# Thought on mass shootings



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am suspect on some of these shootings. Already the meds is calling the shooter a white nationalist. The term nationalist was never used until Trump described himself as a nationalist. The very same evening the media began demonizing nationalist, and started trying to link white supremacy to it. Very dishonest in my book.

Do any of you remember our first mass shooting in the 1970s? It was at a McDonald's in Texas. There was more truth in those years, and if I remember right the guy (shooter) years prior had been a member/supporter of Handgun Control Inc. So when we have gun grabbing liberals running against Trump what's the chance these idiots see themselves as martyrs to the gun confiscation cause?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

With these 2 new shootings in a span of less than 24 hours and almost 30 dead......there will be new gun control laws coming. I don't think we can avoid them anymore. Especially stronger background checks will be inevitable. No more buying assault rifles or banana clips.

It will be a 2020 campaign issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken I fear you are absolutely correct. I see the democrats are calling for an end to their recess so they can come back and pass new gun legislation. I always dislike it when any politician wants to do anything while the populace is still emotional over something. Let a little time pass so people think with their brain and not their emotions.

My lingering suspicion is did these crazies kill people for the purpose of gun control?


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I wish we would invest more time and dollars in mental health evaluation and facilities rather than going down the gun legislation rabbit hole that leads to nowhere. We all know the person(s) behind the firearms are the problem. For crying out loud, as many people are killed by distracted driving due to cell phone use as gun violence. Don't here anything about banning cell phones. It's not politically expedient or advantageous I suppose.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

You are correct I see legislation coming very quickly. But again it wont do a damn thing.

The one they are saying needs to get passed is already sitting in the Senate. It is background checks on all gun transfers...ie: between private parties and even handed down in the family. Which I talked about this before... this is BS and wont do anything to stop these two idiots who shot up the places.

What it will do is put the burden on law abiding people. It COULD put a ban on the AR style guns. Think about it all a company or an FFL person say is... "I will not transfer those types of guns". Then anyone looking to sell a private party or even pass it down to a family member is screwed and would be violating the law. It is a back handed ban if a distributer wants it to be. We have seen how political influence can happen on retail stores. :bop:

The magazine ban type thing was shown not to work when it was in place. There is studies on it. So why do that again?

But it will come down and will be a huge political hot button issue for sure.

I would love to see or hope it comes out if these two idiots had mental health issues or were on some form of meds. But I wont hold my breath on any of this information coming out.

ALso the problem with all of this is that all of the media is going to politized this whole thing. They will make if fit what ever narrative they want. So will the people running for office. They will point fingers and blame the President, the NRA, the people who believe in the second amendment, etc. Then the other side of the media will go on the defensive and skew things as well. We will never get the full story or come up with solutions. It will just be finger pointing and fear mongering. :bop:

edit:
The problem I have is that Trump has come out and condemned this whole thing.... multiple times. Yet nobody has condemned the attacks on the media (andy ngo), the attack at the ICE facility, etc.

We are dealing with nut jobs and whackos on all spectrums.... all the leaders need to come together and condemn these actions. Not just one side or even the other. They need to come together, not finger point, not blow smoke or rhetoric any more. Because all of this is dividing the nation and making some of the whackado's think they need to "do something".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just something I read that Neil DeGrasse Tyson said....

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose&#8230;

500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun

So not to make these tragedies sound not important.... just some facts.

It is something to really think about... and shows you how things get politicized instead of just taking a deep breath and not being knee jerk reactionary. Just put things into perspective.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Not to get political.

But this shows you the media BS or bias....

More reporting is being done about the Texas shooting than the OHIO one because....

The Ohio shooter was:
Anti-gun
Pro - Warren
and showing signs he was for socialism.

The texas shooter right now they are still trying to get a grasp on his profile.... we don't know for sure if the "manifesto" was his or not... at this moment.

Also I have read some things via social media... so take them with a grain of salt. But the Ohio shooter back in high school had a "hit list" and was arrested on a bus. Yet how did he purchase a gun or why isn't that stuff made available to back ground checks???? Just shows you the flaws in our back ground checking system.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck in the last few minutes it is coming out that he said outright he supports socialism and it's just taking to long. He hates Trump, he supports the four that Trump has called out. He supports the Green New Deal. Like you said he is anti gun. Also if I am not mistaken every shooter in the past 30 years has those same liberal leanings.

The disgustusting thing is conservatives will not say that because all the shooters are liberal not all liberals are shooters. However the disgusting part is liberals twist it to make it look like these shooters are conservative, and they do lump us all together. We hardly heard the word nationalist until Trump described himself as a nationalist. It took less than 24 hours for the liberal media to call nationalists white nationalists, and white supremacists. If it isn't organized why does every mainstream bias media outlet use the very same phrases.

Maybe the red flag laws will take guns away from all the deplorables. I forget which liberal politician it was, but when they talked before about how to recognize a person with a psychological problem that politician said anyone who wants a gun is a psycho.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Here are some stats from Chicago. Probably the highest shooting city in the country. And we still have 5 months to go. 6 were killed and 49 injured just this last weekend. And no one has even noticed....do we really think gun control will stop this?

