The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

Bamabuzzard · Apr 11, 2018

MattinBama said:
What he's getting at is that future generations will likely go well beyond what the current discussions would allow. So gumming up the works of discussing it now could have unintended consequences later. It's not a threat really, just a possible ending.

THIS!!! This is my fear not necessarily for me but my kids and grand kids. I truly believe that for the most part the majority of citizens, even though on different sides of the isle from a party standpoint, can agree on sensible, non extreme measures of gun control. But if these people refuse to work together. Then we are running the risk of the people on the fringes making the decisions about it. Which none of us want. Both sides of the argument have their extremes/fringe nut jobs. Those are the ones we don't want making the decisions on this issue.

CharminTide · Apr 11, 2018

Bamabuzzard said:
THIS!!! This is my fear not necessarily for me but my kids and grand kids. I truly believe that for the most part the majority of citizens, even though on different sides of the isle from a party standpoint, can agree on sensible, non extreme measures of gun control. But if these people refuse to work together. Then we are running the risk of the people on the fringes making the decisions about it. Which none of us want. Both sides of the argument have their extremes/fringe nut jobs. Those are the ones we don't want making the decisions on this issue.

Exactly. There are reasonable folks in this thread who claim to support some gun control measures in theory, yet refuse in practice because they fear the slippery slope. That's a counter-productive attitude in the long-run, IMO. When one side steadfastly refuses to compromise in any fashion, their views get rightfully disregarded. It may not happen today, tomorrow, or in the next 10 years. But once the politics allow it, some manner of gun reform will happen. When that day comes and the numbers finally permit it, there will no longer be a political need to consider views of the gun advocates who have consistently shut down any attempt at discussing a solution. I'm merely saying y'all might not be happy with that outcome, and significant changes would not require an amendment to the Constitution.

Bamabuzzard · Apr 11, 2018

CharminTide said:
Exactly. There are reasonable folks in this thread who claim to support some gun control measures in theory, yet refuse in practice because they fear the slippery slope. That's a counter-productive attitude in the long-run, IMO. When one side steadfastly refuses to compromise in any fashion, their views get rightfully disregarded. It may not happen today, tomorrow, or in the next 10 years. But once the politics allow it, some manner of gun reform will happen. When that day comes and the numbers finally permit it, there will no longer be a political need to consider views of the gun advocates who have consistently shut down any attempt at discussing a solution. I'm merely saying y'all might not be happy with that outcome, and significant changes would not require an amendment to the Constitution.

There's the other side of that as well. I'm pro-gun, grew up in the great state of MISSISSIPPI huntin' & fishin' my entire life. But I know folks who are also pro-gun that are nut jobs. Heck, some are family members! LOL! I wouldn't dare want a situation like you're describing (but on the other end of the spectrum) where some of these idiots are making decisions on firearms in this country. Like I said, we do not want the people on the extreme fringes of this issue (on both sides of the isle) making the decisions. Because the outcome will not be pretty. Hopefully I'll be dead and gone if or when that happens. I just fear for my children and/or grandchildren.

Wilson Monroe · Apr 11, 2018

CharminTide said:
Oh, I'm fully aware of your mindset.

If gun advocates aren't willing to participate in these discussions, they may not like the ultimate outcome.

A couple of thoughts to help people on the side of gun control have a discussion that does not immediately get shut down. I sincerely hope this helps and nobody feels like I'm targeting them. (Charmin particularly since I'm responding to your post)

Here's the list of major firearm restriction legislation. Yeah, I pulled it from Wiki. Discussions have taken place. Concessions have been given by advocates in the past and no sign of "enough" has been seen. The problem, I think, that people who sincerely believe that more restrictions will actually have some kind of impact run into is that there have been swings in violent crime that all the legislation below had little if any discernible effect on. That's going to be a major hurdle in getting advocates to listen. You'll need to understand what all this legislation was first.

National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934)
Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA")
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA")
Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004)

Secondly, using terms like "common sense", "sensible", and the like is wholly condescending and most likely ends the conversation. Probably best to show respect for other people's opinions when saying that an adult conversation is necessary to someone who doesn't think that there is any need. This is a huge sticking point for advocates.

Third, if folks on the side of gun control really want to have this conversation, then they will also need to have a well versed understanding of all firearm types including functionality, past legislation, and the Federalist Papers interpretations of the 2A written by the Founders who penned the Amendments. Pretty much anyone that wants to lead a discussion about a topic that they are not well versed in gets ignored.

