"it's time for hunters to leave the NRA"

[atomheartbevo 89756]

6 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

There are issues from both sides.  You point to the GQP’s flaws of kicking out those that won’t toe the line, but no mention of the equal and opposite on the left.  

Granted I'm not a Democrat, and hadn't really followed their policies/politicians until the past 5-6 years, but I really don't recall Democrats going after one another, and wanting to utterly destroy one another at the same level as the Republicans here in 2021.  I'm aware of some of the purity tests Democrats have, and very aware of the ones the GOP had in the '90s and into the 2010s, but for the GOP in 2021, it's not so much a purity test as it is about the cult of personality. 

It's going to cost the GOP votes in the long run.  Young people don't care for this kind of bickering, and as we get more and more school shootings, and we see Republicans act out in the way they are doing where not only do they not compromise at all, they thumb their noses in the faces of victims, it's going to ramp up the rhetoric to where we get an Assault Weapons Ban II.  Of course, an AWB II would be awesome for The GOP, as it would kick their fundraising into very high gear.

An AWB II would really kick the NRA into high gear as well.  Wayne could buy himself another plane or yacht or mansion or whatever fairly quickly.

Edited December 7, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89756]

4 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

I’m fairly close to the point where I’m OK with a licensing process for gun ownership treating it similar to concealed carry laws. 

Want to own guns? Get some education in safety and proper storage, a mental health check and get licensed.

I know a lot of fellow gun owners will hate this, but we need to find a way to weed out the irresponsible and mentally ill from having easy access.

I'm not. I would be surprised if two-thirds of America's firearms are properly associated with their actual owners, and any kind of licensing program for general ownership would be toothless by design. I've got almost a dozen firearms these days, and only two of them could ever be traced to me (the rest are hand-me-downs/inheritances or bought for cash years ago). The problem is not Grandpa's shotguns or the Springfield 1903 from a another relative.

I feel like a two-pronged approach is needed.

1. We could start with better Red Flag laws across the board/all states, including removal of firearms in the home, and barring others in the household from buying firearms and/or ammo.  A lot of these shootings could have been prevented with more comprehensive Red Flag laws - way too many of these folks were known to the mental healthcare system, but they still had access to firearms in the home or were even able to legally purchase them. Sandy Hook, the shooter was on meds/known to the mental health system there, and it should have prevented others (his mom) within the household from buying him weapons and a lot of ammo and getting him lots of training. The Sutherland Springs shooting - the Air Force fucked that up apparently, and had it been flagged in the civilian databases that he was convicted or whatever of domestic abuse, he doesn't buy his rifle.  Aurora, Virginia Tech, etc., these shootings had people with mental health issues that should have been flagged.

Parkland shooting?  The cops made 45 calls to his home either dealing with him, his brother, or other family members. A sheriff's deputy at the school and two school counselors asked for him to be committed for a mental evaluation. Multiple people phoned in tips that he was going to shoot up a school over a year prior to the shooting.  The FBI had a tip through their tip line that he would shoot up a school, and some procedure wasn't followed and the tip wasn't followed upon.  Those things were all huge red flags.

Now does it stop straw purchases or going to a relative outside of the household and getting their weapons?  Or accessing a weapon in the household that was not registered to anybody there (although hopefully a red flag law could remove such a firearm).  No, but it could have made it a lot more difficult for a lot of these people. If you can knock down 25% or more of these shootings (look up school/mass shooters - a shit-ton of them would have been flagged under a solid red flag system) that would be a lot of lives saved, and a lot more folks would be spared the trauma or having been through it in some manner, either witnessing it or losing friends/family.

And it wouldn't stop the Las Vegas shooting and that guy buying 14 AR-15s or whatever (he was not known to the mental health system or law enforcement), but it would sure as hell help everywhere else.

2. Hold the gun owners responsible (outside of it having been stolen as Brisket mentioned, assuming they reported it stolen).   While this would take a few years to really sink in for gun owners, if you started holding the gun owners responsible, you would get some traction over time.  It's very easy for a lot of parents/relatives to check out of their kids lives and not pay any attention, but if you had

The Sandy Hook mom who indulged her son's gun fantasies and bought him firearms, ammo, and training, she paid for it with her life, but the recent shooting is seeing the mom and dad go through this, and the whole world knows that the mom laughed about him being caught looking at ammo in a class, and that she chided him for getting caught.  Regardless, if you get gun owners into a mentality of "it's not just what you personally do, but what others do with your firearms", it'll cut down on some of these.

But no, the NRA/Republicans will fight tooth-and-nail the idea of removing guns from the homes of people with mental health problems.  Which speaks volumes about what they think of their constituents/members.

[tx 3 putt 77226]

 

fucking commies 

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Got it. So instead of discussing actual bills passed by the actual House we’re focusing instead on tooth fairy type bullshit. Shocker there. 

Fairy tales like pubs getting primaried on the reg for opposing anything less than a hard stance?  Ever happened before, maybe, but that was your fringe example. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Fairy tales like pubs getting primaried on the reg for opposing anything less than a hard stance?  Ever happened before, maybe, but that was your fringe example. 

No comment on the House bill I see. Wonder why.

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No comment on the House bill I see. Wonder why.

Haven’t read. Will though. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm glad you came around. For me, this is bare minimum. 

I’m ok with it too. Problem is it acts as a poll tax to the poor who certainly have the right to protect themselves. I have the time and money so idgaf really, but training and education and what not are time consuming and expensive. I’ve been told people can’t be expected to take off work to get an ID for voting, the most sacred right we have, so surely they don't have the time to take mandatory classes and training. 