Lets put in SUPER gun restrictions there and see if after 5 years they have made a difference.

Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 278
Shot & Wounded: 1364
Total Shot: 1642
Total Homicides: 305


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am also seeing many old democrats..... ie: Bill Clinton and others talk about the old "assault weapon" ban and high capacity magazine ban. Like why not do that again....

I can see that coming and possibly be onboard with it... possibly is the key word. Because the reason why it wasn't re-upped is because some study came out and showed it didn't make a difference in the actual number of shootings and deaths. Again I am not totally sure about that study or other studies but just have read that is one reason why it wasn't "re-upped".

But now with the talk about "red flag" laws..... I can again possibly get behind this one. The only thing that is scary is who or what are the "red flags" or who says what is a "red flag" and so forth. What I mean is you can have a school administrator or counselor with a political agenda make a "red flag" against a student and that will be mark against that student forever. Just because of a bias. Same goes for a doctor and what not. I hope they wouldn't do this but you just never know..... so IMHO the red flag type thing is a good start but make sure there is checks and balances to it....ie: if someone gets a "red flag" they need to know about it and have a possible recourse to expunge that "red flag". Because having a hit list... HUGE RED FLAG.... drawing a picture of a gun... not so much. I hope that people get my point.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Great point. That is the problem that many don't want to talk about. Also Chicago has strict gun laws... I know some people say well the neighbor states don't. They still have to do background checks.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So how long will Conservative Republicans let the tougher law sit????? It has been on McConnel's desk since February. He will be under enormous pressure to at least pass something.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was just watching the FOX news report about 55 shot this week end in Chicago.

Great idea Ken let Chicago show us how to do it.

Edit: Trump said to those who lost loved ones "our prayers are with you". I missed the name, but one o the democrats running for president said "we don't want your prayers". That is a new low.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

KEN W said:


> So how long will Conservative Republicans let the tougher law sit????? It has been on McConnel's desk since February. He will be under enormous pressure to at least pass something.


Illinios has the red flag law, yet it doesn't seem to make a difference there!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

I read somewhere that Mc Connell said he is for passing any legislation that doesn't infringe on peoples rights too much.

I bet that if they would take out the "private" sales part of the bill it would get passed. So the idea of you wanting to pass your old lever action down to your grand son/daughter.... you can without a background check. Or even if it was an AR type gun.

I could also see a possible "waiting" period again for certain types of guns.

The bill that is in Senate is complete BS and I hope it doesn't get passed. I know people are saying it was a "Bipartisan" bill.... but if you look at the votes in the House... NO WAY it was.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

To show how the media is honestly poison for everyone....

Look how the NY Times changed its head lines because of some liberal blow back and people threatening to pull subscriptions....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... edirect=on

So lets be honest here about how the media is driving this country apart.

I am not saying Fox is the only news source at all. I am saying is you need to read all news outlets or one from one spectrum and one from the other spectrum. Then use your own mind to come to conclusions.

But what the NYT did is so sickening. Also on the the major TV "news" outlets you need to not watch the opinion people....ie: Maddow, Lemon, Cumo, Hanity, Carlson..... those are all opinion people with very little "news" thrown in. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Just saw this on CNN.


----------



## TKincaid (Dec 3, 2017)

https://images.app.goo.gl/bQLx3vz3WHbHMMoN8

https://images.app.goo.gl/etWdF3RLZt7pVwka7

Facts are these.
27 Urban (Black majority) Counties are responsible for over 80% of all gun deaths in America.
Roughly 17,000 killed yearly by guns, including thousands of Suicides. Yet Rifles account for about 3% of these.

In the 1950s 6% of children were born to fatherless homes and there were zero school mass shootings 
In the 1960s 8% of children were born to fatherless homes and there was one school mass shooting
In the 1970s 10% of children were born to fatherless homes and there were three school mass shootings
In the 1980s, 18% of children were born to fatherless homes and there were eight school mass shootings
In the 1990s, 21.6% of children were born to fatherless homes and there were 10 school mass shootings
In the 2000s, 22.4% of children were born to fatherless homes and there were 11 school mass shootings
In the 2010s, 29.4% of children were born to fatherless homes and there have been 16 school mass shootings

05/2019: https://patriotpost.us/articles/62697-

This is a Liberal gun grab, based on feels....sold to the public.


----------



## TKincaid (Dec 3, 2017)

The media spins lies that it is whites responsible for being most of the demographic of 'mass shooter'










Wiki shows us that the majority of mass shooters are antifa, black, anarchists and leftists....isnt diversity great?


----------



## TKincaid (Dec 3, 2017)

As the Pew Research Center has noted, _n a survey in late 2016, 57% of registered voters said crime in the U.S. had gotten worse since 2008. At least some of these poorly conceived estimates of crime trends can likely be attributed to an ongoing media focus on mass shootings. But as we shall see, mass shootings are but a very small part of larger crime trends. And, the overall trend has been downward for decades.

