Is it time to talk about any change in gun laws?

[sprigfan]

I hope you are right, but I don't think you are. The CT school shooting is almost the perfect straw to break the camel's back. Regardless of what we believe, it won't take long to find out.

I am never one to panic about new gun laws after mass shootings, but in this specific case I think you're right. All of the most recent mass shootings have involved AR15's. Now one was used against first grade children. I will be very surprised if a new assault weapons ban isn't passed or at least very nearly passed. Whether it's practically the same as Clinton's or worse, we'll have to wait and see.

[photogpat]

Feinstein is on the record with CNN as indicating she'll reintroduce her AWB.

[Ron Burgundy]

That would be no, no and no and wondering why they where asked.

Very simply, I had been asked those very questions, and had no argument against. In addition, if you don't ask, you won't know the reasons why or why not.

1. What is your proposal?
2. No
3. Yes

My proposal to the mentally ill question revolves specifically around those that should not own or have guns, that their is some way of reporting this so it comes up in the NICS check.

So what is your proposal? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm still curious as to what you think can/should be done so it is part of the NICS check. Short of mandatory physc. evaluations, I'm not sure how you could address this.

[tazdevil]

Have it linked to the NICS check?

Apparently, my ideas are unacceptable to the majority here, and I guess I'll have to leave it at that. But I will say this, we will have to work with the anti's at some point if we have any hope of protecting the sport we choose. Yes, it's easily stated that there's far more deaths from drinking and driving etc., however, they don't hold the same stigma that a mass event like this does, unless a drunk driver was to cause 50 car pileups every time they were in a accident, with massive injury/fatality tolls. When it's only a few people, and people like to blame the person driving, not the drunkenness (as they should, people are responsible for their own actions), the method (alcohol and driving) isn't as horrendous as the person who did it. With gun events, its precisely the reverse, and unjustly so as we know. But the anti's won't see it that way, and much of America as a whole may have just gone that way as well after Friday's tragedy.

[ijosef]

Someone on my facebook posted this rant:

Advocates of gun ownership rights wonder just what we would want to see changed, which reveals to me the profound lack of understanding regarding the tragic obsession with violence we have in this country. It also suggests to me that we need to institute a PUBLIC gun registry, wherein everyone who owns any and all manner of guns (including air gun "toys") to publicly list every weapon they own, along with their address. Next, they need to each write an essay explaining just how their ribald attachment to their guns protects them from the government, because I don't care how many damn assault weapons you own, if the US Military decides to turn against its citizenry, you don't stand a chance in hell. Finally, if you insist on carrying your ******** gun around, you absolutely must adhere to a "Reveal and Carry" law and wear it in a neon red, highly visible holster, with blinking lights that indicate to the public that a potentially violent individual is in our midst.

For shame, gun advocates. For shame.

Well, I guess that's what she wants for "gun control" at least.

[shooter115]

Someone on my facebook posted this rant:

Advocates of gun ownership rights wonder just what we would want to see changed, which reveals to me the profound lack of understanding regarding the tragic obsession with violence we have in this country. It also suggests to me that we need to institute a PUBLIC gun registry, wherein everyone who owns any and all manner of guns (including air gun "toys") to publicly list every weapon they own, along with their address. Next, they need to each write an essay explaining just how their ribald attachment to their guns protects them from the government, because I don't care how many damn assault weapons you own, if the US Military decides to turn against its citizenry, you don't stand a chance in hell. Finally, if you insist on carrying your ******** gun around, you absolutely must adhere to a "Reveal and Carry" law and wear it in a neon red, highly visible holster, with blinking lights that indicate to the public that a potentially violent individual is in our midst.

For shame, gun advocates. For shame.

Well, I guess that's what she wants for "gun control" at least.

I don't think I could could click "Un-friend" fast enough.

[tman]

we will have to work with the anti's at some point if we have any hope of protecting the sport we choose.

If you're merely worried about sport shooting, you'll be waiting too long to jump into the fray. Sport shooters are farther down "the list."

[bstrawse]

we will have to work with the anti's at some point if we have any hope of protecting the sport we choose.

If you're merely worried about sport shooting, you'll be waiting too long to jump into the fray. Sport shooters are farther down "the list."

Why do we have to work with the antis again? I can't think of anything they propose that I am in favor of.

We gain nothing by working "with" them.
b

[LePetomane]

Why do we have to work with the antis again?

Agree. These leftists define compromise as when their opponents give in.

The ones that bother me are the ones who state "I don't have anything against hunting, but..." When I hear that I know the lecture is coming.

[tazdevil]

we will have to work with the anti's at some point if we have any hope of protecting the sport we choose.

If you're merely worried about sport shooting, you'll be waiting too long to jump into the fray. Sport shooters are farther down "the list."

Not 3 gun, they're near if not at the top of the list. Almost everything we use may be on the ban camp list.

When I say work with them, I don't mean to become defeatist about it. No way in hell! I mean to try to form some understanding instead of shouting matches on any and all the issues. We, the "gun nutz" as they like to call us, need to be the calmer more rational one's in the ensuing debates to keep our side the believable one to all.

[LarryFlew]

, need to be the calmer more rational one's in the ensuing debates to keep our side the believable one to all.

Part of the problem might be - there are no debates, just new knee-jerk reactions and new laws. If the mfgs hadn't named their guns "assault weapons" would we still have this going on or would all rifles be banned.

Unfortunately IMO if there where debates neither side would want to give in anyway and we would be at the same stand-off as we are now with constitutional rights being beat on every day.

[The Lance]

I'm willing to bet a high capacity magazine ban again..

Get your mags

[bstrawse]

The President is using the Brady Campaign's line of "We are better than this" in his speech.

We're in for a rough road - it's time to get organized.

[river_boater]

I sometimes wonder if giving up the so-called "gun show loophole" would actually be a good idea.

I'm on all the major anti's email lists, and every single one references this "issue" every time one goes out. We all know it would make little difference, but if if it was "closed" it would pretty-much eliminate at least half of their bitching "platform."

Don't you think?

[bstrawse]

I sometimes wonder if giving up the so-called "gun show loophole" would actually be a good idea.

I'm on all the major anti's email lists, and every single one references this "issue" every time one goes out. We all know it would make little difference, but if if it was "closed" it would pretty-much eliminate at least half of their bitching "platform."

Don't you think?

no. They would then find another issue.
b