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

[Biff Tannen 45,751]

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you aren't willing to compromise on some level, you won't have a seat at the table when the legislation is written.

At the very least, Republicans should stop mocking this shit with their family Christmas gun photos on the heels of a school shooting, because they are pushing the anti-gun crowd into a situation where they won't accept any compromise.

I’m already fucking there. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Look, we all agree the mentally ill should not have access to firearms, including the two of you.

No, I could be talked into red flag laws. But I’d rather have a host of other stop gaps implemented ahead of it.  Most of those mentally ill people that do these shootings aren’t walking into a gun shop and purchasing a weapon. Family is buying it for them, lending it to them, having it stolen from them.  Probably some f2f (which I’ve advocated to be tightened up/ FFL).  But for me to get behind red flag laws of confiscation, the pretense, actual procedure of taking, and return need to be crystal clear.  How will I be compensated when some dumb fuck cop comes in and dings a $4k AAA stock on a custom rifle because a neighbor called in a welfare check (or whatever we decide is a solid pretense)?  And the bullshit about everyone from your ex wife to ex employer having to sign off before you can purchase a weapon is stupid af. I don’t even have an ex wife yet.  Red flag laws can work.  They need to be unbelievably clear. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I’m already fucking there. 

You’re grandkids will die of old age before American’s guns are removed.  People think RvW is incendiary but it doesn’t have shit on the 2nd. 

[hookemATL 11,938]

Those dead baby fetuses can pry my guns out of my cold dead hands!

[workswithseed 2,122]

36 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You’re grandkids will die of old age before American’s guns are removed.  People think RvW is incendiary but it doesn’t have shit on the 2nd. 

I'm iffy on this one.

Edited December 10, 2021 by workswithseed

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you aren't willing to compromise on some level, you won't have a seat at the table when the legislation is written.

At the very least, Republicans should stop mocking this shit with their family Christmas gun photos on the heels of a school shooting, because they are pushing the anti-gun crowd into a situation where they won't accept any compromise.

No disagreement here. Optics are important and civility is something else that shouldn’t be compromised. 

[elfenix 34,344]

8 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

It's a one-way ratchet.

in counter to this i present the expiration with no replacement of the AWB, the proliferation of first licensed concealed carry and then unlicensed open carry laws, and also changes of self-defense laws to include things like stand your ground.

Edited December 10, 2021 by elfenix

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

in counter to this i present the expiration with no replacement of the AWB, the proliferation of first licensed concealed carry and then unlicensed open carry laws, and also changes of self-defense laws to include things like stand your ground.

These things were achieved through compromise?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS

Fucking Oxford.

[elfenix 34,344]

42 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

These things were achieved through compromise?

laws are generally achieved through compromise.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

4 hours ago, elfenix said:

in counter to this i present the expiration with no replacement of the AWB, the proliferation of first licensed concealed carry and then unlicensed open carry laws, and also changes of self-defense laws to include things like stand your ground.

I’m pretty sure concealed carry might have been a thing, but the rest is pretty spot on. Good post. 

[elfenix 34,344]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m pretty sure concealed carry might have been a thing, but the rest is pretty spot on. Good post. 

first big concealed carry push i can remember was in response to the killeen luby's

[fattyflattie 4,638]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

first big concealed carry push i can remember was in response to the killeen luby's

https://txhga.org/texas-ltc-information/a-history-of-u-s-handgun-carry/
 

looks like late 80’s for Texas. 
 

Eta: I mean mid 90’s I can’t read. Pretty cool though to look back at some of the states 60+ years ago and their stance then. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by fattyflattie
Me stoopid

[workswithseed 2,122]

9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's fascinating to read this thread and then realize we are talking about guns.  Guns.  WTF.  

Self defense. We're talking about the most effective way of self defense. 

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

9 hours ago, elfenix said:

laws are generally achieved through compromise.

like Obamacare?