5 hours ago, elfenix said:

that's not the bill that fatty is complaining about. SJL's bill would build a database of all firearms and has so far died in committee in the 116th congress and is stuck in committee in the 117th congress and has gotten exactly 0 cosponsors in 2 congresses but you know nancy hasn't told her to pound sand so fatty is really upset about it.  #bothsides

Like it or not, her and Feinstein draw the attention. They are the ones clamoring for it, and they put the idiotic bullshit in their bills. If they don’t want the attention, they shouldn’t do that.  Personally I’m glad they do, because they will never pass and get people off the couch and into the booth. 
 

8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Only law I want to see, all gun owners are responsible for their guns. If their gun commits a crime, they are fully charged and liable 

I’m 100% onboard with that. I’d love for they to be the only law that passes.  Fuck, give it teeth.  You commit a crime with a firearm, 20 years, no parole. You commit a violent crime with a firearm, life without parole.  That would at a minimum slow these castle doctrine self defense cases down.  No room for pussyfooting it if you really want something done, imo. 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

that's not the bill that fatty is complaining about. SJL's bill would build a database of all firearms and has so far died in committee in the 116th congress and is stuck in committee in the 117th congress and has gotten exactly 0 cosponsors in 2 congresses but you know nancy hasn't told her to pound sand so fatty is really upset about it.  #bothsides

Yeah, I was going to say, I bet that's about as popular as most SJL bills.  Meaning not at all, even from Ds.

[atomheartbevo 89756]

56 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

fucking commies 

The irony is that these days if you wanted that kind of information before an invasion, you could easily and cheaply buy it months in advance by simply buying up mailing lists from various websites/magazines/gun-related organizations, etc.  That's assuming you didn't do some kind of magazine/website yourself with some cool gun-related content, where gun owners flock to give you their information.

Or in the case of Russians, you would have plenty of hackers who have already obtained and compiled that information into a neat database that they've been selling to any all buyers. 

Hell, even though I've moved a lot (multiple states, many addresses) since I was an NRA member, and never gave them my email (the address I use didn't exist when I was last a member) I still get emails and physical mailers from the NRA.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m ok with it too. Problem is it acts as a poll tax to the poor who certainly have the right to protect themselves. I have the time and money so idgaf really, but training and education and what not are time consuming and expensive. I’ve been told people can’t be expected to take off work to get an ID for voting, the most sacred right we have, so surely they don't have the time to take mandatory classes and training. 

Like it or not, her and Feinstein draw the attention. They are the ones clamoring for it, and they put the idiotic bullshit in their bills. If they don’t want the attention, they shouldn’t do that.  Personally I’m glad they do, because they will never pass and get people off the couch and into the booth. 
 

I’m 100% onboard with that. I’d love for they to be the only law that passes.  Fuck, give it teeth.  You commit a crime with a firearm, 20 years, no parole. You commit a violent crime with a firearm, life without parole.  That would at a minimum slow these castle doctrine self defense cases down.  No room for pussyfooting it if you really want something done, imo. 

I'll meet you half way. Registering is a fee. That's your choice. You buy a gun you can pay to get it logged in. Insurance, that's on you too. However, the education portion, whether initial or continuing, is free. Same with continual registration. Once it's logged, you're good. You sell, report it. I'm also fine with exempting certain arms from any fees. Billy probably needs a one shot 20ga to learn with. He's not gonna rampage with that. If it's clearly for hunting, different category. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

[tx 3 putt 77226]

On 12/4/2021 at 11:06 PM, Bullneck said:

 

 

 

if you're going to take a dumb picture like that, at least pose with guns you actually own 

[Pescado_Rojo 19427]

7 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Should have made all the ones the wimmins are holding blek. Massie would have put a hit on the guy. 

[Born to Run 6569]

I’m 100% onboard with that. I’d love for they to be the only law that passes.  Fuck, give it teeth.  You commit a crime with a firearm, 20 years, no parole. You commit a violent crime with a firearm, life without parole.  That would at a minimum slow these castle doctrine self defense cases down.  No room for pussyfooting it if you really want something done, imo. 

No one gives a shit about the financial burden of drivers licenses, q

[TXSG8R 3362]

12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm not. I would be surprised if two-thirds of America's firearms are properly associated with their actual owners, and any kind of licensing program for general ownership would be toothless by design. I've got almost a dozen firearms these days, and only two of them could ever be traced to me (the rest are hand-me-downs/inheritances or bought for cash years ago). The problem is not Grandpa's shotguns or the Springfield 1903 from a another relative.

I feel like a two-pronged approach is needed.

1. We could start with better Red Flag laws across the board/all states, including removal of firearms in the home, and barring others in the household from buying firearms and/or ammo.  A lot of these shootings could have been prevented with more comprehensive Red Flag laws - way too many of these folks were known to the mental healthcare system, but they still had access to firearms in the home or were even able to legally purchase them. Sandy Hook, the shooter was on meds/known to the mental health system there, and it should have prevented others (his mom) within the household from buying him weapons and a lot of ammo and getting him lots of training. The Sutherland Springs shooting - the Air Force fucked that up apparently, and had it been flagged in the civilian databases that he was convicted or whatever of domestic abuse, he doesn't buy his rifle.  Aurora, Virginia Tech, etc., these shootings had people with mental health issues that should have been flagged.