I think it is in the best interest of anyone wanting to advance the discussion to understand that the above are "pet peeves" of people that believe in firearm rights. If you are very passionate about your opinion I don't think it would be wild to ask that you research and understand all these points, but this is a LOT of reading. It is not unreasonable to ask that the discussion does not involve the speaker being educated by the audience. If you want to be listened to you will have to become an authority on the subject.

Then again, there are plenty of advocates that are just done giving inches when miles are the goal. They won't talk to you anyway.

cbi1972 · Apr 11, 2018

CharminTide said:
Exactly. There are reasonable folks in this thread who claim to support some gun control measures in theory, yet refuse in practice because they fear the slippery slope. That's a counter-productive attitude in the long-run, IMO. When one side steadfastly refuses to compromise in any fashion, their views get rightfully disregarded. It may not happen today, tomorrow, or in the next 10 years. But once the politics allow it, some manner of gun reform will happen. When that day comes and the numbers finally permit it, there will no longer be a political need to consider views of the gun advocates who have consistently shut down any attempt at discussing a solution. I'm merely saying y'all might not be happy with that outcome, and significant changes would not require an amendment to the Constitution.

There will always be a practical need to consider the opinion of an armed person when attempting to make him do something he doesn't want to do.

92tide · Apr 11, 2018

Wilson Monroe said:
A couple of thoughts to help people on the side of gun control have a discussion that does not immediately get shut down. I sincerely hope this helps and nobody feels like I'm targeting them. (Charmin particularly since I'm responding to your post)

Here's the list of major firearm restriction legislation. Yeah, I pulled it from Wiki. Discussions have taken place. Concessions have been given by advocates in the past and no sign of "enough" has been seen. The problem, I think, that people who sincerely believe that more restrictions will actually have some kind of impact run into is that there have been swings in violent crime that all the legislation below had little if any discernible effect on. That's going to be a major hurdle in getting advocates to listen. You'll need to understand what all this legislation was first.

National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934)
Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA")
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA")
Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004)

Secondly, using terms like "common sense", "sensible", and the like is wholly condescending and most likely ends the conversation. Probably best to show respect for other people's opinions when saying that an adult conversation is necessary to someone who doesn't think that there is any need. This is a huge sticking point for advocates.

Third, if folks on the side of gun control really want to have this conversation, then they will also need to have a well versed understanding of all firearm types including functionality, past legislation, and the Federalist Papers interpretations of the 2A written by the Founders who penned the Amendments. Pretty much anyone that wants to lead a discussion about a topic that they are not well versed in gets ignored.

I think it is in the best interest of anyone wanting to advance the discussion to understand that the above are "pet peeves" of people that believe in firearm rights. If you are very passionate about your opinion I don't think it would be wild to ask that you research and understand all these points, but this is a LOT of reading. It is not unreasonable to ask that the discussion does not involve the speaker being educated by the audience. If you want to be listened to you will have to become an authority on the subject.

Then again, there are plenty of advocates that are just done giving inches when miles are the goal. They won't talk to you anyway.

imho, posts like this are just as condescending.

it seems that we have spent the better part of the last three decades dictating our policy, or at the least our policy discussions, based on the pet peeves of conservatives.

Wilson Monroe · Apr 11, 2018

92tide said:
imho, posts like this are just as condescending.

it seems that we have spent the better part of the last three decades dictating our policy, or at the least our policy discussions, based on the pet peeves of conservatives.

Well, I did say that my goal was not to target anyone. I also didn't want to sound condescending, but I suppose that is a tall order. Not the intention.

cbi1972 · Apr 11, 2018

92tide said:
imho, posts like this are just as condescending.

it seems that we have spent the better part of the last three decades dictating our policy, or at the least our policy discussions, based on the pet peeves of conservatives.

When it comes to restricting fundamental rights, I would gladly take the "do nothing" approach for 30 more years, even when it rankles "conservatives"

RammerJammer14 · Apr 11, 2018

MattinBama said:
What he's getting at is that future generations will likely go well beyond what the current discussions would allow. So gumming up the works of discussing it now could have unintended consequences later. It's not a threat really, just a possible ending.

Yeah I know that is what he is getting at. I just disagree that “2A folks” have to accept the “compromises” and “sensible gun control” being proposed now in order to avoid suffering some massive cultural change that will repeal the 2A in 70yrs. We don’t have to accept a ban on AR-15s and similar rifles now to avoid losing everything in the future. What will allow that however is to allow extreme gun control advocates to dictate and dominate the conversation, as has happened elsewhere in society.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 11, 2018

So only pro-2A folks are rigid and unreasonable? Bull.

