Borderline Bar & Grill Shooting

[*bfine32*]

What "Common sense" gun control law would have stopped the veteran from owning a handgun?

Oh, and I give damn about those that think thoughts and prayers are useless.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors, friends and families of the fallen, and friends and families of the shooter. I pray they can find comfort in their faith.

[GMDino]

(11-08-2018, 05:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What "Common sense" gun control law would have stopped the veteran from owning a handgun?

Oh, and I give damn  about those that think thoughts and prayers are useless.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors, friends and families of the fallen, and friends and families of the shooter. I pray they can find comfort in their faith.

Apparently he had been "checked out" before following some event that involved the police and they thought he was good to go.

I'll file this one under a country that care less about their troops when they come home then there claim to.

[NATI BENGALS]

Thanks a lot you shithead. Wonder how HR is going to be looking at my resume now when i just had the two biggest job interviews of my life. And i proudly list USMC machine gunner on there.

Its honestly getting to the point i think i should leave it off. Pretty sure it is hurting me

[Benton]

(11-08-2018, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What we need to do is stop obsessing over mass shootings. They account for only a very small fraction of gun violence.

Simple licensing and registration (with training requirements) will do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and reduce gun violence than banning any specific type of gun.  And it does not infringe on any law abiding citizens right to posses a gun.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the NRA is strictly against basic training. They're shooting themselves in the foot on this issue.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2018, 01:36 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. Unfortunately, the NRA is strictly against basic training. They're shooting themselves in the foot on this issue.

Which is baffling to me. The reason is because I remember an NRA that was all about promoting the safe handling of firearms. That was their main goal and purpose. Teaching people how to enjoy shooting sports safely. When I say I remember this organization, I really didn't even know the full extent of which that organization existed. I remember the transition period, but apparently this shift started in 1977. I just learned this while typing this post and I want to see if I could find anything about the change. This article popped up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.f369abef7316

It is an interesting primer on what happened to the NRA to get us to the point, today, where it isn't even just a lobbyist for the gun industry but an overall conservative PAC where they rail on social issues as well as gun rights issues.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 01:36 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. Unfortunately, the NRA is strictly against basic training. They're shooting themselves in the foot on this issue.

This isn't true, at least not as you put it.  They are against mandated basic training being required to own a firearm, they are not at all against basic safety training regarding firearms and in fact heavily encourage it.

(11-09-2018, 09:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is baffling to me. The reason is because I remember an NRA that was all about promoting the safe handling of firearms. That was their main goal and purpose. Teaching people how to enjoy shooting sports safely. When I say I remember this organization, I really didn't even know the full extent of which that organization existed. I remember the transition period, but apparently this shift started in 1977. I just learned this while typing this post and I want to see if I could find anything about the change. This article popped up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.f369abef7316

It is an interesting primer on what happened to the NRA to get us to the point, today, where it isn't even just a lobbyist for the gun industry but an overall conservative PAC where they rail on social issues as well as gun rights issues.

They have a position set in a firm constitutional foundation and vigorously defend it.  You know they do that well based on the number of people who rail against them on a near daily basis.  As far as social issues, I don't recall them really pushing for or against any issue that didn't involve firearms.  I'm sure it's happened, but I don't recall it and it certainly isn't their main goal.  I will agree that they've morphed into a more aggressive organization over the years.  This may have something to do with the politicians seeking to limit firearms ownership.

[GMDino]

(11-09-2018, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This isn't true, at least not as you put it.  They are against mandated basic training being required to own a firearm, they are not at all against basic safety training regarding firearms and in fact heavily encourage it.

That's a shame as it would help.

(11-09-2018, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They have a position set in a firm constitutional foundation and vigorously defend it.  You know they do that well based on the number of people who rail against them on a near daily basis.  As far as social issues, I don't recall them really pushing for or against any issue that didn't involve firearms.  I'm sure it's happened, but I don't recall it and it certainly isn't their main goal.  I will agree that they've morphed into a more aggressive organization over the years.  This may have something to do with the politicians seeking to limit firearms ownership.

Yeah, they figured out they needed to be political and tied their horses to the Republican platform. And people saying they aren't helping but rather exacerbating the problems is a sure sign they are doing well versus being people disagreeing with the path they chose to move to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's a shame as it would help.