Parkland shooting?  The cops made 45 calls to his home either dealing with him, his brother, or other family members. A sheriff's deputy at the school and two school counselors asked for him to be committed for a mental evaluation. Multiple people phoned in tips that he was going to shoot up a school over a year prior to the shooting.  The FBI had a tip through their tip line that he would shoot up a school, and some procedure wasn't followed and the tip wasn't followed upon.  Those things were all huge red flags.

Now does it stop straw purchases or going to a relative outside of the household and getting their weapons?  Or accessing a weapon in the household that was not registered to anybody there (although hopefully a red flag law could remove such a firearm).  No, but it could have made it a lot more difficult for a lot of these people. If you can knock down 25% or more of these shootings (look up school/mass shooters - a shit-ton of them would have been flagged under a solid red flag system) that would be a lot of lives saved, and a lot more folks would be spared the trauma or having been through it in some manner, either witnessing it or losing friends/family.

And it wouldn't stop the Las Vegas shooting and that guy buying 14 AR-15s or whatever (he was not known to the mental health system or law enforcement), but it would sure as hell help everywhere else.

2. Hold the gun owners responsible (outside of it having been stolen as Brisket mentioned, assuming they reported it stolen).   While this would take a few years to really sink in for gun owners, if you started holding the gun owners responsible, you would get some traction over time.  It's very easy for a lot of parents/relatives to check out of their kids lives and not pay any attention, but if you had

The Sandy Hook mom who indulged her son's gun fantasies and bought him firearms, ammo, and training, she paid for it with her life, but the recent shooting is seeing the mom and dad go through this, and the whole world knows that the mom laughed about him being caught looking at ammo in a class, and that she chided him for getting caught.  Regardless, if you get gun owners into a mentality of "it's not just what you personally do, but what others do with your firearms", it'll cut down on some of these.

But no, the NRA/Republicans will fight tooth-and-nail the idea of removing guns from the homes of people with mental health problems.  Which speaks volumes about what they think of their constituents/members.

I think 2 is way more important than 1.  There’s no reasonable way to impact gun access in this country. Any attempts at restricting access is just a Republican/NRA fundraising wet dream. Don’t even talk about sales restrictions, just focus on registration/licensing, tying criminal acts to the weapon owner, and education. Put a fat ass subsidy in there to the NRA and others for increasing education resources. Put another subsidy in there for existing gun owners to get a free gun safe(s) after registering their existing weapons. I’m a big proponent for mandatory insurance, and maybe we tie gun registration and gun storage to zeroing out that insurance.  your weapon is used in a crime and it didn’t have insurance and registration? Make it similar to a DUI where it’s a $10k+ bill and year long slog through the criminal system to even attempt to clear your name. You forfeit your weapons during that process as well. Incentivize registration without making it mandatory.
 

Stuff like that helps reduce the FUD campaign from the right and shows that the effort is focused on gun safety, not punishing gun owners, or the dreaded slippery slope on disarming America. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

10 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'll meet you half way. Registering is a fee. That's your choice. You buy a gun you can pay to get it logged in. Insurance, that's on you too. However, the education portion, whether initial or continuing, is free. Same with continual registration. Once it's logged, you're good. You sell, report it. I'm also fine with exempting certain arms from any fees. Billy probably needs a one shot 20ga to learn with. He's not gonna rampage with that. If it's clearly for hunting, different category. 

I know this is surly, but I'm not being a smart ass.  You understand any new gun sales, any sale from a gun store, and any gun purchased off an online auction site is registered, and a fee is paid to the FFL who is performing that service? I don't have an issue with making f2f transactions having to happen at an FFL or govt office with FFL provided.  Closing the "gun show" loophole if you will.  Out of dozens of (alleged) firearms I can only think of ~10  that aren't registered to me, and all but 2 of those were inherited/gifted.  I obviously don't have a problem with the registration, but can understand those that take issue with there being a list of everything you own somewhere.  Especially those with some real value ($$$) accumulated sitting there in their house.

58 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

your weapon is used in a crime and it didn’t have insurance and registration? Make it similar to a DUI where it’s a $10k+ bill and year long slog through the criminal system to even attempt to clear your name. You forfeit your weapons during that process as well.

A 10k bill and a year in the court system sounds like less penalty than you'd get now?   If you want to make it stop, you have to make it hurt.  On the fence about carrying into that party where shit might pop off?  Maybe 20 years without parole for a non-violent violation would make you put it back in the drawer (safe) before heading out.  Put the gun down, Craig.

[elfenix 34330]

12 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Personally I’m glad they do, because they will never pass and get people off the couch and into the booth. 

"i'm glad that we can use these things that have no hope of passing to make sure that the NRA can use them to scare people into the voting booth and thereby assure that more reasonable stuff doesn't get passed either!"

 

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I obviously don't have a problem with the registration

"SJL's bill is full of idiotic shit but i don't have a problem with the biggest part of it."

[hayden_horn 11364]

i'm also all for registration and even possibly a registration fee. but how do we build that infrastructure. we've done it for cars quite successfully, i will say. how would we do it for guns?

i have a single shot 410 that i inherited from dad. there is probably 0% chance it is ever used in a crime. how do we handle that vs the 9mm my wife bought me for christmas 12 years ago? that's probably technically registered to my father in law who went with her to do that. 

i really want guns accounted for in this country. i really want to own guns, though i'm not sure why, i just know that i do. 

so how do we make this work?

[Brisketexan 105177]

14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i have a single shot 410 that i inherited from dad. there is probably 0% chance it is ever used in a crime.

