# I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians.



## Lawrence (Jun 5, 2022)

I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


----------



## mrstime (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


Wish more people would do the same. Then yesterday seeing what people really say I don't think there will be any real gun reform laws.


----------



## Pink Biz (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


The White House can't do anything about it. Send the e-mails to your Senators and Congressperson if they don't already share your views.

Fortunately, all 3 of mine already do!


----------



## Blessed (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


I think we will hear of an explosion soon of computers at the white house, senators, congressman and governors from all the emails they are receiving. 
I think anyone that even purchases a gun should go through a psychiatric review and deep interview about any reason they have need for a gun.

I know that many people have guns for hunting, okay, many people have guns for personal protection, okay. They should all go through a more detailed check. How many guns are used incorrectly, safety measures not followed without in depth training.  How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly.  Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake.


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 5, 2022)

Pink Biz said:


> The White House can't do anything about it. Send the e-mails to your Senators and Congressperson if they don't already share your views.
> 
> Fortunately, all 3 of mine already do!


Yes. Congress creates laws, not the president.

@Lawrence - The most a president can do is make an executive order to tighten control in a specific way or impose changes that aren't unconstitutional. He can't do it to disarm citizens of legal weapons, tho.


----------



## Jace (Jun 5, 2022)

Good Luck with that!


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2022)

Well as i have said before .... then we had better do  the same with cars. Because until just last year, they [cars] were the leading instrument of death involving young people.

  "
 How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake."

 Same can be said about cars [particularly high HP cars] In the hands of unskilled drivers they are just as dangerous.

If the argument is that a person doesn't 'need' this or that gun ..... then the same argument can be said about a person not needing this or that car.

High capacity magazine semi-auto rifle ....... who needs that ?? 

700 HP Mustang/Camaro/Challenger ...... who needs that ?? 

 None of it is the business of anyone except the buyer.


----------



## ElCastor (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


I believe it needs to be taken a step further. After a date certain, mere possession of a semi-automatic weapon by a civilian should be a crime. That said, gang members and criminals in general, will not surrender their weapons, and even if not legally manufactured or imported they will no doubt pour across the border. The punishment for the use of one of those weapons in the commission of a crime should be severe. In any event, who are we kidding. It's not going to happen.


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> I believe it needs to be taken a step further. After a date certain, mere possession of a semi-automatic weapon by a civilian should be a crime. That said, gang members and criminals in general, will not surrender their weapons, and even if not legally manufactured or imported they will no doubt pour across the border. The punishment for the use of one of those weapons in the commission of a crime should be severe. In any event, who are we kidding. It's not going to happen.



 OK, ya want to get tough with gun criminals ? Let's do that ..... I support your thought. In the future if an illegal weapon is used in the commission of a crime ? ........ Then the criminal/thug {with absolute evidence proof of guilt} that does so should put to death in no more than 30 days ... No appeals.

Indeed ..... punish the criminal, not the sportsman.


----------



## Judycat (Jun 5, 2022)

Good for you. I hope you get a response.


----------



## Buckeye (Jun 5, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> I believe it needs to be taken a step further. After a date certain, mere possession of a semi-automatic weapon by a civilian should be a crime. That said, gang members and criminals in general, will not surrender their weapons, and even if not legally manufactured or imported they will no doubt pour across the border. The punishment for the use of one of those weapons in the commission of a crime should be severe. In any event, who are we kidding. It's not going to happen.


Hmm - so you want to make me and my two older brothers criminals because we wish to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, yet accomplish nothing as a result.  Got it...


----------



## Gaer (Jun 5, 2022)

The confiscation of semi-automatic weapons will be a "foot in the door" to disarm the country.
(This is all just my own opinion)

Hitler said, " To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens".
Law abiding citizens hold the right to keep and bear arms, given by the Founding Fathers and, 
IMO, it's the duty of every American citizen to uphold the amendments of the Constitution.
Certainly, He has the right to send e-mails of his adverse opinion, just as I have the right to say this.

If you look at world history, every country which has been disarmed is followed by tremendous violence..
China 1935:  20 million Chinese killed
Russia 1929: 20 million Russians killed
Germany 1938: 6 million people killed

Freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms, no matter how unpopular they are now
in light of the mass killings, are necessary for the freedom of the nation.
People must keep the right to defend themselves and their families.

I will say no more, but I had to have my say.   I know this is an unpopular view,
 so I won't even follow this thread to read the reactions.


----------



## ElCastor (Jun 5, 2022)

Buckeye said:


> Hmm - so you want to make me and my two older brothers criminals because we wish to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, yet accomplish nothing as a result.  Got it...


I support the 2nd Amendment, but it is up to the SC to determine if an AR15, or any semi-automatic, is a 2nd amendment right. How about a Browning machine gun, grenade, or bazooka? Where do we draw the line? We can (I hope) draw a line at semi-automatic weapons, and you and your brothers could still own revolvers and pump/bolt action rifles and shotguns. Will that stop murders on the subway, crowd, or classroom. Probably not, but it will make mass murder less attractive to loons and still give you the means to defend your home.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


The White House doesn't pass laws. That's the responsibility of Congress, otherwise known as the legislative branch of government. I'd bet Congress and the White House get 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of emails every day, so chances are, nobody's going to pay any attention to it anyway.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 5, 2022)

rgp said:


> Well as i have said before .... then we had better do  the same with cars. Because until just last year, they [cars] were the leading instrument of death involving young people.
> 
> "
> How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake."
> ...


Of course, you need a license, registration, and insurance to operate a car. Shall we do the same for guns?


----------



## Jackie23 (Jun 5, 2022)

........don't forget regulations on the cars, seat belts etc.


----------



## Tish (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


Well done! Kudos.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Jun 5, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


Thank You for your active citizen response!! This battle for gun reform will be a major issue in the mid-terms. Probably will hit the streets from here on...


----------



## Buckeye (Jun 5, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> I support the 2nd Amendment, but it is up to the SC to determine if an AR15, or any semi-automatic, is a 2nd amendment right. How about a Browning machine gun, grenade, or bazooka? Where do we draw the line? We can (I hope) draw a line at semi-automatic weapons, and you and your brothers could still own revolvers and pump/bolt action rifles and shotguns. Will that stop murders on the subway, crowd, or classroom. Probably not, but it will make mass murder less attractive to loons and still give you the means to defend your home.