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS
 

 

Fucking Oxford.

 

In fairness, a parade float of a handgun is the most progressive thing Oxford has ever done.

[SmokeyTheBear 5,568]

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Self defense. We're talking about the most effective way of self defense. 

Let's let everyone have as many guns as they want so we can justify needing guns as the most effective self defense from guns because too many of the bad people have guns. 

[DDD Dad 14,364]

like Obamacare?

Ooh I’ll play.

Like Texas SB8?

It is clear you aren’t open to considering other views here. Why do you continue to post in this thread?

[DDD Dad 14,364]

Let's let everyone have as many guns as they want so we can justify needing guns as the most effective self defense from guns because too many of the bad people have guns. 

And don’t forget to arm all of the teachers.

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Ooh I’ll play.

Like Texas SB8?

It is clear you aren’t open to considering other views here. Why do you continue to post in this thread?

I don't know if I understand your point. SB8 is a great example of a shitty law that is forced down the throats of a legislative minority. 

[DDD Dad 14,364]

I don't know if I understand your point. SB8 is a great example of a shitty law that is forced down the throats of a legislative minority. 

The two points were a non sequitur. You drew me offsides.

Most legislation is a product of compromise. Occasionally it isn’t.

My real point is that you’ve made it clear in this thread that you refuse to consider any other views that might limit your freedom to possess and use guns. So you’re not really adding anything to the discussion.

You’re about to be the first poster to go on my ignore list.

But before I do keep in mind the other posters who pointed out that shitty laws that get forced down the throats of a minority often happen when the minority voice chooses not to have a seat at the table to seek compromise.

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

The two points were a non sequitur. You drew me offsides.

Most legislation is a product of compromise. Occasionally it isn’t.

My real point is that you’ve made it clear in this thread that you refuse to consider any other views that might limit your freedom to possess and use guns. So you’re not really adding anything to the discussion.

You’re about to be the first poster to go on my ignore list.

But before I do keep in mind the other posters who pointed out that shitty laws that get forced down the throats of a minority often happen when the minority voice chooses not to have a seat at the table to seek compromise.

I couldn't care less if you put me on your ignore list or not. What a childish thing to even say in the context of somebody who disagrees with your opinion but is not trolling or being inflammatory. 

Anyway, I've already said I'd be open to red flag laws if proper procedural safeguards were implemented. And, not that you asked, but other gun control laws I am fine with, or would be fine with, are restrictions on machine guns, SBRs, suppressors, anything not commonly kept for lawful purposes (brass knuckles, sawed off shotguns, etc) and requiring NICS checks for any non-gift transaction, especially a sale.

[Biff Tannen 45,751]

40 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Let's let everyone have as many guns as they want so we can justify needing guns as the most effective self defense from guns because too many of the bad people have guns. 

I mean this is where we are headed. 

[DDD Dad 14,364]

I couldn't care less if you put me on your ignore list or not. What a childish thing to even say in the context of somebody who disagrees with your opinion but is not trolling or being inflammatory. 
Anyway, I've already said I'd be open to red flag laws if proper procedural safeguards were implemented. And, not that you asked, but other gun control laws I am fine with, or would be fine with, are restrictions on machine guns, SBRs, suppressors, anything not commonly kept for lawful purposes (brass knuckles, sawed off shotguns, etc) and requiring NICS checks for any non-gift transaction, especially a sale.

I’m considering putting you on ignore because you refuse to engage in a good faith discussion and have declared your opinion repeatedly. I disagree that your posts aren’t trolling. You’re the one who came at me originally claiming I hadn’t added to the discussion. I replied to explain myself. Since then you’ve done nothing but repeat yourself and generally reveal your ignorance.

Peace out.

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

36 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I’m considering putting you on ignore because you refuse to engage in a good faith discussion and have declared your opinion repeatedly. I disagree that your posts aren’t trolling. You’re the one who came at me originally claiming I hadn’t added to the discussion. I replied to explain myself. Since then you’ve done nothing but repeat yourself and generally reveal your ignorance.