Dude......

Quote

The Cubans grabbed the goodies and Sonny grabbed the Jack
He broke a bathroom window and climbed on out the back
Sherry drove the pickup through the alley on the side
Where a lawman tackled Sonny and was reading him his rights
She stepped into the alley with a single shot .410
The road goes on forever and the party never ends

 

[elfenix 34330]

19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we've done it for cars quite successfully

fake paper plates say hi

[fattyflattie 4639]

55 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"i'm glad that we can use these things that have no hope of passing to make sure that the NRA can use them to scare people into the voting booth and thereby assure that more reasonable stuff doesn't get passed either!"

 

"SJL's bill is full of idiotic shit but i don't have a problem with the biggest part of it."

Yes, I'm 100% fine with the way things are currently.  In fact, there are some things such as suppressors and SBR's that are over restricted.   We have laws on the books we can't even maintain. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude......

 

This is actually a really good point.  Let he who hasn't thought of running off to Miami on a bender with a loose bar maid cast the first stone. 

[hayden_horn 11364]

49 minutes ago, elfenix said:

fake paper plates say hi

eh, i mean, i guess. 

i didn't know that was a problem. is that a new development during covid?

[Pescado_Rojo 19427]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, I'm 100% fine with the way things are currently.  In fact, there are some things such as suppressors and SBR's that are over restricted.   We have laws on the books we can't even maintain. 

This is the kind of stuff that should be ripe for compromise if we had a function democracy. Democrats should offer to soften the restrictions on those things for concessions on Red flag laws and expanded background checks. Everyone gets in a room and hammers something out and we end up with bipartisan legislation that makes sense. But since the only risk to their continued "Service" is being primaried by someone more ideologically extreme than them, they won't even entertain being seen as moderate or bipartisan.  

[tx 3 putt 77226]

We need to get in the gun insurance business 

Edited December 7, 2021 by tx 3 putt

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

This is the kind of stuff that should be ripe for compromise if we had a function democracy. Democrats should offer to soften the restrictions on those things for concessions on Red flag laws and expanded background checks. Everyone gets in a room and hammers something out and we end up with bipartisan legislation that makes sense. But since the only risk to their continued "Service" is being primaried by someone more ideologically extreme than them, they won't even entertain being seen as moderate or bipartisan.  

Agreed.  I don't believe anyone is arguing in good faith.  I mean, we are wanting to get rid of one particular fun because it's "scary looking" and "tacticool".  So, I'm not holding out much hope for anything that will solve any real issues. 

[tx 3 putt 77226]

Also, I thought Donnie Jr was looking to take things over from Lapeirre ?

[atomheartbevo 89756]

4 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

Don’t even talk about sales restrictions, just focus on registration/licensing, tying criminal acts to the weapon owner, and education. Put a fat ass subsidy in there to the NRA and others for increasing education resources. Put another subsidy in there for existing gun owners to get a free gun safe(s) after registering their existing weapons.

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm also all for registration and even possibly a registration fee. but how do we build that infrastructure. we've done it for cars quite successfully, i will say. how would we do it for guns?

i have a single shot 410 that i inherited from dad. there is probably 0% chance it is ever used in a crime. how do we handle that vs the 9mm my wife bought me for christmas 12 years ago? that's probably technically registered to my father in law who went with her to do that. 

i really want guns accounted for in this country. i really want to own guns, though i'm not sure why, i just know that i do. 

so how do we make this work?

I think there would be far more resistance to registering every gun out there and tying it to somebody, then there would be to red flag laws.

The best figures I can find for Texas is that there are 700,000 - 1 million registered firearms, with well over 20 million firearms in the state.  So I was way off in my guess about how many guns are registered - far less than I would have imagined, but makes sense given how many decades and decades of gun sales happened before computerization.

Which leads to this: How do you register all of those guns?  Because I can't see a way to do it, without creating an Orwellian bureaucracy that gets access to peoples' homes or that tracks ammo purchases, etc. and ties them to specific guns.  "Hey, Buster J. Smith has a registered 12-gauge and a registered 30-06 deer rifle, but he sure is buying a lot of .223 and 9mm ammo" (or vice versa) or "Buster J. Smith buys a lot of 9mm ammo but he has no guns registered to him.."

Hayden and I (and plenty of others) both have firearms that were bought by other people and not tied to us.  I rarely have firearms in my house - they are in storage, or at a relatives, and I will most likely never be shooting them at any firing ranges - it'll be out in the country on land we own. In theory, they will never cross paths with anybody that could do any kind of registration.  So how you force me to register them?

And as others have pointed out, they aren't keen on having lists lying around of what they own, because if those lists fall into the wrong hands, you become a target for theft/etc.

I just don't see full-blown gun registration happening, because it's the nightmare scenario that the NRA jerks off to (from a fundraising perspective).

With that said, you can still hold gun owners responsible - the vast majority, and I mean vast majority, of these school/mass shootings are happening with newer guns that are in the system and were recently purchased (in relation to the shooting) and are almost always tied to the shooter or a relative.  It's not grandpa's shotgun or the 1911 that he told the Army was lost in Europe somewhere, and it's not some kid buying a stolen gun on a corner late at night.  It's somebody who gives no fucks about a gun being registered to themselves or a family member, because they are going out in a blaze of glory and won't suffer the repercussions, and they need a rifle or sidearm that fires quickly and is easy to reload.  They aren't shoving 8-round clips into a Garand and trying not to take the tip of their thumb off in the process.