The Supreme Court has already said that arms "in common use" which would certainly include AR-type should not be prohibited. the others you mentioned fail that test, but I suspect you knew that.   And my Glock hand gun is a semi-automatic.   

SCOTUS


----------



## Della (Jun 5, 2022)

rgp said:


> OK, ya want to get tough with gun criminals ? Let's do that ..... I support your thought. In the future if an illegal weapon is used in the commission of a crime ? ........ Then the criminal/thug {with absolute evidence proof of guilt} that does so should put to death in no more than 30 days ... No appeals.
> 
> Indeed .....* punish the criminal, not the sportsman.*


Most of our mass murderers kill themselves after they've created carnage, Tougher sentences mean nothing to them.

It's innocent children who are being punished so that you can enjoy your "sport" of killing animals.  Have you considered playing softball, tennis, basketball, biking, or throwing darts at targets? Is it not fun unless something dies? 

Why do you suppose the Supreme Court thinks the rights of the gun owners are more important than the rights of children to go to school and come home alive?  What happened to their right to the pursuit of happiness or even to grow up?


----------



## Bellbird (Jun 5, 2022)

Using a semi automatic or auto for hunting is not hunting, nor is it sportsman like, the animal is at a distinct disadvantage to start with.


----------



## Lethe200 (Jun 5, 2022)

If you want action on ANY laws, *petition Congress.* It's the Senate, specifically, that has refused to bring up ANY gun control legislation. Several bills have passed the House over the years, but the Senators have blocked bringing a vote to the floor.

BTW, as a liberal I'd like to let folks know that a lot of us happen to have guns, like guns, and yes we do go out to shooting ranges. Nonetheless, background checks and restrictions are needed. 

Please remember the Constitution talks about the right to bear firearms. It does not say you have the right to buy and use cannons or mines - the 18th century military equivalent of assault weapons.

I am somewhat confused at one of the posts above. Quoting 1935 China is confusing the issue, if you are referring to either the Japanese invasion into Manchuria in 1931, or the decline of the ruling Nationalist party versus the Chinese communists (1935 was Mao tse-Tung's "Long March" now enshrined in Mainland China's history). The first was a war between two countries that have long been enemies; the second was a civil war against the ethnic Han elite. 

More people have died from famine in Mainland China in recent history, than from any firearms (strictly controlled by the CCP and almost impossible for civilians to obtain) or military weapons, even counting the current Uygur genocide. Forty years ago China was in the middle of the world's largest famine: between the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 some *30 million* Chinese starved to death.


----------



## Alligatorob (Jun 5, 2022)

rgp said:


> Well as i have said before .... then we had better do the same with cars. Because until just last year, they [cars] were the leading instrument of death involving young people.


You make a good point.  

Cars are highly regulated and as a result are much safer today than they were.  Not that we can't do more, we should.

If gun safety was as highly regulated as car safety we'd be better off.


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Of course, you need a license, registration, and insurance to operate a car. Shall we do the same for guns?



 I believe we have 'most' of that in many states ....... particularly registration. 

 But of course many people drive everyday without any of it as well. 

 Which is why IMO it is much more a 'people' problem, than anything.


----------



## rgp (Jun 5, 2022)

Della said:


> Most of our mass murderers kill themselves after they've created carnage, Tougher sentences mean nothing to them.
> 
> It's innocent children who are being punished so that you can enjoy your "sport" of killing animals.  Have you considered playing softball, tennis, basketball, biking, or throwing darts at targets? Is it not fun unless something dies?
> 
> Why do you suppose the Supreme Court thinks the rights of the gun owners are more important than the rights of children to go to school and come home alive?  What happened to their right to the pursuit of happiness or even to grow up?




 So ....... here again, you are one of those that try to put words in my mouth, things I never said. Making it personal , with sideways accuations.

Try to put aside your disdain for me, and comment with a reasonable response to the topic.


----------



## oldpop (Jun 5, 2022)

I am not picking sides. I just don't think any new or existing gun laws will stop criminals and mass murderers from killing? I think the problem is with the pressures created by our society. Ever increasing technical growth and not enough time for our society to adjust to it. So many variables involved.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 5, 2022)

Buckeye said:


> The Supreme Court has already said that arms "in common use" which would certainly include AR-type should not be prohibited. the others you mentioned fail that test, but I suspect you knew that.   And my Glock hand gun is a semi-automatic.
> 
> SCOTUS


Dicta is not controlling law.


----------



## palides2021 (Jun 5, 2022)

rgp said:


> Well as i have said before .... then we had better do  the same with cars. Because until just last year, they [cars] were the leading instrument of death involving young people.
> 
> "
> How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake."
> ...


Driving a car has changed a lot since I was a teenagers. Before, I could get my driver's license when I was 16. Not anymore. By the time my son went through all that he had to do, it took him over 1 1/2 years to even get a provisional d. license. We've come a long way from then. Maybe they'll do something similar with the guns. Have set rules in place to delay the inevitable.


----------



## Buckeye (Jun 5, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> Dicta is not controlling law.


Do you think it's going to change with the current SCOTUS?  50% of guns sold in the last few years are semi-automatics.  I doubt if you and they really want to make 80 million Americans criminals.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 5, 2022)

Gaer said:


> The confiscation of semi-automatic weapons will be a "foot in the door" to disarm the country.


Nobody is proposing confiscation of weapons, that's simply political media propaganda.    Background checks, waiting period, pretty reasonable.   It will be an uphill battle, too many in Congress _on the dole_ of NRA contributions.


----------



## win231 (Jun 5, 2022)

Buckeye said:


> Hmm - so you want to make me and my two older brothers criminals because we wish to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, yet accomplish nothing as a result.  Got it...


It's the common result of anger, fear & frustration, along with the feeling that _something_ has to be done - regardless of how useless it is.
And it's also the fantasy that a complicated problem can be solved with a simple solution.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 5, 2022)

Buckeye said:


> Do you think it's going to change with the current SCOTUS?  50% of guns sold in the last few years are semi-automatics.  I doubt if you and they really want to make 80 million Americans criminals.


Banning prospectively does not ban retrospectively.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 5, 2022)

Buckeye said:


> The Supreme Court has already said that arms "in common use" which would certainly include AR-type should not be prohibited. the others you mentioned fail that test, but I suspect you knew that.   And my Glock hand gun is a semi-automatic.
> 
> SCOTUS


It would be interesting to see how the SCOTUS would rule on that. I'm not sure what the "common use" of an AR-15 would be.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 5, 2022)

rgp said:


> I believe we have 'most' of that in many states ....... particularly registration.
> 
> But of course many people drive everyday without any of it as well.
> 
> Which is why IMO it is much more a 'people' problem, than anything.