The homicide rate in America in recent years has been around half of what it was in the early 1990s.

According to Mother Jones magazine - a publication that's hardly a right-wing stooge for the NRA - there were 117 deaths resulting from mass shootings in 2017. Given that there were 17,284 homicides reported during 2017, mass shootings made up 0.7 percent off all homicides.

In 2018, there were 80 deaths from mass shootings. We don't have full-year 2018 data yet, but since the first half of the year already shows a 6.7 percent decrease, let's assume a slight decrease for the year, down to 17,000 homicides. If this turns out to be the case, that means mass shooting deaths will make up about 0.5 percent of all homicides.

Those wounded in mass shootings are an even smaller percentage of those who survive serious assaults nationwide. Indeed, because aggravated assaults are so numerous, the non-homicide victims of mass shootings barely register as a percentage of total assaults. For example, in 2017, there were more than 810,000 aggravated assaults in the US. Even if we count the shockingly large number of wounded (i.e., 546 people) from the Las Vegas shooting that year, the total comes to 0.07 percent of all aggravated assaults.

Meanwhile, USAToday reports, 41% of Americans fear random mass shootings.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08- ... ime-trends_


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Have you noticed they don't talk about the Ohio shooter. He doesn't fit their narrative. The media narrative is the Texas shooter is a nationalist. Oh excuse me, white nationalist. Just like Trump of course. The Ohio shooter supported Elisabeth Warren. i don't blame Elisabeth Warren. They blame Trump. He supported ANTIFA. I considerf ANTIFA homeland terrorists so yes I blame them. He hated Trump, and you will never hear that on the main scream media. They say the conservative rhetoric provokes violence, and they don't think their constant hate message doesn't. I remember the liberals in Hollywood producing a movie on how to assassinate a president when they promoted Bush hate.

This is interesting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As Mitch McConnell recovers from surgery a crowd of well wishing liberals are gathered around his home. Not in prayer, but screaming murderer, murderer, stab him in the heart. Such a display of tolerance.

Also some liberal politicians have given out information like home addresses and such. For what purpose? To instill fear through violence I suspect. The report said democrats were doxxing republicans.

Headlines:



> PROTESTERS SWARM MCCONNELL HOME; THREATEN TO 'STAB MOTHERF*CKER'......


Headlines:



> Castro Posts Names, Employers Of Trump Donors...'Lives Are At Stake'...


The left has gone violent.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Here is my take.. You can restrict the so called assault weapons and magazines, you can strengthen background checks and strengthened red flag laws but it will take decades to have any effect and even then it will be marginal. There are just too many guns in circulation. Even an outright ban will have little effect. And when guns are gone these potential shooters will likely switch to bombs which can be made from everyday household products. The left simply doesn't understand the criminal mind. Criminals WILL find a way.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I saw an article were a report is calling Trumps call to keep the flags flying at half mast racist or a move to help push "Nazi"....

The reasoning.... they stay that way until August 8. Because "88" means something to the Nazi crowd.

You have got to be kidding me. This report should be ashamed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nbc-ne ... olf-hitler

But if you cant see how the media is driving lot of this BS you need to open your eyes more. They are driving this "hate" and separation type stuff.

I will lay blame on Trump for some things because he is also doing name calling. But this is getting ridiculous.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

August 8th makes him a Nazi??? This isn't Trump Derangement Syndrome, this is full fledged insanity. The left is right on the edge of becoming terrorists. It started with ANTIFA, but now it's mainstream liberal. The crap they make up and some believe is third grade behavior. Modern liberals have no shame.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> 'DEATH CAMPS FOR TRUMP SUPPORTERS' FLIERS POSTED IN NEW YORK
> So much for the tolerant left.


Another example of the most intolerant people in America.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The left simply can't stop their hate.

Headlines:


> UPDATE: Film that satirizes killing 'deplorables' causes outrage...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Another shooting. I don't think we have long to wait for stricter gun controls if this continues. Might be a campaign issue next year.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Another shooting. I don't think we have long to wait for stricter gun controls if this continues. Might be a campaign issue next year.


So what do you think of it Ken, for or against?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

There are some things that can be tightened up. I have never been to a gun show. I only own 2 guns.....shotgun for bird hunting and rifle for big game. Never my thing to get into guns. How much inconvenience is it to require more extensive background checks? Would not be a problem for me.

I guess I see no need for civilians to be able to buy machine guns or armor piercing bullets. I also have never had any interest in owing handguns.

I'm not sure how much it will take to stop these senseless shootings. Will tougher laws really make any difference? Probably not. I hunt in Canada and my shotgun had to be registered to take it along. Never really a problem at the border.

The one thing I would definitely be against is strong laws against handing down or letting a relative use or buy my guns.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> There are some things that can be tightened up. I have never been to a gun show. I only own 2 guns.....shotgun for bird hunting and rifle for big game. Never my thing to get into guns. How much inconvenience is it to require more extensive background checks? Would not be a problem for me.
> IIts a big problem when there is a hunt coming up and your gun doesn't work. It's a big problem when you run into a sale sometimes. The biggest problem is no mass shooter has used a bolt action so it's none of the gov business.
> 
> I guess I see no need for civilians to be able to buy machine guns or armor piercing bullets. I also have never had any interest in owing handguns.
> ...


