2nd Amendment "rules" should apply to the 14th Amendment

[stanc]

I never said CC would end all mass shootings, "but with a better trained populace" the odds would be much better than an armed, untrained populace.

First, I think you are vastly overstating the case to say that "with a better trained populace the odds would be much better than an armed, untrained populace." Unless you have hard data to show the % improvment that would result?

Second, you are attempting to create a false narrative by describing the stuation as "better trained versus untrained." Many CC holders are very well trained, probably much better than what your government standards would produce.

And third, your proposed government training could be expected to produce shooters no more capable than the police, who -- even when they're on the scene, as in Dayton and the incidents posted above by DNS -- typically stop the shooter only after he's killed and wounded many people.

Plus, "and the main point"" it would shut down the narrative that gun owners are not trained or vetted.

:confused: When has inadequate training ever been a significant issue?

[stanc]

There has been no give. All of the compromise has resulted only in take. The laws being advocated here will only result in more take.

In my past, conceiled carry was illegal but is legal today.

I thought we were talking about federal law, but okay, in Montana concealed carry is now legal. What compromises were made to get it?

Dealers don't have to record all ammunition sales from a federal mandate like they use too.

Oh, golly gee. Got rid of the minor inconvenience of having to record ammo sales, and effectively lost the right to own machine guns. You seriously call that a "give"???

Cities can not ban handguns like they use to since the last ruling from the Supreme court.

We're discussing compromises made in passing gun laws, not court rulings (which are based on legal principles and precedents, not compromises).

The federal assault weapon ban was not reinstated.

But not because of compromise. Because there was not enough support.

[Lemonaid]

This video by Iraqveteran8888 bears on topic. It has some proposed solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srPe4NAd_dY

[montana]

First, I think you are vastly overstating the case to say that "with a better trained populace the odds would be much better than an armed, untrained populace." Unless you have hard data to show the % improvment that would result?

No data, but are drivers more capable after drivers ed and passing their test or is that a waste of time too?

Second, you are attempting to create a false narrative by describing the stuation as "better trained versus untrained." Many CC holders are very well trained, probably much better than what your government standards would produce.

Once again, I can only give a parallel, are tested and trained drivers of automobiles better than untrained? Why would firearms be any different. I know hunter safety has had a very good tract record compared to the past.

And third, your proposed government training could be expected to produce shooters no more capable than the police, who -- even when they're on the scene, as in Dayton and the incidents posted above by DNS -- typically stop the shooter only after he's killed and wounded many people.

Right back at you, now you are attempting to create a false narrative by describing the situation as trained versus untrained. If anything the gun owners would be much safer to themselves and others after proper instruction, or do you believe classes like drivers ed are a waste of time. All of this is conjecture but come on.

:confused: When has inadequate training ever been a significant issue?

A person who has learned the fundamentals of firearms or a person who has never fired a gun. Which person do you think would be able to respond better under a life or death situation? If you think there is no difference then there really is no more to say.

[montana]

I thought we were talking about federal law, but okay, in Montana concealed carry is now legal. What compromises were made to get it?


Oh, golly gee. Got rid of the minor inconvenience of having to record ammo sales, and effectively lost the right to own machine guns. You seriously call that a "give"???


We're discussing compromises made in passing gun laws, not court rulings (which are based on legal principles and precedents, not compromises).


But not because of compromise. Because there was not enough support.

Gun owners compromised in 1934, other wise handguns would have been banned with machineguns. I'm not saying I like or even agree with these compromises, but if banning semi autos or mandatory training is involved, I would have to think long and hard before I would say no. It all depends on the political mood of the time. Elections matter.

[stanc]

First, I think you are vastly overstating the case to say that "with a better trained populace the odds would be much better than an armed, untrained populace." Unless you have hard data to show the % improvment that would result?

No data, but are drivers more capable after drivers ed and passing their test or is that a waste of time too?

No. You're right. Trained is much better than untrained.

And third, your proposed government training could be expected to produce shooters no more capable than the police, who -- even when they're on the scene, as in Dayton and the incidents posted above by DNS -- typically stop the shooter only after he's killed and wounded many people.

Right back at you, now you are attempting to create a false narrative by describing the situation as trained versus untrained.