It's a 'people with AR-15s' problem. No other readily available product is anywhere nearly as deadly. A psycho can go in to a gun shop with about $600 (maybe a little more), purchase an AR-15, and within minutes, massacre dozens of people. Someone might shoot dozens of people with a 9mm pistol, but chances are, most would survive. That's not the case with an AR-15.

As far as registration, there is a record of the gun sale, but there's no national database, so it's difficult to connect someone acting irrationally to a gun purchase, or if someone has an AR-15 and suddenly decides to purchase thousands of rounds, that might be something the FBI would want to look into.


----------



## win231 (Jun 5, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> It's a 'people with AR-15s' problem. No other readily available product is anywhere nearly as deadly. A psycho can go in to a gun shop with about $600 (maybe a little more), purchase an AR-15, and within minutes, massacre dozens of people. Someone might shoot dozens of people with a 9mm pistol, but chances are, most would survive. That's not the case with an AR-15.
> 
> As far as registration, there is a record of the gun sale, but there's no national database, so it's difficult to connect someone acting irrationally to a gun purchase, or if someone has an AR-15 and suddenly decides to purchase thousands of rounds, that might be something the FBI would want to look into.


^^^^ It's almost amusing - _"Most would survive a 9mm pistol?"_
Ever heard of the Virginia Tech mass shooting with two 9mm pistols?  33 killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

McDonald's mass shooting - 23 killed.  Most with 9mm carbine & 9mm pistol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

Columbine mass shooting - 15 killed, 24 injured.  Most with two 9mm carbines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

Why not stick with what you actually have knowledge in?

Killing is not an "AR15 Problem."  Killing is a human problem.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Jun 5, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> It would be interesting to see how the SCOTUS would rule on that. I'm not sure what the "common use" of an AR-15 would be.


I use mine almost every day.


----------



## Wontactmyage (Jun 5, 2022)

Where are we on the shooter? Is it not him that shot these people? Should he bare sole responsibility for his actions? Are we so afraid to call out instability in people? Should there not be accountability for the person that chooses, yes chooses to take violent action against another? I really am  agitated that we choose gun control over accountability. We shrug off what it is to be a “law abiding citizen” and choose, yes choose to pretend that everyone is “stable”. There is mental illness in humans. The gun/knife/ or any other inanimate object does not get up and use itself in a manner to harm a human or other inanimate objects. It takes human interaction for this to happen. I am not a gun enthusiast at all, yes I do have difficulties understanding the reason for such rapid fire guns in this day and age however, I will never understand the choice of human responsibility versus an inanimate object.


----------



## win231 (Jun 5, 2022)

Wontactmyage said:


> Where are we on the shooter? Is it not him that shot these people? Should he bare sole responsibility for his actions? Are we so afraid to call out instability in people? Should there not be accountability for the person that chooses, yes chooses to take violent action against another? I really am  agitated that we choose gun control over accountability. We shrug off what it is to be a “law abiding citizen” and choose, yes choose to pretend that everyone is “stable”. There is mental illness in humans. The gun/knife/ or any other inanimate object does not get up and use itself in a manner to harm a human or other inanimate objects. It takes human interaction for this to happen. I am not a gun enthusiast at all, yes I do have difficulties understanding the reason for such rapid fire guns in this day and age however, I will never understand the choice of human responsibility versus an inanimate object.


Well said.


----------



## ElCastor (Jun 5, 2022)

Della said:


> Why do you suppose the Supreme Court thinks the rights of the gun owners are more important than the rights of children to go to school and come home alive?  What happened to their right to the pursuit of happiness or even to grow up?


Why? Because the job of the Supreme Court is to determine the meaning of law and the Constitution -- in this case the 2nd Amendment. If that 200+ year old meaning does not work well in today's world, then the Constitution would need to be amended, which has happened 27 times. The amendment process is spelled out in the Constitution, and is the job of Congress or the States, not the Supreme Court.


----------



## terry123 (Jun 5, 2022)

Pink Biz said:


> The White House can't do anything about it. Send the e-mails to your Senators and Congressperson if they don't already share your views.
> 
> Fortunately, all 3 of mine already do!


You are right. We need to contact our folks in Congress.


----------



## Wontactmyage (Jun 5, 2022)

We do not need to amend our constitution, we need to amend ourselves. We have mistaken novelty for the norm. Waiting for the next wave of unicorns and zombies. Have we been so MTVed that we have forgotten that the next generation also needs to look to the core values of being a thoughtful human? You, as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and anyone that understands what it means to be and act as a good citizen to one another. You do not have to become a non profit or stand and scream at the top of your lungs or take to social media, you just need to be a guiding light to a few and teach them to be a guiding light. Ask yourself what it means to you to be a good citizen, look it up study it and amend yourself because you might be the one person that can stop these terrible things.


----------



## win231 (Jun 6, 2022)

Wontactmyage said:


> We do not need to amend our constitution, we need to amend ourselves. We have mistaken novelty for the norm. Waiting for the next wave of unicorns and zombies. Have we been so MTVed that we have forgotten that the next generation also needs to look to the core values of being a thoughtful human? You, as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and anyone that understands what it means to be and act as a good citizen to one another. You do not have to become a non profit or stand and scream at the top of your lungs or take to social media, you just need to be a guiding light to a few and teach them to be a guiding light. Ask yourself what it means to you to be a good citizen, look it up study it and amend yourself because you might be the one person that can stop these terrible things.


Whenever a criminal commits a crime with a gun, they always want to punish the people who didn't do it.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 6, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> It would be interesting to see how the SCOTUS would rule on that. I'm not sure what the "common use" of an AR-15 would be.


Common, as in "Everyday" use, already accepted as inclusive to use by the general public, not being unheard of in today's firearm nomenclature.


----------



## Buckeye (Jun 6, 2022)

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, one of the leaders on gun control talks, has said they (the Senate) will not even try to ban semi-automatics or add comprehensive background checks.  Instead looking at investing in mental health issues, and perhaps expanding red flag laws.

For me, if my doctor would ask if I have a gun at home or if I'm feeling depressed, the answers will always be no.