 

[atomheartbevo 89756]

5 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

 There’s no reasonable way to impact gun access in this country. Any attempts at restricting access is just a Republican/NRA fundraising wet dream. Don’t even talk about sales restrictions,

Make the GOP/NRA go fully on record defending sales of firearms to those who are mentally ill or households with a mentally ill person in them. I mean, I've seen them already flight red flag laws openly, but the term "red flag" is used instead of "mentally ill".  Really make them defend it, and couch it in terms that everybody understands - that the NRA/GOP is defending the sales of firearms (or access) to the very people who engage in mass shootings or domestic violence.

I know, I know, it's a joke.

State: Why should we sell firearms to mentally ill people, or allow mentally ill people to have access to them?

Republican political: Because they vote for me?

I do think if the recent school shooter's parents do serious prison time, it'll wake up a small number of gun owners.  Not many, because too many won't budge a single inch.

[atomheartbevo 89756]

1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

This is the kind of stuff that should be ripe for compromise if we had a function democracy. Democrats should offer to soften the restrictions on those things for concessions on Red flag laws and expanded background checks. Everyone gets in a room and hammers something out and we end up with bipartisan legislation that makes sense. But since the only risk to their continued "Service" is being primaried by someone more ideologically extreme than them, they won't even entertain being seen as moderate or bipartisan.  

It should be ripe, but both sides benefit and fundraise off of this stuff. It's a wedge issue that gets people to contribute in large numbers.

A rational gun owner should be concerned. If the Democrats had enough power in Congress to get another Assault Weapons Ban passed, like the one we had from 1994 - 2004, it would probably be even tougher than that one. Keep in mind that the original AWB withstood a decade of legal challenges by the NRA, etc. and only went away when it sunsetted and not because a court struck it down,  which means the Democrats would have a decade's worth of failed legal challenges to look through and make an AWB II even tighter than the original.

Of course, the NRA would benefit the most from an AWB II.  If you were an NRA executive, you would financially benefit since fundraising would go through the roof.  So why compromise?

That's the problem with organizations like the NRA.  NRA executives financially benefit when things look bleak for gun owners.  How can a gun owner trust an organization like the NRA when you see the excesses that their executives engaged in on your dime?

[elfenix 34330]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

eh, i mean, i guess. 

i didn't know that was a problem. is that a new development during covid?

you must not live in houston

 

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Agreed.  I don't believe anyone is arguing in good faith.  I mean, we are wanting to get rid of one particular fun because it's "scary looking" and "tacticool".  So, I'm not holding out much hope for anything that will solve any real issues. 

holding SJL's legislation with 0 cosponsors which is dead in 2 consecutive congresses out as a boogeyman and then complaining that you don't believe anyone is arguing in good faith is kinda up there.  i guess you count yourself in the "anyone" at least. 

[Brisketexan 105177]

13 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A rational gun owner should be concerned.

This one is.  Because pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The more that "gun owners" are correctly characterized as "utterly unwilling to compromise at all, and don't give a fuck about their fellow Americans," the more we are setting up an overly strong pushback, eventually of "fine, fuck 'em.  Ban guns."

If you wanted to run a strategy that ultimately resulted in gun owners being marginalized and disregarded completely, a "fuck you, we won't compromise on anything ever!" strategy would be what you'd draw up.

[fattyflattie 4639]

17 minutes ago, elfenix said:

holding SJL's legislation with 0 cosponsors which is dead in 2 consecutive congresses out as a boogeyman and then complaining that you don't believe anyone is arguing in good faith is kinda up there.  i guess you count yourself in the "anyone" at least. 

How do you figure?  There is a not small contingent that feels like she does.  There is a contingent that couldn't pick the gun they want to ban out of a lineup, they just know it cant exist because it polls well.  That is the boogeyman.  Closing loopholes in F2F transactions and enforcing the current laws isn't the problem, and a large swath of the country wants it.  It's coming.  That's not what people are worried about.  I mean you remember when Beto needed a push in the polls and became the anti-gun guy right? 

[elfenix 34330]

and someone else who is about to lose his third consecutive election. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think there would be far more resistance to registering every gun out there and tying it to somebody, then there would be to red flag laws.

The best figures I can find for Texas is that there are 700,000 - 1 million registered firearms, with well over 20 million firearms in the state.  So I was way off in my guess about how many guns are registered - far less than I would have imagined, but makes sense given how many decades and decades of gun sales happened before computerization.

Which leads to this: How do you register all of those guns?  Because I can't see a way to do it, without creating an Orwellian bureaucracy that gets access to peoples' homes or that tracks ammo purchases, etc. and ties them to specific guns.  "Hey, Buster J. Smith has a registered 12-gauge and a registered 30-06 deer rifle, but he sure is buying a lot of .223 and 9mm ammo" (or vice versa) or "Buster J. Smith buys a lot of 9mm ammo but he has no guns registered to him.."

Hayden and I (and plenty of others) both have firearms that were bought by other people and not tied to us.  I rarely have firearms in my house - they are in storage, or at a relatives, and I will most likely never be shooting them at any firing ranges - it'll be out in the country on land we own. In theory, they will never cross paths with anybody that could do any kind of registration.  So how you force me to register them?

And as others have pointed out, they aren't keen on having lists lying around of what they own, because if those lists fall into the wrong hands, you become a target for theft/etc.

I just don't see full-blown gun registration happening, because it's the nightmare scenario that the NRA jerks off to (from a fundraising perspective).