Yes I want my kids to have my guns.

You remember the old cliche give them an inch and they will take a mile? Every communist country first took away guns. Every crazed dictator took away guns. Ever since I can remember democrats have wanted gun control. Some call for registration, while some call for confiscation. We are not safe giving them an inch. The second amendment wasnt for hunting it's to protect us from tyranny. Tyranny starts with disarming the populous.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

There is no compromise with progressives and their agenda. Only capitulation in degrees. Until you finally realize you have given everything and gained nothing. "Gun control" certainly applies.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I can see a magazine restriction coming down the pipe for sure.

Lets be honest... nobody needs a 100 rd magazine. 15 is plenty even hunting hogs. Unless you are in the air..... and that is another story all together. :beer:

But like mentioned.... this last shooter in TX failed to get a gun thru proper channels to begin with. I haven't heard much on how he obtained the gun. What it stolen, borrowed, etc???

But Trump does have a point.... mental health is a huge issue. Nobody wants to talk about that because it is also a very slippery slope. All it takes is a Doctor or someone with an agenda and they could keep someone from getting a fire arm.

But that is something people need to talk about and not push aside and blame an object. It is the people behind the gun not the gun. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I remember a few short years ago when Obama, Hillary, a d Biden all said they didn't want our guns, and further they stated they supported the second amendment. Now most call confiscation buy back.

I remember a few short years ago we were chastised by local democrats/liberals when we said Democrat politicians were against guns, and registration would lead to confiscation. Now that we know beyond a shadow of doubt that they are for taking guns. No guess many are now openly saying buy back. Chavez did the same thing in Venezuela. Oh wait, they have socialism in common too.

The bright side to this is all but the very dim of wit now know who the democrats are. That should give Trump a vast advantage in 2020. That is if the Trump Derangement Syndrom and hate doesn't over ride common sense and love of freedom.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

As it appears the degenerate Texas shooter purchased the firearm privately, my question is how can this type of transaction be more stringently legislated and policed in order to prevent someone like him from obtaining a firearm? He broke many laws obtaining it. Already failed background check. Was reported to authorities for brandishing a gun at a neighbor. Was a convicted felon.

I have never purchased a firearm privately. Had them given to me by relatives. Never sold a firearm privately. Just curious in this situation what would have been effective in preventing it?(of course the authorities should have enforced current laws and searched his home after the neighbor incident, but obviously they dropped the ball).


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The big thing is we need to enforce the laws on the books.

Case in point is what North1 just stated.... The guy was a felon. # 1 HE CANT OWN A FIREARM OR HAVE ONE IN POSSESSION. So if the cops were called on the "Brandishing" a firearm at a neighbor. They should have locked him up and searched his house. Don't know if they did that... but that should have been done.

The private party sales is a tough one. Because where do you stop or where is the line drawn..... can you give a gun to a kid for a present then?? Because that is transferring a firearm. Just like if one of you want to sell me a gun. You could say... I am giving the guy the gun but he bought the gun case for $400. See the slippery slope on when you need to have a back ground check or not.

What I have done when I have sold private party to private party is go to an FFL that I know and ask them to do a background on the person I am selling the gun to. We both go there and fill out the paper work in front of the FFL. They charge me $20. I add that into the cost of the gun each time. Then I also get a signed transaction type thing between the two of us and a copy of the person ID. If they don't want to jump thru the hoops like this.... no deal. It can safe guard me if anything happens in the future. Yes it is more steps for me to go thru... but to me it is worth it.

The only problem I see with this is FFL's getting greedy or not doing this type of thing. They could get flooded with people wanting to do this or just not want the trouble of doing them.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I commend you for going above and beyond the call when selling a firearm. Thank you for spelling out how I really think it should be done. That's how I would do it. So if this specific process was made to be law I can't see how that would infringe on the second amendment and would in theory have prevented the perpetrator in this case from obtaining the firearm. In retrospect, however; is this a form of national registry of firearms? If you have to go through an FFL is the firearm now registered?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

North1....

The problem I see is that they will require what I do on anything.... ie: gifting to a family member, handing down generation to generation of guns. So if you wanted to buy your son a shotgun for his 18th bday or Christmas. You have to go thru those hoops? If a family member dies and wills your their guns.... you have to go thru those hoops.

I could also see possible abuse by FFL's or the goverment. What I mean is what if you are selling 3 guns to a person. They can charge you three times the rate for doing 1 background check. There is no more work going into it no ore time or anything. I can see some FFL's saying "no" we wont do that work for anyone. Then a person has to travel longer distances. I could see the government or an elected official stop giving out or renewing FFL's. Then that cuts down on that. Right now it almost takes an act of God to get an FFL. You see the problem with that.