----------



## oldman (Jun 6, 2022)

The U.S. is nearing 100,000 opioids deaths annually. Most of this poison is coming in through the southern border by unvetted aliens, which our president has decided that it’s a good idea to allow unvetted aliens to come on in.

Why isn’t or hasn’t there been as much uproar over these actions as over guns? We know. We just can’t say.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> Well as i have said before .... then we had better do  the same with cars. Because until just last year, they [cars] were the leading instrument of death involving young people.
> 
> "
> How many are maimed or killed by people that don't know how to handle a gun properly. Many have killed theirself or family by one simple mistake."
> ...


No one needs cars that can exceed all speed limits by more than 10 MPH.  No one outside of police or military needs assault weapons.  You are comparing apples to dynamite, in my opinion.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 6, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


The President cannot change a Constitutional Amendment!  That takes a 2/3 majority vote by both houses of Congress, plus a 2/3 majority by the States.  And yes, from a legal perspective the Second Amendment does cover these weapons, or I should say, anything done to "infringe" the right to bear Arms, other than by Congress will be tied up in Federal courts forever.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 6, 2022)

Pink Biz said:


> The White House can't do anything about it. Send the e-mails to your Senators and Congressperson if they don't already share your views.
> 
> Fortunately, all 3 of mine already do!


Ya, and how are your antigun laws working in Chicago?  Learn from those mistakes...deal with the drugs and criminal minds, not the weapons they use...


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 6, 2022)

Gaer said:


> The confiscation of semi-automatic weapons will be a "foot in the door" to disarm the country.
> (This is all just my own opinion)
> 
> Hitler said, " To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens".
> ...


Gaer:  Smart lady you are, I could not have said it better!


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 6, 2022)

Lethe200 said:


> If you want action on ANY laws, *petition Congress.* It's the Senate, specifically, that has refused to bring up ANY gun control legislation. Several bills have passed the House over the years, but the Senators have blocked bringing a vote to the floor.
> 
> BTW, as a liberal I'd like to let folks know that a lot of us happen to have guns, like guns, and yes we do go out to shooting ranges. Nonetheless, background checks and restrictions are needed.
> 
> ...


To change an Amendment to the Constitution it takes a 2/3 majority vote from both houses in Congress, plus a 2/3 majority ratification by the States.  Congress has ignored the goofy House proposals as they know they do not have a 2/3 majority in the House, Senate, or the States...!  Stop wasting air time....


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 6, 2022)

oldpop said:


> I am not picking sides. I just don't think any new or existing gun laws will stop criminals and mass murderers from killing? I think the problem is with the pressures created by our society. Ever increasing technical growth and not enough time for our society to adjust to it. So many variables involved.


Pop, you are correct, as Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in the USA and look at the murder rates in that city.  If you limit weapons to the Citizens only the outlaws will have guns!


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> No one needs cars that can exceed all speed limits by more than 10 MPH.  No one outside of police or military needs assault weapons.  You are comparing apples to dynamite, in my opinion.




 And exactly who are you to decide what someone else needs ?


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Of course, you need a license, registration, and insurance to operate a car. Shall we do the same for guns?


Absolutely, plus mental health exams!


----------



## HarryHawk (Jun 6, 2022)

Gun control is alot like abortion.  There are people on both sides of these types of issues that feel like they hold the moral high ground.  One would think that some middle ground could be reached regarding what kind of weapons one can own, and at what point an unborn life cannot be taken.

Probably not going to happen, division and intolerance is fanned by both sides of the political aisle.  We saw what happened when it came time to resolve the issue of slavery.  Let's hope we learn from history.  Unfortunately, it seems to only be getting worst, not better.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Absolutely, plus mental health exams!


I love the idea that gun owners should have to get special insurance.  And, the license should stipulate that if they use the weapon while committing a crime, there will be an automatic sentence of hmm...  perhaps death, so that the taxpayers aren't burdened by their life-long upkeep.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

One does not need a license or registration to operate a car ! ...... To do it legally ? Yes ..... But we are talking about criminals here, perhaps even criminally insane ........ Do you really think they care about paperwork ?

If they were that responsible they wouldn't be criminals & / or mass shooters.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 6, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Of course, you need a license, registration, and insurance to operate a car. Shall we do the same for guns?


Not to mention passing a road test administered by someone in law enforcement and periodic written tests.  Also having to repeat the process when you move to a new state.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I love the idea that gun owners should have to get special insurance.  And, the license should stipulate that if they use the weapon while committing a crime, there will be an automatic sentence of hmm...  perhaps death, so that the taxpayers aren't burdened by their life-long upkeep.



 Not sure that I understand what the special insurance would do ? We can impose the gun stipulation without having the license beforehand.

I'd have to do some digging but ...... I believe some states already have/had gun stipulations that increased the punishment when used in the commission of a crime. 

And of course defence attorneys have railed against it ..... in attempts to get it removed from the charges.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Not to mention passing a road test administered by someone in law enforcement and periodic written tests.  Also having to repeat the process when you move to a new state.




 Works great when we are speaking of _*law abiding *_citizens.


----------



## Buckeye (Jun 6, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Not to mention passing a road test administered by someone in law enforcement and periodic written tests.  Also having to repeat the process when you move to a new state.


lol - passed the driving and written exam 2 day after I turned 16, which was about a thousand years ago.  Lived in 5 different states as an adult and all I ever got was an eye exam.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 6, 2022)

Over the years, I've come to believe that humans are too unstable to have such easy access to the power of life and death over others., and yourself. And that it's physically impossible to shoot off a gun, if you don't have one. Outside of hunting rifles, I'd get rid of guns. Will "responsible" gun owners, who are blameless, suffer the loss of their treasured weapons. Yes, but it's coming down to guns vs. human lives. Strangely, huge portions of the planet get along rather well without guns. And those areas with little real gun legislation, people are dying in the streets.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> Not sure that I understand what the special insurance would do ?


Before purchasing a weapon, require proof of special insurance to cover the victim's cost if your weapon would injure or kill another person- to cover their hospital charges, burial expenses, lost wages, survivor's benefits like bereavement counselling, property damage, etc. etc.   (i.e. to make the weapon's owner (or their estate) financially liable for damages incurred from the firing of the weapon.)


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 6, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Pop, you are correct, as Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in the USA and look at the murder rates in that city.  If you limit weapons to the Citizens only the outlaws will have guns!


Chicago does not exist in a vacuum. One foot from its border, anybody can buy a weapon, at 3 AM, behind Walmart, without a background check, or a waiting period, if you have the cash. And it's legal.