With that said, you can still hold gun owners responsible - the vast majority, and I mean vast majority, of these school/mass shootings are happening with newer guns that are in the system and were recently purchased (in relation to the shooting) and are almost always tied to the shooter or a relative.  It's not grandpa's shotgun or the 1911 that he told the Army was lost in Europe somewhere, and it's not some kid buying a stolen gun on a corner late at night.  It's somebody who gives no fucks about a gun being registered to themselves or a family member, because they are going out in a blaze of glory and won't suffer the repercussions, and they need a rifle or sidearm that fires quickly and is easy to reload.  They aren't shoving 8-round clips into a Garand and trying not to take the tip of their thumb off in the process.

 

I agree, that’s why I expressly said to incentivize gun registration, not make it mandatory. The carrot is a reduction in gun insurance, or a reduction in criminal or civil penalties if the gun is used in a crime.  The stick is stiffer penalties for unregistered/uninsured guns being used in a crime. It’s still completely voluntary, but rational people will choose to register and insure.  
 

I also completely agree that some people and/or guns are extremely unlikely to be involved in a crime. They can roll the dice on not registering or insuring just like someone operating a car. 
 

I don’t see how a red flag law would have prevented the Crumbley school shooting. By the time he got on the schools radar it was already too late (assuming no additional stuff comes out). In fairness, there’s no guarantee that registration and/or insurance would either, his parents are fucking idiots. It will take some people being made examples of before this shit starts having an effect on shitty gun ownership.
 

You will also need to stand up an entire new law enforcement agency just to deal with investigating/enforcing red flag laws if they are tied to school discipline.  The volume of kids saying and doing dumb shit that would likely meet the criteria of getting guns removed from their home is significant. 

[elfenix 34330]

i see "insure" used so often for "ensure" that seeing "insure" used properly is fucking with my brain

[workswithseed 2108]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

i see "insure" used so often for "ensure" that seeing "insure" used properly is fucking with my brain

You ensured that insure is fucking with your brain, because you didn't correct the problem.

[atomheartbevo 89756]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This one is.  Because pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The more that "gun owners" are correctly characterized as "utterly unwilling to compromise at all, and don't give a fuck about their fellow Americans," the more we are setting up an overly strong pushback, eventually of "fine, fuck 'em.  Ban guns."

If you wanted to run a strategy that ultimately resulted in gun owners being marginalized and disregarded completely, a "fuck you, we won't compromise on anything ever!" strategy would be what you'd draw up.

This is what's going to happen.  

And I swear a shitload of these gun owners are either not very old, or blacked out from 1994 - 2004, because they seem to forget that we had an assault weapons ban, and if they continue to fuck around, eventually we will get AWB II on steroids.

And like I said, the Democrats have 10 years of the Republicans/NRA/etc. trying to get the original AWB struck down, so they've seen the best attempts at how Republicans/NRA would attack such legislation, and why it failed, and if any of it was close to succeeding, and they can apply that to an AWB II.

[atomheartbevo 89756]

1 hour ago, TXSG8R said:

I don’t see how a red flag law would have prevented the Crumbley school shooting. By the time he got on the schools radar it was already too late (assuming no additional stuff comes out). In fairness, there’s no guarantee that registration and/or insurance would either, his parents are fucking idiots. It will take some people being made examples of before this shit starts having an effect on shitty gun ownership.

That's why we need a two-pronged approach - red flag laws to catch the Parkland stuff, the Sandy Hook stuff, the Virginia Tech and Aurora shooters, etc., and then the second prong being making owners/parents responsible - like the Crumbley school shooting where the mom laughed at her kid getting caught, and the parents refused to pull him out of class.  The second prong would reduce the chances here and there, but isn't going to stop all of them, but it'll make some parents think a little more.

The Crumbley situation could fall through the cracks of both of those, with a kid not known to be a problem until a day or two before shit went down, and dumbass parents, but it's about taking a larger view of this.

1 hour ago, TXSG8R said:

You will also need to stand up an entire new law enforcement agency just to deal with investigating/enforcing red flag laws if they are tied to school discipline.  The volume of kids saying and doing dumb shit that would likely meet the criteria of getting guns removed from their home is significant. 

You are making this way too complex, and setting it up to get bogged down and fail.  We don't need new law enforcement agencies, and it's not about school discipline, it's about mental health issues.

Keep it simple.  There's a huge difference between a kid fucking around and drawing dicks on the bathroom wall, and a kid doing or saying shit like drawing dead classmates and talking about voices hurting him, where a law enforcement officer or school counselor said "hey, this kid needs a mental evaluation!"

In the case of the Parkland shooting, you had school counselors and the school cop (a deputy sheriff) saying  that he needed a mental evaluation (in addition to the 45 cop calls made to the home).

In the case of the Crumbley situation, the drawings were a red flag, and the parents shouldn't have had the option to leave him in class.

And the red flag situation ties into a better mental health system, which is its own thread.

Edited December 7, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[elfenix 34330]

6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

so they've seen the best attempts at how Republicans/NRA would attack such legislation, and why it failed, and if any of it was close to succeeding

*laughs in fedsoc*

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

It's amazing how many people are quick to offer up their opinions about the state of our current legislation regarding guns who haven't the first clue what it actually contains. Yet these same people waste no time in offering their opinions about how it needs to be fixed. 