But again.... if someone wants to break the law. They wont do any of this at all. Just like there are laws against murder, drunk driving, stealing, etc. Are theses things abolished in our society...&#8230; NOPE. So more laws wont protect people when someone wants to do evil. :bop:

Now on the "registry".... supposedly they are not "registered". It is just a starting point of a paper trail. But if you make it into law... that is a start. Which would make it easy for the government to start a possible "cleansing" of people who own guns. Look what happened in communist or socialist countries.....What people are calling for now is what happened in Russia, Nazi Germany, China, NK, Venezuela, etc.

Canada did something like this a few years ago (10+). I know when I was up there hunting and talking with the farmers they were all against it. One told me that he had a .22 that he shot skunks and raccoons with. He viewed it like a pitchfork. So now he was required by law to "register" it. Well he told me the government wasn't going to know about his "pitch fork". :bop:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

You are very knowledgeable on this subject so I was hoping by playing devils advocate I would illicit a reasoned response. You did not disappoint. Thank you. This is the slippery slope of which I fear. Sounds reasonable on the surface but after the house and senate gets done with a bill it often a different animal. The words of Benjamin Franklin always ring in my ears when a subject like this rears its ugly head.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

North1...

Another aspect to think about is borrowing a gun to someone. Like if you were going to Alaska on a hunt or into any place that is "bear" country and want to carry a side arm. Would you go out and but a $500 gun when a friend or family member has one for you to use?

If what is being talked about with "Universal Background" checks.... you will need to go thru them in order to borrow that gun. Or if you are thinking about buying a rifle, shotgun, etc. A friend has the make you want.... so you ask if you can take it to the range, on a trip, etc. to test it out. Well you need to go thru a check.

What I am leaning towards or wouldn't mind seeing happen is what it takes to buy or "Purchase" an AR style of gun or a pistol in MN. It is obtaining a "PURCHASE PERMIT". What you do is go to your local PD and fill out paper work. THIS IS FREE OF CHARGE. The local PD does a more in depth back ground check. Then if you get all cleared you get a purchase permit (this process can't take no longer than I think 10 days otherwise it is an automatic "pass"). Then you are good to go for a year and buy as many pistols or AR's style of guns as you want. You just show this at the store you want to buy a gun at and you are good to go. If you have a Carry permit you are good for I think 5 years. Then you just renew that every year if you want to purchase something. If not.... don't renew it. This doesn't pertain to any hunting gun or a "traditional" type of gun. Just AR styles and hand guns. So think of it this way... if I was selling on a private party type thing. I can ask the buyer.... do you have your "purchase permit". If they say yes... I make a copy of it and of his ID. Then I would be good to go. It shows I did my due process. It would eliminate the "back ground" check.

The only thing I see wrong with this is that the Fed's would mess it up some how and make it a mess. Or they would then require this to any gun or if you want to own any gun you would need to do a yearly permit thing. Which again would be infringing and more of a "registry" type thing.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Makes sense except for what is defined as AR. A Ruger mini 14 can look innocuous and in 5 minutes can be made to look like an AR. Same could be said for a Ruger 10/22. Both operate the same way in either configuration. Also. An AR 223/556 operates no differently than a semi auto wood stocked hunting rifle in the same caliber. One just looks military like or "scary".

It's like the Walmart declaration. So if I have a Marlin or Henry lever action rifle chambered in a pistol caliber like 44 magnum will that ammo be on the shelves? I don't think so, not sure. What about a varmint rifle chambered in .223. Will that caliber be on Walmart shelves? I don't think so, but not sure.

It's a sticky wicket for sure.


----------



## TKincaid (Dec 3, 2017)

Rifles kill less people than Hammers annually, just over 300 people.
It is all a farce, to create mass hysteria.

Blacks commit most of the gun violence and yet it is the 'mass shooting' that gets the press and coverage.
Remove Urban black killings from the equation, and the US has one of the safest nations in the world.

But 'THEY' Want us to be disarmed, to make way for their NWO with 1 world currency, Govt and religion and want not objection to stifle their plans.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

North1...

I totally agree with you. My favorite arguing point about "assault weapon" is showing the Ruger 10/22 and how it can be changed into what people think an "assault weapon". :beer:

Also agree with you on the whole WALMART fiasco. Many people buy hunting licenses, ammo, and guns from those stores. Over the years I have seen less and less "hunting" or even ammo in the stores in my area. I think they will be hurting from this and will lose some client base. Just like when Dick's Sporting goods. Look how many stores they have closed down in the past few years. The market and clients will show if Walmart screwed up or not. :bop:

edit:

Everyone is talking about the "red flag" type laws. I have an issue with this big time. the reasons is because if someone wants to be vindictive they can easily do it. Lets take for instance a divorce type situation. A spouse could claim harassment or that the other half wants to do physical harm. Without evidence the person can get temporary type things put on them with out knowledge or even having done anything. So bang.... RED FLAG. It could be as simple as saying.... My spouse is mentally unstable now and I would like them put on a watch. I mean all of WI would have to be put on a watch when the Packers lose to the Vikings.... oke: But you see how that is a slippery slope as well. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.......what you are describing is what My family did when Canada passed their gun laws. We all got PAL licenses that are renewed every 5 years. I had to get my app signed by the Criminal Apprehension Bureau in St Paul. Sent it to the RCMP office in Sask and they renewed my permit. Show it at the border and good to go. It you don't have one it cost $25 Canadian each year.