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> Not sure that I understand what the special insurance would do ? We can impose the gun stipulation without having the license beforehand.
> 
> I'd have to do some digging but ...... *I believe some states already have/had gun stipulations that increased the punishment when used in the commission of a crime.*
> 
> And of course defence attorneys have railed against it ..... in attempts to get it removed from the charges.


If you use a gun in the commission of any crime, it's an automatic felony charge, separate from the crime itself. If the gun is unregistered, a separate felony charge (...etc.).


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 6, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Chicago does not exist in a vacuum. One foot from its border, anybody can buy a weapon, at 3 AM, behind Walmart, without a background check, or a waiting period, if you have the cash. And it's legal.


How is that legal? In what state? You buying this gun from a mobile vendor, or what? Is some guy selling them from a van like an ice-cream man, except he's the ice-'em man?


----------



## win231 (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Before purchasing a weapon, require proof of special insurance to cover the victim's cost if your weapon would injure or kill another person- to cover their hospital charges, burial expenses, lost wages, survivor's benefits like bereavement counselling, property damage, etc. etc.   (i.e. to make the weapon's owner (or their estate) financially liable for damages incurred from the firing of the weapon.)


I'd go along with that - IF & WHEN someone commits a crime with a gun.  I'd even go along with the death penalty for using a gun in a robbery or any crime.
But making someone pay when they haven't committed a crime is like saying, _"We know you're going to commit a crime, so we're punishing you now." _ No one in their right mind would go for that.


----------



## ElCastor (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> OK, ya want to get tough with gun criminals ? Let's do that ..... I support your thought. In the future if an illegal weapon is used in the commission of a crime ? ........ Then the criminal/thug {with absolute evidence proof of guilt} that does so should put to death in no more than 30 days ... No appeals.
> 
> Indeed ..... punish the criminal, not the sportsman.


I assume this is a lame attempt at sarcasm or humor.


----------



## Wontactmyage (Jun 6, 2022)

Laws, laws, laws= bla bla bla


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

win231 said:


> I'd go along with that - IF & WHEN someone commits a crime with a gun.  I'd even go along with the death penalty for using a gun in a robbery or any crime.
> But making someone pay when they haven't committed a crime is like saying, _"We know you're going to commit a crime, so we're punishing you now." _ No one in their right mind would go for that.


It would be no different than the mandatory liability car insurance.  I'm paying on the possibility that I might cause injuries to another person or another's property.


----------



## Alligatorob (Jun 6, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> I use mine almost every day.


@Paco Dennis is that one of these?  Bug-a-Salt

Very dangerous, to flies...


----------



## Alligatorob (Jun 6, 2022)

HarryHawk said:


> Gun control is alot like abortion. There are people on both sides of these types of issues that feel like they hold the moral high ground. One would think that some middle ground could be reached regarding what kind of weapons one can own, and at what point an unborn life cannot be taken.
> 
> Probably not going to happen, division and intolerance is fanned by both sides of the political aisle.


Good analogy @HarryHawk !

And I also agree we should be able to find some reasonable compromises.  This should not carry the religious significance abortion does.  But compromise seems just as difficult.

NPR did an interesting piece comparison of US gun laws to Autobahn speed limits.
A Speed Limit On Germany's Autobahns: 'Like Talking Gun Control In The U.S.​


----------



## UncleVinny (Jun 6, 2022)

You bet...ban semi-automatic firearms, and punish as many law abiding citizens as you can by doing so. And when they are banned and a person has a notion to acquire one, and if they live close by hereabouts, they can sashay on over to The East Side, buy an illegal hooker,  score some illegal dope Du Jour of  their choice, AND talk to the drug dealer or the hooker about an intro to an illegal gun dealer.

Odd thing is, laws, laws and more laws DO NOT stop those who don't respect laws, laws, and more laws, from conducting themselves in an illegal manner.

*****

I know!! How about trying to put a halt to illegal activities across the board to include gun crimes, by...utilizing existing laws, and stepping up punishment...to include going medieval on stubborn perps who do not reform well.

Try killing them all and letting God sort them out.

With a little digging, anti 2nd Amendment sorts could easily find regions of the U.S. where Open Carry, with few draconian hoops to jump thru for GOOD Citizens who wish to open carry, that  have much less serious crime on average.

Naw...why do any critical thinking and research  when it is so much easier to be a Knee Jerk Reactionary Lemming Type. Follow as directed, and by golly, make sure to get them thar C-19 shots as told to get them thar C-19 shots.


----------



## Wontactmyage (Jun 6, 2022)

Friend of mines son was murdered about 8 months ago. LAWS, LAWS, LAWS in place where convicted felons are not to own a gun. The son and murderer were placed in a halfway house together (son and murderer nonviolent offenses). They were both having some personal adjustment issues being together. 

Cops were called, things settled down, son called halfway house personnel stating he wanted to move out ASAP. He was packing his things up and the other guy came into sons room and shot him 7 times. No one knew the murderer had a gun. Even the cops did not know. After killing the son, he called 911 and told them he killed the son and that he placed the gun on the sidewalk so they would know he was not armed. 

8 months this person is awaiting trial. Laws, Laws, Laws, to me 🟰 Blah, Blah, Blah. Convicted or reduced charges does not change. He survives and mother, father, sister, aunts, uncles, grandparents have lost a child.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 6, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> And yes, from a legal perspective the Second Amendment does cover these weapons, or I should say, anything done to "infringe" the right to bear Arms, other than by Congress will be tied up in Federal courts forever.


The word "Infringe" to a 2nd AM enthusiast means anyone can buy a gun, period. Lawmakers wrote the word Infringe, lawmakers determine what is and what is not, not a 2nd AM free for all nut.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> I assume this is a lame attempt at sarcasm or humor.



 Not in the least, I have no sympathy or leniency for criminals ...... period.


----------



## John cycling (Jun 6, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians .



I asked my Mom a long time ago why she never had a gun and she said, "If I had a gun I'd probably shoot someone." 
That made sense to me, so I never got one either.

However, more people have been murdered by the U.S. government, the military and police than anyone else.  So if you're going to limit the right to bear arms - then do it for everyone, especially the government, the U.S. military and police.  There are plenty of crazy and dangerous people in the government, and unfortunately, that's how they enrich themselves, by oppressing the rest of us.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> If you use a gun in the commission of any crime, it's an automatic felony charge, separate from the crime itself. If the gun is unregistered, a separate felony charge (...etc.).