Huh? In what universe do you see "untrained" anywhere in that sentence?

When has inadequate training ever been a significant issue?

A person who has learned the fundamentals of firearms or a person who has never fired a gun. Which person do you think would be able to respond better under a life or death situation?

That's a different subject. You said "the main point is it would shut down the narrative that gun owners are not trained or vetted."

Vetting -- inadequate background checks -- has certainly been a significant part of the anti-gun narrative, but when has training?

[stanc]

thought we were talking about federal law, but okay, in Montana concealed carry is now legal. What compromises were made to get it?
Oh, golly gee. FOPA got rid of the minor inconvenience of having to record ammo sales, and effectively lost the right to own machine guns. You seriously call that a "give"???

Gun owners compromised in 1934, other wise handguns would have been banned with machineguns.

Some compromise. They "take" machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and various other weapons, but decide to relent on handguns, and you consider that a "give"??? ROFL.

That's not giving anything. That's just not taking as much as they originally wanted. I'll say it again: There has been no give and take; it's been all taking, and some of us want them to take more.

Correction: Some of us want to give them more, without even trying to put up a fight.

I'm not saying I like or even agree with these compromises, but if banning semi autos or mandatory training is involved, I would have to think long and hard before I would say no.

There's nothing to think about. Banning semi-autos versus mandatory training isn't even an option being discussed by politicians or anti-gun groups.

[Kswhitetails]

NO - YOU'VE TAKEN ENOUGH FROM ME ALREADY.

No "compromise", no quarter. You can't have any more of my freedom.

Here's the rub. The increased regulation of a thing accomplishes only the restriction of that thing in the hands of those who follow the regulation.

I have broken no law. I own no illegal firearm. I have never used drugs. I have never stolen anything. I've never tested the limits, because I have always believed the limits are to be respected rather than pushed. I have always believed that my government has for the better part of mankind been trying to protect me. No more. Listen to the DNC debates, and what they say. They want to take my freedom from me in many ways more than my owning firearms. I'm scared of them. I see history repeating itself, and I stand in horror of what I hear coming from our campuses.

I have endangered no person at any time I've ever owned and used firearms. Why should I compromise in any case where you would ask me to relinquish my liberty "more" than I already have? Why am I a threat to you? Your misunderstanding of the gun is not my problem. Your dislike or discomfort of the gun is not my problem. Your irrational fears are not my problem. Your feelings are not my problem. There is no safe space in human society, except those protected at the point of a gun.

Pass all the gun laws in the world; Ban them completely. You won't get mine without a fight. I will no longer idly allow some stupid HUMAN in Washington tell me what firearms I'm allowed to keep. I will protect my freedom by exercising the second amendment as intended. At the point of my legally owned and operated firearms in defense against a government that improperly re-defines "legal" bahavior. Public sentiment and poll numbers have absolutely nothing to do with it.

If our government doesn't follow the Constitution, then what are we if we do not stand up for it? It's not hard. This issue is not grey area. Either we are free citizens who are given the right by our Creator to own and use firearms to defend our liberty, or the Constitution is void and we are sheep for the slaughter. Maybe not today. Maybe not in our lifetimes. But they will come for us. They will red flag us. They will seize our liberty eventually. Because that is the way of human existence. That is the human hysteria at work. "Progressive."

I will not be owned. I will not bow. I will protect my freedom. Come and take them, cowards.

I am not crazy. I am not radical. I am not "wing". I am an American Citizen, with the responsibility; The duty; The HONOR of and to protect my children's and grand children's and their grand children's FREEDOM.

?You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children?s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.? - Ronald Reagan

NO - YOU HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH FROM ME ALREADY.

[montana]

Some compromise. They "take" machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and various other weapons, but decide to relent on handguns, and you consider that a "give"??? ROFL.

That's not giving anything. That's just not taking as much as they originally wanted. I'll say it again: There has been no give and take; it's been all taking, and some of us want them to take more.

I guess not paying a $200 transfer tax on a every handgun purchase doesn't seem to be much of a win to you, but it beat the alternative. Why the NRA never fought this more would have to be explained by someone with more historical knowledge than me on the inner workings of the NRA during the 1930's. Maybe the NRA made the best deal they could make considering the political climate of the day, or a corrupt collaboration bettween the NRA leadership and politicians, or the NRA's incompetence. The bump stock ban has a similar tone as does the soon to be red flag laws.