We have been going up there for 27 straight years and hunt with quite a few landowners. NONE of them registered their guns when the law was passed.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

I know exactly what you are talking about with the PALS in Canada. I did it for years as well. But how many citizens of Canada did it? Like you mentioned and I mentioned.... many rural people said they were not going to do it. It was a "registration" type thing in Canada. Not a purchase thing.

What I was talking about is a PURCHASE permit. So if you want to buy a type of gun....ie: pistol or AR you have to get this permit and it is good for a year. You don't need to get this permit if you don't want to buy either one of those types of guns. You don't need this permit if you own theses guns only if you want to purchase them. Once you own the guns you never need to re-up the permit.

The hard part is with private sales..... how do you regulate that if the people don't want to follow the regulations???

Also like I mentioned... what would stop the government from making people do this to purchase "ANY FIREARM".... that is the slippery slope.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Could be Chuck......I have never looked at the "buying guns" laws up there.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

To clarify or to make what I am talking about the Purchase permit.....

It is law already in MN. Not saying it is right or wrong. Or how you could transfer this to private sales. Just showing something that I could see come down the pipe on a nation wide level.

https://firearms.uslegal.com/purchase-o ... minnesota/



> In Minnesota, no permit is required for the purchase of a rifle or shotgun. But a permit is required for the purchase of handguns. Minnesota also permits its residents to purchase firearms and ammunition in a contiguous state in any instance where such sale and delivery is lawful under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968_.
> 
> In order to purchase a handgun or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon, a purchaser should present a handgun transferee permit or carry permit. In case where the purchaser does not have a handgun transferee permit, a transfer report should be filed and in such cases the purchaser has to undergo a seven (7) day waiting period before purchasing the weapon.
> 
> A transferee permit may be obtained at no cost from the police chief of a municipality or the county sheriff. Upon receipt of an application for a transferee permit, the police chief or sheriff will investigate the applicant's history and must issue or deny the transferee permit within seven (7) days. The application can be denied only if the applicant falls into any of the disqualifying categories listed under POSSESSION[ii]. A transferee permit is valid statewide for a period of one year to purchase one or more handguns either at one time or at intervals throughout the year._


_

So again if you get this type of permit. You get to waive the 7 day waiting period and walk out the store with that gun. The store still does a background check like any other weapon. But you get to waive the 7 day waiting period. This also applied if you have a CCW permit.

Hope that clears up what I am talking about. It isn't a permit to own a gun. It is a permit to purchase. So if you own these type of weapons now.... Doesn't concern you. Only if you want to purchase a new one. :bop:_


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

TKincaid said:


> Rifles kill less people than Hammers annually, just over 300 people.
> It is all a farce, to create mass hysteria.
> 
> Blacks commit most of the gun violence and yet it is the 'mass shooting' that gets the press and coverage.
> ...


This is fact and scary!

I still live near Atlanta and I don't go anywhere unarmed, the chances of being in a mass shooting or any kind of shooting are small but that doesn't matter to the victims

The current Democrat party has evolved into a tyrannical Marxist party
And the Republicans are cowards

I hate to think what's going to happen after Trump leaves office IMO it's no longer
A two party system it's a bunch of crooks in Washington wanting to control all of us


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6xa2jt ... e=youtu.be

This video shows you how our legal system doesn't uphold the laws that are in place.

So until we enforce the laws already on the books (judges)&#8230;. we don't need more laws. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Our laws are not enforced because the dictator group called Congress needs more deaths to justify disarming the innocent.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/authoritie ... a4b2a4b4b1

So news about the oddessa shooting....

The guy bought the gun from a gun who was manufacturing them illegally!!! So the private to private gun sales really doesn't apply here. Because the guy selling the gun was making them illegally!!!!

EDIT: I know this is a WSJ article so you cant read it unless you are subscribed. But it will be hopefully coming out on other publications.... well unless they want to push a narrative and not show the truth. :bop:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Any red flag law has a serious fault right out of the gate.... reporting time.... even now it takes weeks or even month for convicted criminals to get on the NICS list. Most small police departments just dont have the personnel to do timely reporting. You could take someones guns away and they could buy another within hours and not get flagged in a background check.

Think of this.. some of us have basically self registered ourselves by getting concealed carry permits. Oddly antigunners want us registered but seem to have a problem when we actually do. They dont want us registered concealed carry holder out there. Registration wont stop gun crimes it might make it easier to catch the shooter after the fact but it wont stop them. This has pretty much been proven already.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Not only that but I have a class 1 conceal carry and when I purchase a firearm they still do a background check. Was always told that you won't have to fool with that anymore but two different places I've dealt with did. Not a big deal but it does miff me that I get over vetted and somehow others that are unstable, felons, etc. fall through the cracks.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

North1....