Peace out.

You've jumped to all sorts of conclusions about what I do and do not think, made accusations of bad faith against me, and apparently have not even read my posts critically. So, I mean, do what you want. 

My only point was that the pro-gun side currently has little reason to compromise for two reasons. The first is that historically the compromise position has become the new baseline. The second is because they are currently winning the culture war. But I completely understand the counterposition that failure to compromise ultimately tails to destruction. 

[DDD Dad 14,364]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

You've jumped to all sorts of conclusions about what I do and do not think, made accusations of bad faith against me, and apparently have not even read my posts critically. So, I mean, do what you want. 

My only point was that the pro-gun side currently has little reason to compromise for two reasons. The first is that historically the compromise position has become the new baseline. The second is because they are currently winning the culture war. But I completely understand the counterposition that failure to compromise ultimately tails to destruction. 

That’s fair. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Probably a function of finally coming off my pain meds from last week’s surgery has made me more surly than usual. 

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

That’s fair. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Probably a function of finally coming off my pain meds from last week’s surgery has made me more surly than usual. 

I'm cool if you're cool

[The Royal We 3,072]

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

but other gun control laws I am fine with, or would be fine with, are restrictions on machine guns, SBRs, suppressors, anything not commonly kept for lawful purposes

Can you elaborate? Specifically more to the suppressor, which is a safer for everyone involved in pretty much every regard. This is something I think would be a no brainer compromise. But I don’t think there’s much good faith to be found. #bothsideshrrdrr 

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Can you elaborate? Specifically more to the suppressor, which is a safer for everyone involved in pretty much every regard. This is something I think would be a no brainer compromise. But I don’t think there’s much good faith to be found. #bothsideshrrdrr 

I think it's a dumb law but it does not bother me because it has no real impact on the core right embodied in the Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes. I think use of suppressors should be legal and should be encouraged, and that the law (which was rational when it was passed because at that point only bad guys were using them) should be reevaluated. But I don't really care one way or the other. There are plenty of dumb laws that don't accomplish anything and I'm not trying to be a dogmatic libertarian. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by BHMCruiser

[workswithseed 2,122]

41 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I think it's a dumb law but it does not bother me because it has no real impact on the core right embodied in the Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes. I think use of suppressors should be legal and should be encouraged, and that the law (which was rational when it was passed because at that point only bad guys were using them) should be reevaluated. But I don't really care one way or the other. There are plenty of dumb laws that don't accomplish anything and I'm not trying to be a dogmatic libertarian. 

SBRs are good for people missing limbs, I don't think I could move my needle on that one.

Edited December 10, 2021 by workswithseed
Fixy

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

SBRs is good for people missing limbs, I don't think I could move my needle on that one.

Yes I agree. And suppressors are good for people who don't want to damage their hearing and for hunting. And sawed off shotguns may very well be good for self defense. I'm not arguing that these laws are correct, just that I don't care all that much. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yes I agree. And suppressors are good for people who don't want to damage their hearing and for hunting. And sawed off shotguns may very well be good for self defense. I'm not arguing that these laws are correct, just that I don't care all that much. 

I was just curious.  SBR thing doesn't bother me much, but I do think they serve a home defense purpose. I'm ok with the tax on them, not OK with how they purposely understaff and draw it out as a deterrent.   The suppressor thing does bother me a bit, because we should be looking to safer ways to shoot.  It's quieter, and hell most that use them are purposely trying to considerably slow the projectile down (I don't care about the tax).   People have an idea its some Jason Bourne creeping thru your house ready to off you while your family sleeps.  That dude is going to get a suppressor either way.  I'd like my kids hearing to not be turbofucked like mine by the time they are my age, as the oldest is already in shooting sports, and the others not far behind. 