If "come to the table and give us what we want now or get it worse later" is the new strategy...- well, the waiting game has worked out swimmingly for you so far, hasn't it?

What's it been...80 years since gun control was a thing? I know it was going strong 40 years ago. And yet in recent years pro-gun control forces have lost ground over and over. The Brady Bill and "assault weapon" bans expired and the right to bear arms - despite being in the Bill of Rights - was inexplicably declared an individual right.

You've come so far with the strategies you've employed so far. This one should work even better.

MattinBama · Apr 11, 2018

NationalTitles17 said:
So only pro-2A folks are rigid and unreasonable? Bull.

If "come to the table and give us what we want now or get it worse later" is the new strategy...- well, the waiting game has worked out swimmingly for you so far, hasn't it?

What's it been...80 years since gun control was a thing? I know it was going strong 40 years ago. And yet in recent years pro-gun control forces have lost ground over and over. The Brady Bill and "assault weapon" bans expired and the right to bear arms - despite being in the Bill of Rights - was inexplicably declared an individual right.

You've come so far with the strategies you've employed so far. This one should work even better.

I'm Pro-2A. It's not a strategy from me so much as just what I think is likely to happen. And I'd rather it not. It's time for everyone to act like dadgum adults & figure what can be accomplished rather than just both sides holding their breath throwing tantrums.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 11, 2018

MattinBama said:
I'm Pro-2A. It's not a strategy from me so much as just what I think is likely to happen. And I'd rather it not. It's time for everyone to act like dadgum adults & figure what can be accomplished rather than just both sides holding their breath throwing tantrums.

I completely agree.

CharminTide · Apr 11, 2018

NationalTitles17 said:
So only pro-2A folks are rigid and unreasonable? Bull. If "come to the table and give us what we want now or get it worse later" is the new strategy...

You've come so far with the strategies you've employed so far. This one should work even better.

It sounds like you're stigmatizing a few ideas with majority bipartisan support as "giving the libs everything they want." If that's your starting point, we're going nowhere.

As Matt said, this is merely a prediction, not a strategy.

crimsonaudio · Apr 11, 2018

MattinBama said:
It's time for everyone to act like dadgum adults & figure what can be accomplished rather than just both sides holding their breath throwing tantrums.

I think most people agree with you on this. I know I do - I've said so in several places in this very thread. That said, historically speaking what gun control advocates press for has been fairly silly and unlikely to affect much of anything.

Better mental health screening before purchases? Yes, good idea, but the devil is in the details.

Waiting period between purchase and receiving the firearm? Again, this is fine, but there will have to be exceptions.

Eliminating private sales? Arguably impossible, but perhaps some sort of open NICS system where private sellers could check backgrounds of potential buyers would be happily accepted.

But banning certain types of firearms - especially those used in a tiny fraction of deaths each year? This is the sort of thing that gets people's defenses up.

Both sides need to realize that we have to work together and cannot approach this as an all or nothing discussion.

GrayTide · Apr 13, 2018

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

uafanataum · Apr 14, 2018

GrayTide said:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Nice graphics there showing the geography of shootings. Looks like you are safer the farther you are away from the ocean.

BamaFlum · Apr 14, 2018

uafanataum said:
Nice graphics there showing the geography of shootings. Looks like you are safer the farther you are away from the ocean.

More like the further you are from cities.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

crimsonaudio · Apr 21, 2018

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

day-day · Apr 22, 2018

BamaFlum said:
More like the further you are from cities.

Probably areas that have more cans.

formersoldier71 · May 7, 2018

Multiple rural Illinois counties have passed resolutions establishing so-called “sanctuaries” for gun owners in a bid to thwart the state legislature’s efforts to enact stricter gun control.

At least five counties declared themselves sanctuary counties for gun rights, co-opting a word that most conservatives associate with the liberal policy of ignoring federal immigration laws.

The resolutions aim to send a message to the Democrat-controlled legislature that if it passes the proposed gun bills, such as increasing the minimum age for owning a gun or a bump stock ban, the counties will instruct their employees to ignore the new laws.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/rural-counties-declaring-themselves-gun-rights-sanctuaries/

The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

FB Moderator

1st Team

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

All-American

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!