose this battle. Don't like the word lose - then use another that describes you all refusing compromise and threatening anarchy, to which the completely predictable response will be - - you losing.
Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it.
As I stated in my earlier post, I was looking for answers to why some gun enthusiast felt they needed these types of guns, and you have done a splendid job at explaining your personal reasons.
After reading the responses to my questions, and especially your response, I am ready to put forth what I feel is the correct response to once and for all, address this gun issue head on, and to be fair, while doing it.
Some will be in opposition to what I say, while some will agree.
If there is one thing in human nature that will never change, it is the fact that you can't please everyone.
Here is my solution:
First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place.
I am well aware of what it takes for this action, and I would not rule it out, regardless of what political party is in office.
The new amendment would have many articles incorporated into it, unlike the two sentences of the current amendment.
In no particular order, except the first article,(Article numbers not included) I feel this is how a new 2nd amendment would read.
"Article 1. The right of adult citizens with in the United States to bear arms shall be the law of the land with some exceptions, those being, for persons other than military or law enforcement, a firearm that has the ability to fire more than two bullets consecutively will be illegal to own, manufacture, import, export, or otherwise be privately manufactured by any person.
The use of computer software in the manufacture of guns is unlawful.
Firearms manufactured, imported or exported, used for the military and law enforcement shall not be infringed in any way.
Gun sales will be administered by qualified, licensed dealers only.
All gun purchases are to be done in person.
It is illegal to purchase a gun through any electronic device, whatever that device may be.
A background check must be done before any and all gun purchases.
The time allotted for such a check would be within a period of ten days.
A longer time would mean the proposed sale would be null and void, and no purchase would take place.
No sale of guns will be made to anyone unless the person buying the gun has evidence that the person has passed a gun training course in a state approved facility, qualified and licensed by a state in the training and use of firearms.
A certificate will be issues by the facility upon successful completion of the course.
This certificate shall remain in the state records for a period of five years, and will stay in effect for that period of time.
Beyond that time, the gun owner will re-apply for a new certification, by attending another training course.
The states are required to forward all records of firearm sales once yearly to the federal government's ATF department.
All firearms held by citizens , must be kept in a secure location when not in use."
There are perhaps other articles that could be added, but I feel this "new" amendment covers most of what is needed in addressing this firearms issue.
If any reading this have additional points that were not addressed in this posting, please post them.
Well Cal Guy, I guess we will have to agree that we disagree with our views on the Second Amendment.
Your version of doing away with the Second Amendment and replacing it with what you believe to be common sense and responsible will never ever happen since 3/4th of the States within the Union would have to agree to all those radical changes that you have stated.
Also, changing the United States Constitution is very dangerous. Today, the Progressive Liberals are in power for the next 4, and possibly the next 8 years, but when that should change, how would Liberals feel if the Conservatives than in return, changed the First Amendment, followed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? Can’t claim that it’s unconstitutional since that door has been opened to change the 2A.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