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I was just curious.  SBR thing doesn't bother me much, but I do think they serve a home defense purpose. I'm ok with the tax on them, not OK with how they purposely understaff and draw it out as a deterrent.   The suppressor thing does bother me a bit, because we should be looking to safer ways to shoot.  It's quieter, and hell most that use them are purposely trying to considerably slow the projectile down (I don't care about the tax).   People have an idea its some Jason Bourne creeping thru your house ready to off you while your family sleeps.  That dude is going to get a suppressor either way.  I'd like my kids hearing to not be turbofucked like mine by the time they are my age, as the oldest is already in shooting sports, and the others not far behind. 

Agreed. I was relatively careful about ear protection growing up and I still have considerable damage.

[workswithseed 2,122]

22 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yes I agree. And suppressors are good for people who don't want to damage their hearing and for hunting. And sawed off shotguns may very well be good for self defense. I'm not arguing that these laws are correct, just that I don't care all that much. 

I'd rather the disabled be able to protect themselves as well as they can. Hearing damage isn't good, but not going to matter for self defense as to a sawed off shotgun.

 

[yoladu 4,111]

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

pussies. should have settled it with guns.

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

4 minutes ago, yoladu said:

pussies. should have settled it with guns.

I was already in Delta II Carry Pattern Alpha or whatever the gun weirdos say these days.

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'd rather the disabled be able to protect themselves as well as they can. Hearing damage isn't good, but not going to matter for self defense as to a sawed off shotgun.

 

I'm all for people buying whatever they want to defend themselves and I'm sorry dumb laws prevent that in some situations. I keep all my guns unlocked in a safe because I have kids and live in a nice neighborhood (few if any recent Jussie Smollet sightings) so the cost/benefit analysis works that way for me. But if people feel the need or desire to be fully armed, that's cool with me. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,582]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yes I agree. And suppressors are good for people who don't want to damage their hearing and for hunting. And sawed off shotguns may very well be good for self defense. I'm not arguing that these laws are correct, just that I don't care all that much. 

I actually care a lot about this one. Suppressors, SBRs and sawed off shotguns shouldn’t have special restrictions at the federal level and when I talked about common sense gun control, that’s an example of what I don’t want. 
 

what I do want- to cut off legal access to weapons by mentally ill people, criminals and violent bullies, and to punish people who knowingly or through negligence provide them with weapons outside the law. 

The NRA works against the things i and most gun owners want while taking only token action to ease restrictions that make sense (like those on suppressors and SRBs), because this is all a circus.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

38 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

what I do want- to cut off legal access to weapons by mentally ill people, criminals and violent bullies, and to punish people who knowingly or through negligence provide them with weapons outside the law. 

The NRA works against the things i and most gun owners want while taking only token action to ease restrictions

Im going to need some receipts of where the NRA advocates for the mentally ill, criminals, and violent bullies. 

[HRSchenker 2,275]

I'm probably very biased due to my work in psych pharm but the idea that we can stop mentally ill people from getting firearms while protecting the second amendment rights of average citizens seems paradoxical. I remember around the time of the OKC bombing we were talking about the motivation some people have to harm someone. Whether it be for personal gain or revenge, there was always a reason. But what if there isn't? Look at the Vegas shooting. Maybe there's info we're not aware of or that hasn't been made public but as it stands today we have no idea why he did what he did. We knew why the Columbine kids did what they did. We knew why the Virginia Tech guy did what he did. This guy didn't have a manifesto. No suicide note. No social media posts. He didn't talk politics. He allegedly had depressive episodes but mostly kept to himself. How are you supposed to find these urges to kill out? Are we going to require gun owners to spend a year in therapy? Two years in therapy? Physician sign off to buy a gun?

How do you stop the next Stephen Paddock?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

I couldn't care less if you put me on your ignore list or not. What a childish thing to even say in the context of somebody who disagrees with your opinion but is not trolling or being inflammatory. 