 In other words, additional laws would be a waste. So let us speed up the judicial aspect of prosecution & harden the attached punishment .


----------



## Pepper (Jun 6, 2022)

UncleVinny said:


> Naw...why do any critical thinking and research  when it is so much easier to be a Knee Jerk Reactionary Lemming Type. Follow as directed, and by golly, make sure to get them thar C-19 shots as told to get them thar C-19 shots.


Repulsive as well as condescending.  And btw, lemmings do not commit mass suicide.  A myth fyi.

"So why is the myth of mass lemming suicide so widely believed? For one, *it provides an irresistible metaphor for human behavior. Someone who blindly follows a crowd—maybe even toward catastrophe—is called a lemming.* Over the past century, the myth has been invoked to express modern anxieties about how individuality could be submerged and destroyed by mass phenomena, such as political movements or consumer culture."
https://www.britannica.com/story/do-lemmings-really-commit-mass-suicide


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Before purchasing a weapon, require proof of special insurance to cover the victim's cost if your weapon would injure or kill another person- to cover their hospital charges, burial expenses, lost wages, survivor's benefits like bereavement counselling, property damage, etc. etc.   (i.e. to make the weapon's owner (or their estate) financially liable for damages incurred from the firing of the weapon.)



 So if I have a brother/sister ... son/daughter .... wife that goes beserk , I should have to pay ?

 Cost covered by the _*shooters *_estate I could support ..[depending on circumstances].. But how many of these guys leave behind an estate ? And if they do go berserk , and leave behind an estate, and perhaps some small children , and an unemployed wife/mother ....... they should suffer ?


----------



## win231 (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> It would be no different than the mandatory liability car insurance.  I'm paying on the possibility that I might cause injuries to another person or another's property.


Big difference.  A car has to be driven in public where it can endanger others.  A gun on private property is not public.


----------



## Lawrence (Jun 6, 2022)

I do not own any semi-automatic firearms I do not feel the need for them in my civilian life. I have sent e-mail to all the elected officials stating my position on this matter.


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 6, 2022)

My weapons aren't for hunting. (btw, please watch the last one at least....could save your life, I'm serious)


























https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUp_HC5G1dw&list=WL&index=14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfE8SLE0uZA&list=WL&index=15


----------



## UncleVinny (Jun 6, 2022)

> Pepper said:
> 
> 
> > Repulsive as well as condescending.  And btw, lemmings do not commit mass suicide.  A myth fyi.
> ...


Myth, O.K.. here is another one, "More laws lead to less crime."

U.V.


----------



## Lewkat (Jun 6, 2022)

win231 said:


> ^^^^ It's almost amusing - _"Most would survive a 9mm pistol?"_
> Ever heard of the Virginia Tech mass shooting with two 9mm pistols?  33 killed.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho
> 
> ...


While I would not want to ever get hit with a bullet, I certainly don't want a 9mm to be the one that does.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Jun 6, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> @Paco Dennis is that one of these?  Bug-a-Salt
> 
> Very dangerous, to flies...


YEP...They surprised me....weird idea. You got one? They have bombs for other bad insects don't they? (both rhetorical)


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> So if I have a brother/sister ... son/daughter .... wife that goes beserk , I should have to pay ?
> 
> Cost covered by the _*shooters *_estate I could support ..[depending on circumstances].. But how many of these guys leave behind an estate ? And if they do go berserk , and leave behind an estate, and perhaps some small children , and an unemployed wife/mother ....... they should suffer ?


The insurance would cover it.  The weapon would live in an evidence locker.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

win231 said:


> Big difference.  A car has to be driven in public where it can endanger others.  A gun on private property is not public.


Isn't it only paranoia that would necessitate an assault rifle on your own private property?  A stun gun or pellet gun would suffice to deter anyone breaking into it.  I personally know of one man who shot someone dead inside the home and was sent to prison for "over-kill."  The first shot was fatal.  The other five shots to the back were not necessary. His own lawyer stated that this was the reason for the conviction.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> The insurance would cover it.  The weapon would live in an evidence locker.



 OK, once again, do you really think people of that mentality/mind-set would be responsible enought to obtain insurance , do the paper work ? IMO, you have law abiding / rational / responsible people in mind . That IMO is in no way your average "mass-shooter" 

I truely believe these shootings fester in the minds of those folks for a long time ....... and then.


----------



## Alligatorob (Jun 6, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> You got one?


Yep, doesn't really work well, but its pretty cool.

A safe a-salt weapon!


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

UncleVinny said:


> Myth, O.K.. here is another one, "More laws lead to less crime."
> 
> U.V.


Only if they are both enforceable and actually enforced, with serious consequences.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> OK, once again, do you really think people of that mentality/mind-set would be responsible enought to obtain insurance , do the paper work ? IMO, you have law abiding / rational / responsible people in mind . That IMO is in no way your average "mass-shooter"
> 
> I truely believe these shootings fester in the minds of those folks for a long time ....... and then.


I'm speaking of new purchasers.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 6, 2022)

UncleVinny said:


> Myth, O.K.. here is another one, "More laws lead to less crime."
> 
> U.V.


Actually, it's just the opposite. More laws lead to more crime since it makes more things illegal. Therefore, what once was legal is now a crime. More crime.

What it does is provides a means of getting people off the streets who do things that are detrimental to society. That's the principle, anyway. All sorts of things are illegal but not detriments to society. They're just activities that upset some legislators' moral compass, so they became illegal. Smoking pot is one. Abortion is another where it's outlawed.


----------



## rgp (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I'm speaking of new purchasers.




 OK, I am as well ....... Do you really think that if one of these un-balanced people set out today to obtain a weapon, that they are really going to look at the legality of it ? Even consider what is legal, and what they must do  ..... to obtain it legally ?

Perhaps you are more positive than I ?  ...... But for me ..... that's stretch .


----------



## oldman (Jun 6, 2022)

We got to get the guns out of the hands of the crazies. We know what the problem is, we just don’t know how to solve it.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 6, 2022)

Today our Governor signed several new gun reform bills into law.

I don't agree with all of the new laws, but I am pleased that Governor Hochul has the political will to step up and take action while others continue to bob and weave on the topic.

It will be interesting now to see the blowback and legal challenges to the new laws.