Probably has something to do with not making training mandatory to exercise a constitutional right.  Seeing as you disagree you'd also be in favor of requiring at least a high school diploma before someone can vote, right?

Quote:Yeah, they figured out they needed to be political and tied their horses to the Republican platform.  And people saying they aren't helping but rather exacerbating the problems is a sure sign they are doing well versus being people disagreeing with the path they chose to move to.

As the Democratic party has made gun control part of their party platform this rather makes sense.  I am aware that the less educated or more emotional among us like to blame the tool and not the wielder.  It's a good thing there are those among us who still push personal responsibility and accountability.  

[Au165]

(11-09-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably has something to do with not making training mandatory to exercise a constitutional right.  Seeing as you disagree you'd also be in favor of requiring at least a high school diploma before someone can vote, right?

I'm not opposed to some sort of basic civics test before someone can vote. Maybe it would help people understand what the people campaigning and making promises can and can't actually do.

[Benton]

(11-09-2018, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This isn't true, at least not as you put it.  They are against mandated basic training being required to own a firearm, they are not at all against basic safety training regarding firearms and in fact heavily encourage it.

Fair point, as far as the NRA being against mandatory training.

I'll stick with this being a part of the problem though. As I've said before, basic firearm education and safety is something that should be taught in school at a young age. I'll one further that and say it should be a requirement for owning a firearm, too, which doesn't infringe on anyone's rights any more than a machine gun ban, requiring an ID to vote or not allowing slander. But it won't happen as long as the NRA is pumping millions into political campaigns.

[Benton]

(11-09-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably has something to do with not making training mandatory to exercise a constitutional right.  Seeing as you disagree you'd also be in favor of requiring at least a high school diploma before someone can vote, right?

Where do you fall on municipalities requiring a permit to peacefully assembly?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:13 PM)Au165 Wrote: I'm not opposed to some sort of basic civics test before someone can vote. Maybe it would help people understand what the people campaigning and making promises can and can't actually do.

You'd find a huge number of people would be borderline violently opposed to this idea.

(11-09-2018, 12:16 PM)Benton Wrote: Fair point, as far as the NRA being against mandatory training.

I'll stick with this being a part of the problem though. As I've said before, basic firearm education and safety is something that should be taught in school at a young age. I'll one further that and say it should be a requirement for owning a firearm, too, which doesn't infringe on anyone's rights any more than a machine gun ban, requiring an ID to vote or not allowing slander. But it won't happen as long as the NRA is pumping millions into political campaigns.

I don't disagree.  I think firearm safety training is immensely important.  I've left ranges where the range master wasn't addressing idiots being idiots with their firearms.  I also think you'll find that the vast majority of gun owners have educated themselves on gun safety.  The one pistol owner who's fired their gun once the day after they bought it not included.

[GMDino]

(11-09-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably has something to do with not making training mandatory to exercise a constitutional right.  Seeing as you disagree you'd also be in favor of requiring at least a high school diploma before someone can vote, right?

Well regulated? I'm assuming you will disagree.

Why would someone need a piece a paper from the school to say they are smart enough to vote? I'd like them to be able to read and right, but I've known people in my life with a 6th grade education that were very involved and smart when it came to politics.

(11-09-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As the Democratic party has made gun control part of their party platform this rather makes sense.  I am aware that the less educated or more emotional among us like to blame the tool and not the wielder.  It's a good thing there are those among us who still push personal responsibility and accountability.  

Yes, America would never be able to defend itself against tyrants, nor defend their homes if there was any gun control.

Luckily we have none of that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:23 PM)Benton Wrote: Where do you fall on municipalities requiring a permit to peacefully assembly?

I'd say the size of said assembly would be the justification.  A large enough group in an area prevents other people from using that area, therefore infringing on their rights.  As far as a cutoff numbers wise, it's not something I've ever given any real thought.

[Au165]

(11-09-2018, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'd find a huge number of people would be borderline violently opposed to this idea.

Probably the same people who shouldn't be voting haha. The framers actually knew the American public in general were stupid, which is why they created the electoral college as a compromise. Problem is they could have never foreseen where we'd be today.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well regulated?  I'm assuming you will disagree.

Not at all, as I know what the term means in the context in which it was written.  Many anti-gun people like to quote this part of the 2A, they are wrong every time.