I have seen people buy with a CCP and not go through the normal checks. Must be the places you went to rules.

But like you mentioned your permit is a more extensive background check than your typical purchase.

Dakota...

You are correct about the red flag laws as well. Plus what will constitute a red flag??? That is a slippery slope. Like I mentioned tongue and cheek about the "Packers losing to the Vikings".... yeah someone might think a person will need to be "red flagged" because of that. Because some people do get ****** or say stupid things when intoxicated at sporting events. Would it be if a coach has an argument with an official.... would then all of a sudden be red flagged?? Especially if that coach and official have a history of not liking each other..... could one be vindictive and place a "red flag" on the other???

Those are the major problems I see with "red flag" laws.... and don't get me started with social media.... because of the crap google, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc... all of these platforms have tried to silence conservatives and comedians. :bop:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

And from what I can tell there is no standard of evidence for the red flag declaration someone could claim you made a threat and you might have your guns taken away even though they lied.

FWIW consider carefully some of the wording of the proposed gun regulations. One in particular would restrict "any semi auto that can ACCEPT a magazine larger than 10 rounds". Receivers don't have different configurations for different size magazines. If it can accept a 10 round mag it can accept a 20 round mag whether one is manufactured or not. The law doesn't establish if that 20 rnd mag actually has to exist or not so technically it applies to ANY semi auto rifle....including your favorite semi auto hunting rifle. Remember it could be a liberal court making that interpretation. Same goes for threaded barrels. Almost all barrels are threaded...at the receiver end.... but the law may not make that distinction...... Remember ...in the eyes of the courts EVERY WORD means something...... Vaugeness is NOT forgiving.


----------



## Outdoor RN (Aug 22, 2016)

For the record...&#8230;.Benjamin Franklin lived when the armament of choice for wars and hunting was the musket. His quote hardly applies to firearms in this day and age......why anyone needs a banana clip, or more than 5-6 round round clip in any weapon unless they are in the military or police is beyond me?.....Background checks...what's the problem?..... :-?


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Outdoor RN said:


> For the record...&#8230;.Benjamin Franklin lived when the armament of choice for wars and hunting was the musket. His quote hardly applies to firearms in this day and age......why anyone needs a banana clip, or more than 5-6 round round clip in any weapon unless they are in the military or police is beyond me?.....Background checks...what's the problem?..... :-?





Outdoor RN said:


> For the record...&#8230;.Benjamin Franklin lived when the armament of choice for wars and hunting was the musket. His quote hardly applies to firearms in this day and age......why anyone needs a banana clip, or more than 5-6 round round clip in any weapon unless they are in the military or police is beyond me?.....Background checks...what's the problem?..... :-?


First... it wasn't the armament of choice... little else was available. FWIW rifled barrels of the time were superior in accuracy to the muskets but muskets were much faster to load, which is why they were used by the military. Firepower over accuracy... Particular in the target rich line against line open field battles of the time where even if you weren't accurate you wee likely to hit something. Muskets were the assault weapon of their time shooting 4 shots per minute vs 2 shots from a rifle. This where our militia's (with rifled barrel guns) took advantage in some instances by sniping from further distances or from under cover. 
Our forefathers allowed us guns as plan B to protect us against THEM. Then knew how governments and even elections can become corrupt. FWIW firearms are used a probably a million to one for recreational uses vs crime. Taking high capacity capability from many recreational shooters is like limiting a racecar driver to an engine that won't exceed 55 mph.


----------



## Outdoor RN (Aug 22, 2016)

dakotashooter2 said:


> Outdoor RN said:
> 
> 
> > For the record...&#8230;.Benjamin Franklin lived when the armament of choice for wars and hunting was the musket. His quote hardly applies to firearms in this day and age......why anyone needs a banana clip, or more than 5-6 round round clip in any weapon unless they are in the military or police is beyond me?.....Background checks...what's the problem?..... :-?
> ...


Oh blah blah blah.....rifle or musket at that time, Franklin's comment does not apply to a firearm debate with modern weapons and mass shooting. Though I understand it is not about firearms, but to skew it as such is once again a sign of the right wing gun right nut jobs.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Did they think the fore fathers thought we as a society would be flying, driving cars, loss of all common sense, need warning labels on tide pods... ie: not to eat laundry detergent....etc.

You can say that about any innovations and how the constitution doesn't apply to now a days standards.

The back ground checks in place work... look at the texas shooter. He failed back ground checks. And if you read what I found out about that is that he then bought an illegally manufactured gun out of a guys basement. So even if there was a "universal" check on all gun transactions.... you think that guy who was making guns illegally in his basement would have done or gone thru that type of procedure???? NOPE!!! So again only thing you are doing is hurting law abiding citizens not people who are willing to commit crimes. :bop:

Dakota..... Great thinking on the wording. You are correct the justice department has to take that into consideration. Just like you mentioned it is up to interpretation by a single judge. It shouldn't matter what side of the political spectrum they are on. But we all know better. :bop:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Outdoor RN said:


> For the record...&#8230;.Benjamin Franklin lived when the armament of choice for wars and hunting was the musket. His quote hardly applies to firearms in this day and age......why anyone needs a banana clip, or more than 5-6 round round clip in any weapon unless they are in the military or police is beyond me?.....Background checks...what's the problem?..... :-?