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/p...mbating-hate-social-media-signed-law-landmark


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 6, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Isn't it only paranoia that would necessitate an assault rifle on your own private property?  A stun gun or pellet gun would suffice to deter anyone breaking into it.  I personally know of one man who shot someone dead inside the home and was sent to prison for "over-kill."  The first shot was fatal.  The other five shots to the back were not necessary. His own lawyer stated that this was the reason for the conviction.


I remember such a story. Legal theory being, once shot and down, the immediate threat to your life no longer exists, therefore continued plugging is not justified.


----------



## Ruthanne (Jun 6, 2022)

Ban all guns including police weapons.  Never be done but just a positive thought.  Guns do no good.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

rgp said:


> OK, once again, do you really think people of that mentality/mind-set would be responsible enought to obtain insurance , do the paper work ? IMO, you have law abiding / rational / responsible people in mind . That IMO is in no way your average "mass-shooter"
> 
> I truely believe these shootings fester in the minds of those folks for a long time ....... and then.


I know that you like to have the last word, so this is mine (feel compelled to reply) - As I said, this would apply before any new gun purchase.  If you couldn't prove you had such insurance, you wouldn't be sold a weapon.  End of discussion.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 6, 2022)

Aunt Bea said:


> Today our Governor signed several new gun reform bills into law.
> 
> I don't agree with all of the new laws, but I am pleased that Governor Hochul has the political will to step up and take action while others continue to bob and weave on the topic.
> 
> ...


Finally, something being done!  "While we are taking expedient action to enhance New York State's nation-leading gun laws, we recognize that gun violence is a nationwide problem. I once again urge Congress to follow our lead and take immediate action to pass meaningful gun violence prevention measures. Lives depend on it." (Governor Hochul)


----------



## Been There (Jun 6, 2022)

If you only knew what happens to emails received by the white house, you would save your energy. You would do much better writing to your congress rep. At least from them you would get a form letter back.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 7, 2022)

Letters and emails sent by constituents to various politicians are generally tallied by staff or interns and reported as totals.  For example, 
"This week we received 852 messages in favor of more gun control and 574 in favor of fewer restrictions, 1838 messages supporting pro-choice and 710 supporting greater restrictions on abortion." Rare indeed are the representatives who read their own mail.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 7, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Letters and emails sent by constituents to various politicians are generally tallied by staff or interns and reported as totals.  For example,
> "This week we received 852 messages in favor of more gun control and 574 in favor of fewer restrictions, 1838 messages supporting pro-choice and 710 supporting greater restrictions on abortion." Rare indeed are the representatives who read their own mail.


Personally, I just hope those tallies are accurate!  Please tell me, where did you find this information?


----------



## rgp (Jun 7, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I know that you like to have the last word, so this is mine (feel compelled to reply) - As I said, this would apply before any new gun purchase.  If you couldn't prove you had such insurance, you wouldn't be sold a weapon.  End of discussion.



Discussion continued.........

Oh, so you are another that knows me so well ?

OK, now back to the topic at hand. Have you ever heard of phony ID ? Young folks use them frequently.

As it  is today, proof of insurance must be provided to obtain a drivers license in most [maybe all] states. What's the proof ? When the license is applied for , or extension requested , one must sign a paper that states they do in fact have said insurance . No substantiating paperwork required.

You are taken at your word ...... same would happen with guns.


----------



## oldman (Jun 7, 2022)

rgp said:


> Discussion continued.........
> 
> Oh, so you are another that knows me so well ?
> 
> ...


In Pennsylvania, we don’t need proof of insurance to get a driver’s license. We only need proof of insurance when we register a vehicle.


----------



## Jeni (Jun 7, 2022)

rgp said:


> Discussion continued.........
> 
> Oh, so you are another that knows me so well ?
> 
> ...


states vary greatly no required proof of insurance for license since it is the CAR not driver insured ... only when you buy and license a car ... many get cheap with instant proof and after buying it some even CANCEL the policy...
only real proof is if pulled over or accident.... 
what do they do if you get a FEW tickets no insurance etc ..... that is right they take away the drivers license and then you have uninsured and unlicensed drivers and neither of those items START an engine.

In my state a school shooting happened years ago... the kid took his dads gun.... the dad filled out the paperwork and all the "right" or  appropriate boxes were checked ... 
 a  government clerk passed it................ did not research or look deeper 
the man in question had recently had a restraining order put on him....
that incident would NOT show on a background check for 6 months to a year as MANY states are that far behind in data entry or updating records.
So the end of story after a shooting that if i remember right 4-5  high school kids were killed and kid who shot killed himself ....... The parent served 3 years on a perjury charge  for not filling out the background paperwork correctly.......


----------



## StarSong (Jun 7, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Personally, I just hope those tallies are accurate!  Please tell me, where did you find this information?


I knew someone who'd worked for a state representative.  She said the best way to contact someone in office was to make a missive (or phone call) short and concise, and to be clear about which issue I'm addressing.  

This holds whether it's about upcoming vote or a personal matter that I might need help sorting out - people who have problems with the VA, for instance.  She said some people ramble on for pages and pages.    

This explanation lines up pretty closely with what she described.  
https://www.quora.com/Do-people-in-...tuents-direct-communication-with-them?share=1


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 7, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Chicago does not exist in a vacuum. One foot from its border, anybody can buy a weapon, at 3 AM, behind Walmart, without a background check, or a waiting period, if you have the cash. And it's legal.


So you are saying that your laws in Chicago has had no impact, only because anyone can travel and get a gun?


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 7, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> The word "Infringe" to a 2nd AM enthusiast means anyone can buy a gun, period. Lawmakers wrote the word Infringe, lawmakers determine what is and what is not, not a 2nd AM free for all nut.


Lawmakers + Congress in the USA!  The word 'Infringe' was written/ approved by those who wrote the U S Constitution.  By law the Constitution cannot be changed by Congress without a two thirds majority approval from both Houses of Congress, followed by a thirds majority approval from the fifty U S States.  Therefore, attempts to define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law, would require the same approvals....


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 7, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> So you are saying that your laws in Chicago has had no impact, only because anyone can travel and get a gun?


I have no  idea if they do, or not.  What would you do to stem needless gun related deaths?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 7, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> How is that legal? In what state? You buying this gun from a mobile vendor, or what? Is some guy selling them from a van like an ice-cream man, except he's the ice-'em man?


Individual sales. X sells a gun to Y. Most gun laws apply only to business sales.
My opinion is that there isn't a gun law that doesn't have a massive loophole.