Anyway, I've already said I'd be open to red flag laws if proper procedural safeguards were implemented. And, not that you asked, but other gun control laws I am fine with, or would be fine with, are restrictions on machine guns, SBRs, suppressors, anything not commonly kept for lawful purposes (brass knuckles, sawed off shotguns, etc) and requiring NICS checks for any non-gift transaction, especially a sale.

Why would you want suppressors restricted?

[DDD Dad 14,364]

Why would you want suppressors restricted?

He already said he doesn’t want them restricted but is okay with it.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Disregard my last post.  See it has been addressed.

[hornmpa96 2,622]

9 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

I'm probably very biased due to my work in psych pharm but the idea that we can stop mentally ill people from getting firearms while protecting the second amendment rights of average citizens seems paradoxical. I remember around the time of the OKC bombing we were talking about the motivation some people have to harm someone. Whether it be for personal gain or revenge, there was always a reason. But what if there isn't? Look at the Vegas shooting. Maybe there's info we're not aware of or that hasn't been made public but as it stands today we have no idea why he did what he did. We knew why the Columbine kids did what they did. We knew why the Virginia Tech guy did what he did. This guy didn't have a manifesto. No suicide note. No social media posts. He didn't talk politics. He allegedly had depressive episodes but mostly kept to himself. How are you supposed to find these urges to kill out? Are we going to require gun owners to spend a year in therapy? Two years in therapy? Physician sign off to buy a gun?

How do you stop the next Stephen Paddock?

To me your post reads as follows:

We won’t stop all of the mass shootings so let’s not try and stop the ones where it may be possible.

AHB already mentioned all of the mass shooters who were on the radar of law enforcement and mental health providers.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

30 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Are we going to require gun owners to spend a year in therapy? Two years in therapy? Physician sign off to buy a gun?

 

Depends on who’s drafting the bill. 

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I actually care a lot about this one. Suppressors, SBRs and sawed off shotguns shouldn’t have special restrictions at the federal level and when I talked about common sense gun control, that’s an example of what I don’t want. 
 

what I do want- to cut off legal access to weapons by mentally ill people, criminals and violent bullies, and to punish people who knowingly or through negligence provide them with weapons outside the law. 

The NRA works against the things i and most gun owners want while taking only token action to ease restrictions that make sense (like those on suppressors and SRBs), because this is all a circus.

What is it that the NRA works against that you and most gun owners want? Please explain.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

To me your post reads as follows:

We won’t stop all of the mass shootings so let’s not try and stop the ones where it may be possible.

AHB already mentioned all of the mass shooters who were on the radar of law enforcement and mental health providers.

True mass shootings in the USA -- some randomly going on a rampage and killing multiple people and not counting domestic violence -- result in around 50-75 deaths a year in a country of 330 million.  I don't think much of anything outside of outright confiscation of most firearms is going to move the needle much on that.

[hornmpa96 2,622]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

True mass shootings in the USA -- some randomly going on a rampage and killing multiple people and not counting domestic violence -- result in around 50-75 deaths a year in a country of 330 million.  I don't think much of anything outside of outright confiscation of most firearms is going to move the needle much on that.

AHB already mentioned the ones which could have been prevented with an appropriate red flag law: Parkland, Sutherland Springs, Sandy Hook, etc. Certainly we won’t stop everyone short of confiscation. Have we decided it’s not worth the effort to try and come up with something that would save a few school kids a year?

[BHMCruiser 1,817]

43 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

AHB already mentioned the ones which could have been prevented with an appropriate red flag law: Parkland, Sutherland Springs, Sandy Hook, etc. Certainly we won’t stop everyone short of confiscation. Have we decided it’s not worth the effort to try and come up with something that would save a few school kids a year?

Actually Parkland and Sutherland Springs probably could have been stopped by simple application of existing laws. Who would have red flagged the Sandy Hook shooter? The psycho POS mom who bought her kid guns and got murdered for it?