If the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon, then I guess we can pick and choose which amendments we want to follow based on contemporary beliefs. Cell phones, mass media, Facebook, Google certainly have changed communication so should we change the definition and application of free speech? Science has replaced religion in many minds so should freedom of different religions be repressed in favor of what is currently considered "proven and factual"?

I think the founders did a remarkable job creating a document that spans the tests of time and is applicable in any age. It comes down to whether personal politics are used to override it because it is not agreeable to some. Were they perfect. Not close. But they knew about liberty and spilt a lot of blood to achieve it for future generations. Would be the death of the United States as it was conceived and built to keep chipping away at it. If citizens are not willing to personally sacrifice to maintain liberty for all then it is a house of cards that deserves to fall. That's essentially what Franklin was stating. IMHO I feel it is very applicable.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Outdoor RN said:


> For the record...&#8230;.Benjamin Franklin lived when the armament of choice for wars and hunting was the musket. His quote hardly applies to firearms in this day and age......why anyone needs a banana clip, or more than 5-6 round round clip in any weapon unless they are in the military or police is beyond me?.....Background checks...what's the problem?..... :-?


Not quite sure what a banana clip is, but the reason for having a magazine that holds more than 5 or 6 rounds is because the military and police have magazines that hold more than 5 or 6 rounds. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it is about tyranny and the average citizen having the ability to fight against a tyrannical government. Franklin doesn't comment about the type of firearm that each citizen has the right to keep, because he had enough vision to foresee that firearms would evolve and improve with time. So Franklin's comment applies to modern firearms just as well as it applies to the muskets of his time. If this were not true then your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech in written form would not be protected unless you used a quill pen and ink to express them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If this were not true then your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech in written form would not be protected unless you used a quill pen and ink to express them.


You know that is the perfect response to anyone who bring up musket for an argument.

I can add...

- Mail delivered by horse and buggy not emails, tweets, texts, blogs, twitter, etc.
- TV or News shows.... but only at gatherings and in person.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Boy huntin1 did you hit the proverbial nail on the head!!! A very sage way relating the constitution to our current state of affairs. Kudos.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another example of why we must protect the 2A and not let it get infringed upon..... even with magazine bans, AR bans, etc. Even strict red flag laws or other type things.

In Mexico it is hard for a citizen to get a gun. So they rely on the police to help them. Well the cartels have guns, the cartels are ingrained into the police force or have infiltrated the police force. Some police forces are run by the cartels. So how can a citizen in mexico protect themselves without breaking laws????

This is why we need to fight tooth and nail to protect our 2A rights and not make it an act of god or put more control to the government. Because the government can get corrupted and not listen to its citizens.

For the people who think Trump is a Nazi... What if you didn't have the right to firearms and he started to round up people like Hitler did. Wouldn't you want away to defend yourself? Remember Hitler took away guns from people. oke:


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

One of the first things the dictator/leader of a fascist/communist/socialist country does is seize firearms. By hook, or by crook. By force, buyback whatever means possible.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I must be a gluten for punishment because I am watching the Democrat debate right now. A couple conclusions I have come to while watching: 1 there should be a background check before you can run for president, and 2 you should be able to pass a psychiatric evaluation as sane be for you can run for president. perhaps the most important they should not be able to stand at the podium and lie and it's ok because they are your party.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The muzzleloader argument ignores the intent of the founders, the founders wanted the citizens to have the same firepower as the government if someday in the future that's ray guns then that's what they wanted the citizens should be able to keep and bare

Mass murder is a result of morality issues not weapon types, take away guns and the evil lunatics will come up with another method

One common thread in 90 percent of these incidents is a "gun free zone"

Evil always looks to prey on the weak


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I was reading something this morning that Trump stated. He said that the "confiscation" or "buy backs" is really hurting any chance at real reform. Which I kind of agree with him. Because the one thing I am totally afraid of is that once you give an inch... what else will they come for?

Also like someone else mentioned or I heard another elected official state that in one of the bills it was vague language in it. It didn't specify anything. It said "military style weapons"... was one term I heard. Well a shotgun is a military style weapon. A pistol is a military style weapon. A Rem 700 rifle is a military style weapon. So again.... slippery slope and when Rhetoric of "mandatory buy back", "Confiscation", "Damn Right we are coming for your AR's"..... All of this is putting up big road blocks for any real discussion.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

One thing they could do is open the NICS to the general public. But they wont do it. Many people WOULD run background checks on private salesto reduce their liability and eliminate the transfer costs. But the gov doesnt have any record that way so they are not going to allow it despite the fact that it partially accomplishes what they want. K


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

A headline on Drudge today was about Colt halting sales of their AR to civilians. With ARs being built everywhere In guessing Colts sales are way down. They made a business decision and used it to suck up to liberals. It would be great if some other company got the gov contract. Beto should be happy.


----------