Correction: Some of us want to give them more, without even trying to put up a fight.

Whom might that be?

There's nothing to think about. Banning semi-autos versus mandatory training isn't even an option being discussed by politicians or anti-gun groups.

I never said it was. I was just hashing around ideas to checkmate the anti's talking point for banning semi autos.

[Kswhitetails]

Montana, it is this mentality that loses. Stand up, and defend freedom, or watch them take it a sliver at a time. Until we stop accepting the losses through compromise, we will continue to lose until we're surrounded by tyranny. We are I believe staring that day in the eye. They want so much more than our guns. They want our labor. Our speech. Our children. Our education. Our independence and individuality. Our thinking is in danger! When do we stand up? If not us, who?

At what point do we draw the line? How much liberty do we allow Washington to take from our kids?

[montana]

Montana, it is this mentality that loses. Stand up, and defend freedom, or watch them take it a sliver at a time. Until we stop accepting the losses through compromise, we will continue to lose until we're surrounded by tyranny. We are I believe staring that day in the eye. They want so much more than our guns. They want our labor. Our speech. Our children. Our education. Our independence and individuality. Our thinking is in danger! When do we stand up? If not us, who?

At what point do we draw the line? How much liberty do we allow Washington to take from our kids?

I have been fighting for gun rights since the 70's. It is a never ending process. Bravado sounds good, but realistic strategies need to be thought through. Individuals will have to determine where they will draw the line in the sand. Playing red dawn is not realistic to me. I value freedom, but we are a long way from reenacting the horrors in Syria in my opinion, nor do I care to go there. As long as there is a free election system, there will always be a better way.

[Kswhitetails]

I truly hope our election system remains free and legitimate. I know the drawbacks of hysteria and group-think. But we can't even have an honest conversation about voter ID.

I know little about the reality of war, I've never been there or seen it first hand. But I can imagine the sheriff at my door, and that is only because they've come to fellow citizens doors already. I'm just seeing reality as it is.

Red Dawn? LOL, there's no Russkie paratroops. There's villainous lawmakers afoot. The fight won't come from the air, in uniform. It will come from Legislative and Judicial compromise. Slowly, with men too afraid to stand and fight on both sides and therefor "compromising". I get it. I've always been one of those guys. How soft we've gotten, in our wisdom and enlightenment.

Most people I know used to say, "you'll never disarm the American public". It was something my grandpa and my dad have literally said. But I can't say it today, being honest about it. I just can't believe my own words when I say it. And I want to!

I don't think any other rational thinking American would say those words with confidence either. THAT'S what scares me.

I pray public opinion sways back toward liberty. But what do I do if it doesn't? Who to I complain to when they come for our guns because of a rant on a message board over a law the Supreme Court said 5-4 was legitimate afterall? Who do I run to for protection after they've taken my means of self defense, and someone is attacking my family?

[Mopardoctor]

Amazing where this thread has gone. My idea where the shooters get their "mental Illness" is the brainwashing by the electronic media. They spend all of their time on the internet with music from a grunge or rap music group blasting through their earbuds. They learn nothing in school and have no social skills because their culture is centered on video games that implant violence and anti-social behavior. They think that the only people that will pay attention to them are on Facebook or Instagram.

[stanc]

Some compromise. They "take" machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and various other weapons, but decide to relent on handguns, and you consider that a "give"??? ROFL.

That's not giving anything. That's just not taking as much as they originally wanted. I'll say it again: There has been no give and take; it's been all taking, and some of us want them to take more.

I guess not paying a $200 transfer tax on a every handgun purchase doesn't seem to be much of a win to you...

Actually, it doesn't seem like ANY sort of a win to me. There's a HUGE difference between winning, and not losing everything.

Correction: Some of us want to give them more, without even trying to put up a fight.

Whom might that be?

Well, there's the guy who wants to restrict gun ownership to those who complete government-mandated training, an infringement on the RKBA that the anti-gun crowd hasn't even asked for, AFAIK.

There's also the guys who want to have "red flag" laws and extended background checks, both of which are on the anti-gun agenda.

