More Thoughts & Prayers

[UndertheHalo]

It’s something that would have to be grandfathered in.  We talked about this a lot the other day MT.  There’s no way that people can be forced to surrender the gun.  I00% with you on that.  I’m sure that is what red is talking about. 

Edited February 21, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[floplag]

8 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Law enforcement is never going to be the correct answer for determining competence. And to answer your question, whoever thinks I shouldn’t have it should come get it 

Can we stop the damn chest thumping, please.  
There has to be a standard, we both agree that there must be clear and compelling reasons to take away someones rights.  When it comes to a license to own or carry a gun, who else aside from law enforcement is in even a remotely qualified position to make that decision as to whether or not or issue or revoke that right? 
A lawyer or the court is certainly not, they have no knowledge of the persons past acts or criminal history, no one does, but law enforcement.  
So I ask you again, if that call has to be made, who is in the best place to make that call if not law enforcment? 

I support the right to own, im not anti gun, but i do think those who have a proven history of violence  or have proven themselves a threat to others should have that right revoked.   There must be clearl reasons, there must be someone responsible for making and enforcing that decision.   

[red321]

I would imagine it would be a combination of ways. First stop, banning new sales. I think funds should be allocated to a buy back program.

Guess you could consider a grandfathering for existing owners, without allowing sales of weapons to other people (in essence...you can keep it for yourself/family or turn it back in...but you can't sell it to a 3rd party). Australia handled this issue, most likely their process would be looked at carefully to see what could be applied in the US.

People talk about US history/gun culture was different than Australia...but I see that as a bit of a cop out...20 years ago we were being asked smoking/non-smoking. Culture changes.

[Blarg]

I think we should have an actual war on nuetral territory like Arkansas, since I doubt anyone cares if it gets shot up or not, and pit the gun control vs the gun rights factions to three days of unrestricted battle and when the whistle blows we take a majority vote from the survivors. 

[arch stanton]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Can we stop the damn chest thumping, please.  
There has to be a standard, we both agree that there must be clear and compelling reasons to take away someones rights.  When it comes to a license to own or carry a gun, who else aside from law enforcement is in even a remotely qualified position to make that decision as to whether or not or issue or revoke that right? 
A lawyer or the court is certainly not, they have no knowledge of the persons past acts or criminal history, no one does, but law enforcement.  
So I ask you again, if that call has to be made, who is in the best place to make that call if not law enforcment? 

I support the right to own, im not anti gun, but i do think those who have a proven history of violence  or have proven themselves a threat to others should have that right revoked.   There must be clearl reasons, there must be someone responsible for making and enforcing that decision.   

Why would you want to concentrate that much power in the hands of law enforcement? Having a felony conviction already disqualifies you. If it’s proven that you have committed an offense that might warrant restricting your gun rights that’s pretty black and white. When you let anyone try to predetermine fitness that’s bullshit. There’s no magic formula for deciding who is a future mass murderer.

[arch stanton]

6 minutes ago, calscuf said:

I don’t know what you would do.  But saying you’ll shoot whoever tries to take your gun sounds kinda gay, that’s all I’m saying.

I just said come and get it. I never mentioned shooting anyone. I might just turn the hose on you or let the dogs loose. If all else fails I’ll play Smiths music really loud 

[mtangelsfan]

25 minutes ago, calscuf said:

I don’t know what you would do.  But saying you’ll shoot whoever tries to take your gun sounds kinda gay, that’s all I’m saying.

LOL, I don't own a gun.  I'm saying that some folks may resist.

[gotbeer]

11 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

LOL, I don't own a gun.  I'm saying that some folks may resist.

How do you live in Montana and don't own a gun?  That's like living in California and not owning a car.

[mtangelsfan]

11 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

How do you live in Montana and don't own a gun?  That's like living in California and not owning a car.

Guess it is because I am from California.  I don't hunt and I live in a small town so I don't really need one for protection.

[Spirit]

21 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

How do you live in Montana and don't own a gun?  That's like living in California and not owning a car.