There is no nationwide gun registration. The reason there isn't is because the gun control folks made a compromise with the gun folks. The Gun Control Act of 1968 only passed because they made a compromise. There would be a system to federally license firearms dealers and all sales through them would be subject to background checks, etc, etc. When you buy a gun, your local FFL keeps a copy of your paperwork on file. It used to be like 20 years, but Biden just changed it to indefinitely. The manufacturers know who the retailer was based on the serial number, and they can then begin to track the owner from there based on the paperwork from the sale.

This was a huge change in the status quo of basically anybody bought whatever they wanted from whoever they wanted unless it ran afoul of the NFA, but it all came about because they made a compromise that there would be background checks but no registry.

Now we have people on the left complaining that the people on the right won't compromise when they've already been promised that what they already did was all the compromise they needed?  It's not hard to figure out why they gun rights folks are wary.

*I'm not opposed to trying to introduce new gun laws that manage to both respect constitutional rights and keep guns out of the hands of potential school shooters, but neither side seems to be actually interested in that.

[Guest]

On 12/6/2021 at 7:57 PM, atomheartbevo said:

 

But no, the NRA/Republicans will fight tooth-and-nail the idea of removing guns from the homes of people with mental health problems.  Which speaks volumes about what they think of their constituents/members.

I agree with much of your post, but this line is troubling.  You care to define "mental health problems?"  Does it require diagnosis? arrests?  certain number of civil complaints? examination of voting record?  Religious affiliation?

The last 2 are tongue-in-cheek to a certain degree, but read any number of exchanges on this board or watch them in real life; and those things most certainly get questioned as indicators of intellectual maturity/ capability.  Who gets to decide what "mental health problems" are is the sticking point, not that there are some sick motherfuckers who should never own a gun.

[Biff Tannen 45695]

14 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It's amazing how many people are quick to offer up their opinions about the state of our current legislation regarding guns who haven't the first clue what it actually contains. Yet these same people waste no time in offering their opinions about how it needs to be fixed. 

There is no nationwide gun registration. The reason there isn't is because the gun control folks made a compromise with the gun folks. The Gun Control Act of 1968 only passed because they made a compromise. There would be a system to federally license firearms dealers and all sales through them would be subject to background checks, etc, etc. When you buy a gun, your local FFL keeps a copy of your paperwork on file. It used to be like 20 years, but Biden just changed it to indefinitely. The manufacturers know who the retailer was based on the serial number, and they can then begin to track the owner from there based on the paperwork from the sale.

This was a huge change in the status quo of basically anybody bought whatever they wanted from whoever they wanted unless it ran afoul of the NFA, but it all came about because they made a compromise that there would be background checks but no registry.

Now we have people on the left complaining that the people on the right won't compromise when they've already been promised that what they already did was all the compromise they needed?  It's not hard to figure out why they gun rights folks are wary.

*I'm not opposed to trying to introduce new gun laws that manage to both respect constitutional rights and keep guns out of the hands of potential school shooters, but neither side seems to be actually interested in that.

I would think it makes sense to revisit a law from 1968 through the lens of current society. 

[atomheartbevo 89756]

15 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

*I'm not opposed to trying to introduce new gun laws that manage to both respect constitutional rights and keep guns out of the hands of potential school shooters, but neither side seems to be actually interested in that.

Both sides profit literally and figuratively from the status quo.  Figure out how to crack that nut.

Make the anti-gun crowd realize that full registration is a non-starter (not just for the legislative reasons you mentioned) and that they need to scale a lot of their fights back from targeting all gun owners to just the small minority who do or are involved with the mass shooting shit.  The mentally ill, the parents who are responsible, etc.  They need to stop fighting all guns.

Make the pro-gun crowd realize that if they keep fucking around and refusing to consider things like red flag laws or making parents responsible when they buy their kid a gun (an argument that I just watched play out on Facebook), then when the pendulum swings and the left has a solid amount of power in the legislature, we'll get 1994's AWB on steroids.  Also, make the pro-gun crowd stop doing stupid shit like those Christmas photos with the whole family armed being released just after a school shooting.

If both sides were serious, they could come together and work on boosting mental health resources and/or systems that would better flag these individuals.  That is not going to reduce the amount of guns in the US, but it could cut down on mass shootings.

[atomheartbevo 89756]

10 hours ago, slorch said:

I agree with much of your post, but this line is troubling.  You care to define "mental health problems?"  Does it require diagnosis? arrests?  certain number of civil complaints? examination of voting record?  Religious affiliation?

The last 2 are tongue-in-cheek to a certain degree, but read any number of exchanges on this board or watch them in real life; and those things most certainly get questioned as indicators of intellectual maturity/ capability.  Who gets to decide what "mental health problems" are is the sticking point, not that there are some sick motherfuckers who should never own a gun.

• Parkland shooter - 45 calls by law enforcement to his home over him, his brother, his family.  Multiple counselors and a law enforcement officer at the school recommended he be mentally evaluated.
• Aurora shooter - known to the local mental health system as being unstable
• Virginita Tech shooter - same as Aurora shooter
• Sandy Hook shooter - same as the two above and on medication, but his mother had a nice little arsenal all the same (and he killed her)

Those are ones we can all easily agree warranted taking a closer look at their access to firearms, and those are just a few - way too many mass/school shooters are known to their local mental healthcare systems, or they've been reported to the authorities, etc. and way too many of them, after the fact, were the kids pegged by their fellow students, teachers, school staff as "yep, if somebody was going to shoot up the school, it would be him!"

Does this stop the Las Vegas shooter or the Crumbley or the Santa Fe (Texas) shooter?  No, but just the four mentioned above would have prevented dozens from being killed.