And of course, there's the NRA, which actively helped get bump stocks banned. https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

Banning semi-autos versus mandatory training isn't even an option being discussed by politicians or anti-gun groups.

I never said it was. I was just hashing around ideas to checkmate the anti's talking point for banning semi autos.

You're kidding yourself if you think that your proposed mandatory training would have even the slightest chance of checkmating the anti-gun talking point on semi-autos.

Even if mandatory training, "red flag" laws, and extended background checks all became law, there would still be mass shootings, which would be followed by more calls for a ban on semi-autos.

[stanc]

I have broken no law. I own no illegal firearm. I have never used drugs. I have never stolen anything. I've never tested the limits, because I have always believed the limits are to be respected rather than pushed.

Jeez, what a Boy Scout.

[montana]

Boy, this discussion has gone no where fast! The truth is, no one gives a rat's a$$ what any of us think, that is a given. If everyone is fine with the Status quo of disconnected youths wiping people out with guns, "with the same old responses from the pro gun side" your going to be in for a rude awakening some day. Like it or not, the left also has votes and they are growing in numbers every day. Welcome to the new reality! The one strength we have right now is all of the democratic presidential candidates are a bunch of leftist buffoons, which I don't think the majority of Americans are willing to embrace at this time,,,,,I think! Finding ways to vette disconnected, troubled, mentally ill people from acquiring guns is not being anti 2ndA. Encouraging people, to get training before they bring a lethal weapon into their homes and lives is not being anti 2ndA. Nothing will completely solve the problem of crazy people from harming others, but in the political battlefield, the perception of no action is a strategy for lost elections. Rant over!

[stanc]

The one strength we have right now is all of the democratic presidential candidates are a bunch of leftist buffoons, which I don't think the majority of Americans are willing to embrace at this time,,,

Perhaps. OTOH, the likely Republican candidate may have alienated people enough with his policies and actions, that they'll vote for anyone else...

Encouraging people, to get training before they bring a lethal weapon into their homes and lives is not being anti 2ndA.

Encouraging? Since when is "encouraging" a synonym for "requiring"?

[Double Naught Spy]

The one strength we have right now is all of the democratic presidential candidates are a bunch of leftist buffoons, which I don't think the majority of Americans are willing to embrace at this time,,,,,I think!

That sort of logic didn't work last time. People thought he was a joke, a circus sideshow, etc.

[video=youtube;G87UXIH8Lzo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo[/video]

[montana]

That sort of logic didn't work last time. People thought he was a joke, a circus sideshow, etc.

[video=youtube;G87UXIH8Lzo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo[/video]

Did you actually read my post?? Read it again and compare it to the attitude being given by the people in your video you just posted. :confused:
: My quote: "which (I don't think) the majority of Americans are willing to embrace at this time",,,,(,I think)! Notice I stated, I don't think the majority will embrace, not no way or not in a million years, ha, ha, etc, like the peoples attitude in your video expressed. Big Difference. Notice the end of my sentence,"I think" implies some doubt. My other warning: (Like it or not, the left also has votes and they are growing in numbers every day. Welcome to the new reality!)

Are you serious or just trying to troll me now?

[montana]

Perhaps. OTOH, the likely Republican candidate may have alienated people enough with his policies and actions, that they'll vote for anyone else...

Possible but I doubt it.

Encouraging? Since when is "encouraging" a synonym for "requiring"?

It isn't.

So far, you and your tag team buddy have side stepped this one question. Do you think drivers ed is a waste of time? Lets pretend driving is a Constitutional right. Would you guys be a spokesman and champion against mandatory drivers ed and fight against a requirement for a driving and written test before you are allowed to drive on public roads??? Perhaps you believe new drivers should just learn as they go without any forced infringements on their Constitutional right to drive. In the mean time there are thousands of people being killed on our public roads and the left wants a ban on all automobiles except for horse and buggies. The left demands people should just take public transportation, that is being driven by trained and vetted government employees. The fact public transportation cannot be everywhere at all times is irrelevant to the left. They claim horse and buggies are all people need if public transportation can not be everywhere. Then I suggested people should perhaps get trained and pass a qualifying written and driving test before they are allowed to drive, thereby keeping the automobiles of their choice.. ...Yea, crazy idea on my part:p