Quote:Why would someone need a piece a paper from the school to say they are smart enough to vote?  I'd like them to be able to read and right, but I've known people in my life with a 6th grade education that were very involved and smart when it came to politics.

Why would someone need a piece of paper to prove they know how to safely handle a firearm?  I know gun owners who've never taken a safety course and are highly responsible when it comes to gun safety.

Quote:Yes, America would never be able to defend itself against tyrants, nor defend their homes if there was any gun control.  

Luckily we have none of that.  

We already have limits set on our right to own a firearm.  Further limits, such as those imposed in CA, have had zero effect on gun violence.  Gun ownership laws only affect those who are inclined to obey the law.  What does a criminal who's going to kill someone care if the gun they possess isn't legal to own in CA?  "Assault weapons" are used in fewer homicides than fists, clubs or knives, yet we always hear about the need to ban them.  This rather indicates that saving lives is not the real intent of gun control.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 12:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: Probably the same people who shouldn't be voting haha.

So basically a large percentage of the Democratic party.  They're the ones most opposed to any regulations being placed on the ability to vote.

Quote:The framers actually knew the American public in general were stupid, which is why they created the electoral college as a compromise. Problem is they could have never foreseen where we'd be today.

Sure.  They never envisioned the internet either, but that shouldn't limit our free speech rights online.

[GMDino]

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not at all, as I know what the term means in the context in which it was written.  Many anti-gun people like to quote this part of the 2A, they are wrong every time.

Wow! I had no IDEA you were over 200 years old!

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would someone need a piece of paper to prove they know how to safely handle a firearm?  I know gun owners who've never taken a safety course and are highly responsible when it comes to gun safety.

LMAO! Yes, a person without the knowledge of algebra and physics voting is the same as anyone being able to buy a weapon and receive no training. You're a hoot.

But it was your false equivalency question.

(11-09-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We already have limits set on our right to own a firearm.  Further limits, such as those imposed in CA, have had zero effect on gun violence.  Gun ownership laws only affect those who are inclined to obey the law.  What does a criminal who's going to kill someone care if the gun they possess isn't legal to own in CA?  "Assault weapons" are used in fewer homicides than fists, clubs or knives, yet we always hear about the need to ban them.  This rather indicates that saving lives is not the real intent of gun control.

I keep forgetting that only when it comes to gun laws does the "criminals don't obey laws" argument come into play.

My bad.

Have a great weekend!

[Au165]

(11-09-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So basically a large percentage of the Democratic party.  They're the ones most opposed to any regulations being placed on the ability to vote.


Sure.  They never envisioned the internet either, but that shouldn't limit our free speech rights online.

More so the "violently" opposed ones. 

To this point the Supreme Court and various courts are always trying to figure out how our rights work in today's world. Especially in terms of speech, searches, and such. The whole bio metric unlocking of phones have been a huge issue with various cases going various ways.

 I think people trying to be "purest" never do holistically when looking at the constitution only when they want it to back up their argument. The idea that people hundreds of years ago had all the answers I think someday will be viewed as insane. While it's great that the document is hard to change, I think again no one could have seen how divisive things would become today.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2018, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They have a position set in a firm constitutional foundation and vigorously defend it.  You know they do that well based on the number of people who rail against them on a near daily basis.  As far as social issues, I don't recall them really pushing for or against any issue that didn't involve firearms.  I'm sure it's happened, but I don't recall it and it certainly isn't their main goal.  I will agree that they've morphed into a more aggressive organization over the years.  This may have something to do with the politicians seeking to limit firearms ownership.

I would argue the position they take that any restriction on firearm ownership is a violation of the 2A as lacking a firm constitutional foundation. Hell, it hasn't yet been a decade since our courts recognized that there was any constitutional foundation to a right to personal firearms ownership, and this has been going on for much longer than that. I think that they are extremist in their views and have lost the original vision of the organization in favor of lobbying on behalf of the firearms industry rather than the owners, but that part boils down to where their money comes from. The individual members give a paltry sum to them when compared to the manufacturers they protect.

As for the social issues, that has been something that has cropped up most recently with NRATV, which really is just a cesspool of the worst the NRA throws out there. Essentially, as someone that has my specific issues with the organization being a sportsman and former member/trained instructor, NRATV represents everything I have grown to dislike about the organization.