Nobody wants a return to the days of our mental healthcare systems being used to lock up Uncle Ed because he wore his wife's dress and wanted to be called Edna, but once you start crossing paths with law enforcement or the mental health system (or both) there needs to be something in place to at least take a closer look.

I agree with you, there needs to be some kind of standard - things that would flag somebody in one state and prevent one of these aren't present in another state, and that needs to be discussed.

Going back to the original topic of the thread - if the NRA were 100% rational and serious about improving the image of gun owners and promoting gun responsibility, they'd be lobbying their asses off about a better mental healthcare system or at least some kind of system that would lessen the chances of these things happening.  Nope, they are out there on twitter throwing out "FUCK YOU" left and right, and it ramps up after these shootings.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

19 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would think it makes sense to revisit a law from 1968 through the lens of current society. 

Sure but the point is that every time gun owners "compromise" they are just setting the baseline for the next "compromise" for "common sense gun laws." It's a one-way ratchet. People on this thread alone talk about things like red flag laws and how we need more/better ones. Do we not already have these in the form of civil commitment statutes in virtually every jurisdiction? What about due process rights? How will those be observed and protected? Oh they won't, because guns? What's the limiting principle on that approach to civil rights/civil liberties? Did you know that the NRA has helped legislatures in some states with their red flag laws if proper procedural safeguards are adopted and observed? 

The concept that the NRA, or any other advocacy organization, has the responsibility to address our nation's manifest mental health crisis at every turn is laughable. What exactly are they supposed to do? Build mental health facilities?

[atomheartbevo 89756]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

People on this thread alone talk about things like red flag laws and how we need more/better ones. Do we not already have these in the form of civil commitment statutes in virtually every jurisdiction? 

Obviously we don't if plenty of people who have mental health issues can buy guns, or people who have had almost 50 visits by law enforcement to their homes can still buy them.  Time after time after time we have people who are known to be mentally ill who are still able to buy guns or have access to them.  

So something is broken there.  Many point to Reagan the Republicans dismantling a lot of mental health infrastructure in the 1980s helping these people to fall through the gaps and not be flagged, etc., because only their local doctor knows about it, but it's 2021.

We take Grandpa's keys to his car and suspend his license when he can no longer drive, regardless of what he thinks.  

The federal government bans felons from owning guns unless they've been pardoned.

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

What about due process rights? How will those be observed and protected? Oh they won't, because guns?

The federal government bans felons from owning guns unless they've been pardoned.  Doesn't matter what felony it was, whether violent or not and involving a gun or not.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Obviously we don't if plenty of people who have mental health issues can buy guns, or people who have had almost 50 visits by law enforcement to their homes can still buy them.  Time after time after time we have people who are known to be mentally ill who are still able to buy guns or have access to them.  

So something is broken there.  Many point to Reagan the Republicans dismantling a lot of mental health infrastructure in the 1980s helping these people to fall through the gaps and not be flagged, etc., because only their local doctor knows about it, but it's 2021.

We take Grandpa's keys to his car and suspend his license when he can no longer drive, regardless of what he thinks.  

The federal government bans felons from owning guns unless they've been pardoned.

The federal government bans felons from owning guns unless they've been pardoned.  Doesn't matter what felony it was, whether violent or not and involving a gun or not.

Yeah and felons had due process. That's how they were convicted. A collateral consequence of their criminality (the determination of which included due process) is being disqualified from owning firearms. 

As long as you have due process protections (you know, where you actually have a hearing, have an opportunity to put on evidence, etc.) before you strip somebody of their rights, then I doubt any person has problems with taking firearms away from the mentally ill. In fact, if you are adjudicated mentally ill, you are disqualified from owning firearms, just like with being a felon. And you can always go through the process of adjudicating somebody mentally ill. What you cannot do is simply take somebody's guns because you don't like them. What if they're on the no fly list? What if the sheriff thinks they are nuts? If they can take a person's guns because he's allegedly dangerous, then why can't they just throw him in a cell to keep him - and us - safe?

Edited December 9, 2021 by BHMCruiser

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Or are you saying you did not know that those who have been adjudicated mentally ill cannot purchase guns?

[atomheartbevo 89756]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Did you know that the NRA has helped legislatures in some states with their red flag laws if proper procedural safeguards are adopted and observed? 

Did you know that they've also fought against better background checks?  

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

The concept that the NRA, or any other advocacy organization, has the responsibility to address our nation's manifest mental health crisis at every turn is laughable. What exactly are they supposed to do? Build mental health facilities?

Nobody is asking the NRA to address the entire mental health crisis - it's about making sure the mentally ill don't have access to guns.

But if the NRA is going to constantly involve itself in any and all legislation involving guns, and spend millions lobbying politicians to get its way, then yes, it has a responsibility to lobby for safer gun ownership in the form of better mental health/red flag laws as a whole, and it needs to get out of the way of legislation that would improve background checks that would prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms.

The NRA draws a line in the sand that is unrealistic, and could easily lead to an AWB II that is far more comprehensive and might not be sun-setted like the one from 1994-2004.

Too many gun owners conveniently ignore the 1994 AWB, or they weren't old enough to remember or care, but we are headed down that path as demographics shift.

But hey, if an AWB II comes into being, the NRA will benefit financially even more, so maybe they have an ulterior motive to keep drawing unrealistic lines in the sand.

Because while the NRA calls itself America's longes-standing civil rights organization, they seem to be more about the money than anything else, based on how their executives are pampered and compensated.