 

Guns and cars ... just say death machines.

 

 

[the dude abides]

9 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

Guns and cars ... just say death machines.

Add banjos and you basically have yourself a nuclear triad.

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, red321 said:

but I see that as a bit of a cop out...20 years ago we were being asked smoking/non-smoking. Culture changes.

Vaping/Non-vaping?

[Thomas]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Here is a question.  Suppose that they ban assault weapons. (which I am not strongly opposed to).

How does it play out?  

People buy cosmetic modifications to turn their death dealing assault weapon into a death dealing rifle. 

[Spirit]

23 minutes ago, the dude abides said:

Add banjos and you basically have yourself a nuclear triad.

 

What do you mean, "basically?"

 

 

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

 

Guns and cars ... just say death machines.

 

 

Terrorists are the worst. 

Also is Mark the english translation for Mohammed? 

And I wonder if terrorism is his day job and plumbing is a hobby or vice versa?

[floplag]

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

Why would you want to concentrate that much power in the hands of law enforcement? Having a felony conviction already disqualifies you. If it’s proven that you have committed an offense that might warrant restricting your gun rights that’s pretty black and white. When you let anyone try to predetermine fitness that’s bullshit. There’s no magic formula for deciding who is a future mass murderer.

Im not talking about pre-determined, you misunderstand.  In no case should anyone be denied ANY right without actual evidence.   
In the case of those who have shown a violent history (IE have a record), have had issues and shown hostility with others (behavioral issues), diagnosed with mental concerns that could make them a risk to others... clear defining items, that would be on record... in those cases, and those cases only, would that right be denied util such time as they can be evaluated as to the threat they may pose.
Im not talking about them making a judgement call, im talking about clearly defined records, they would have or have knowledge of.  
The process of applying for a permit, and issuing one, should be done thru and by law enforcement.  The decision of whether or not to issue it would be based on facts, not judgment or guesswork

[the dude abides]

37 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Terrorists are the worst. 

Also is Mark the english translation for Mohammed? 

And I wonder if terrorism is his day job and plumbing is a hobby or vice versa?

Mark is from Texas and it was quite the story out here.

He ended up suing the dealer.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-01-09/plumber-whose-decaled-truck-went-to-syria-settles-lawsuit

 

[Tank]

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

I just said come and get it. I never mentioned shooting anyone. I might just turn the hose on you or let the dogs loose. If all else fails I’ll play Smiths music really loud 

i believe that would violate my 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

[Rico]

 

[Blarg]

7 hours ago, calscuf said:

Don’t you mean Alaska?

Same thing. Nobody cares.

[Jason]

6 hours ago, Thomas said:

People buy cosmetic modifications to turn their death dealing assault weapon into a death dealing rifle. 

Just like California. Make it look less scary and it's legal. Flash hiders reduce muzzle flash when fired. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil therefor making target acquisition much quicker. Guess which one California made unlawful?

 

The one on top is a California compliant AR and the one on the bottom is not. They operate the exact same way. Pointless

[Jason]

7 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Guess it is because I am from California.  I don't hunt and I live in a small town so I don't really need one for protection.

There isn't even mean wildlife?

[UndertheHalo]

33 minutes ago, Jason said:

Just like California. Make it look less scary and it's legal. Flash hiders reduce muzzle flash when fired. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil therefor making target acquisition much quicker. Guess which one California made unlawful?

 

The one on top is a California compliant AR and the one on the bottom is not. They operate the exact same way. Pointless

This is an argument that laws need to be dynamic and adaptable.  Not that they shouldn’t exist.  The gun industry adapts.  So should the laws. 

[Jason]

44 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

This is an argument that laws need to be dynamic and adaptable.  Not that they shouldn’t exist.  The gun industry adapts.  So should the laws. 

Or use facts, data and evidence when making policy

[UndertheHalo]

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

Or use facts, data and evidence when making policy

Facts are apparently tricky things these days.