BTW , great "ice'em".


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 7, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I have no idea if they do, or not.  What would you do to stem needless gun related deaths?


I would get to dealing with the real problems, they are complex and difficult to fix, e.g. Mental Health Issues such as depression in young adults, get the schools and legal systems to identify and segregate students and individuals that are violent, involved in gangs, have a history with police that includes any form of violence or making threats (out of the schools).  Get control of violent video games, TV Show, Movies, that contain violence!  Aggressively, limit access to these by kids and young adults, reinstate the draft for males 18 and older.   These are just off the top of my head, but are problems are not because of guns, it is because we are raising kids to be killers in many cases.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 7, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Lawmakers + Congress in the USA!  The word 'Infringe' was written/ approved by those who wrote the U S Constitution.  By law the Constitution cannot be changed by Congress without a two thirds majority approval from both Houses of Congress, followed by a thirds majority approval from the fifty U S States.  Therefore, attempts to define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law, would require the same approvals....


NO, it would not require the same approvals!


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 7, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Individual sales. X sells a gun to Y. Most gun laws apply only to business sales.
> My opinion is that there isn't a gun law that doesn't have a massive loophole.
> 
> BTW , great "ice'em".


Ah. Not so in California. Also, I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe Cali's background checks are more thorough, too. Cali also tightened-up and increased it's gun laws, and yet it's the #1 state in the US for mass shootings. Only guessing here, but that's probably because it's one of the top 3 states for gang activity, and probly #1 for the number of gangster organizations.

We're also in the top 2 for violence among the homeless, and killings happen in homeless camps multiple times daily, like every few minutes or whatever, but they only get iced one at a time; no mass killings, and not always with guns. A while back, some guy stole an axe from someone's yard and ran into his camp chopping up everybody he saw. Not sure if anybody died, but I'm sure that guy was on something. They sit right out in the open smoking their crack pipes and stuff, and a lot of the drugs they get are "dirty" - supplemented with any kind of white powdery or crushable substance a dealer can get his hands on.


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 7, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> So you are saying that your laws in Chicago has had no impact, only because anyone can travel and get a gun?


Criminals can get guns, period. Most commonly they buy them from acquaintences who are a member of a gang, or they themselves are a gang member, but they have ways to get guns completely under the radar of authorities. And virtually all of these weapons are semi-automatic. Some are even military or military quality.

This is precisely why I will not give up my defense weapons, and keep them locked and loaded. When these guys do a home invasion, they don't normally knock first.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 7, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> NO, it would not require the same approvals!


Examples?  Specifics?  Notice I qualified my comment in my post, "...define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law"


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 7, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Criminals can get guns, period. Most commonly they buy them from acquaintences who are a member of a gang, or they themselves are a gang member, but they have ways to get guns completely under the radar of authorities. And virtually all of these weapons are semi-automatic. Some are even military or military quality.
> 
> This is precisely why I will not give up my defense weapons, and keep them locked and loaded. When these guys do a home invasion, they don't normally knock first.


Then we agree that tougher gun laws will do little to impact shooting deaths!  The bad guys will always find a way!


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 7, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Examples?  Specifics?  Notice I qualified my comment in my post, "...define or redefine the wordage in the Constitution, for application of a Nationwide law"


There are no Words in the Original 7 or the Bill of Rights that have inclusive definitions.

For instance, the 4th AM, there shall be no "Unreasonable" searches or seizures, there is no inclusive definition of Unreasonable. That is left to the courts.

The 2nd AM was only constrictive on the federal government until it was incorporated. So the USSC in effectly changed the meaning of the AM itself. The same with other AM's.

There are many other examples too.


"Due Process" has no inclusive definition, again, that is an interpretation for the Courts to decide.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Jun 7, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> There are no Words in the Original 7 or the Bill of Rights that have inclusive definitions.
> 
> For instance, the 4th AM, there shall be no "Unreasonable" searches or seizures, there is no inclusive definition of Unreasonable. That is left to the courts.
> 
> ...


Nice try, but no cigar!  All of your examples are by choice very abstract words and phrases.   I defined the scope of my comments to include our whole country.  Only one court in the land could interrupt, the second amendment differently from what is it says about our rights to bear arms....!  And, unlike many of the smaller courts they are not likely to do that...You are reaching and I will spend no more time on this.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 7, 2022)

A mandatory cool-off period might stop a few shootings. A ban on AR-15 style rifles might stop a few mass murders. But really what we have is a societal problem where people are pissed off at the world, and rightly so.

Society in its current state is divided into the haves and the have-nots. It's generally the have-nots who are doing most of the mass shootings, although there have been a few relatively wealthy people who have done so, such as the Las Vegas shooter.

The have-nots feel powerless to do anything about their situation, and some of them are not totally averse to losing their lives just to achieve a bit of transient power over others. Most of these AR-15 murders are committed by young men who are suicidal and mad at the world. At the very least they want to feel like they matter, if only for a few minutes, and they get that through the power they gain from powerful weapons. They wouldn't get anywhere near that kind of power from any other type of weapon.

It could be that we're witnessing the beginning stages of the total breakdown of society, which could lead to revolution or civil war.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 7, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Nice try, but no cigar!  I defined the scope of my comments to include our whole country.  Only one court in the land could interrupt, the second amendment differently from what is it says about our rights to bear arms....!  And, unlike many of the smaller courts they are not likely to do that...


You have no idea what you are talking about, although you think you do.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 7, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> There are no Words in the Original 7 or the Bill of Rights that have inclusive definitions.
> 
> For instance, the 4th AM, there shall be no "Unreasonable" searches or seizures, there is no inclusive definition of Unreasonable. That is left to the courts.
> 
> ...


Yep, Scalia "legislated" his twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case to mean that any pinhead can own firearms, with just a few exceptions. Before that point, the 2nd Amendment was commonly accepted to be a collective right of states.


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 7, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about, although you think you do.


That's the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 7, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Individual sales. X sells a gun to Y. Most gun laws apply only to business sales.
> My opinion is that there isn't a gun law that doesn't have a massive loophole.
> 
> BTW , great "ice'em".


No gun buying expert ,here. Gun shows are unregulated in most states. I don't know if Cal does. Private sales- few states regulate them.  And nothing says people can't flaunt the law.


----------



## UncleVinny (Jun 7, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Criminals can get guns, period. Most commonly they buy them from acquaintences who are a member of a gang, or they themselves are a gang member, but they have ways to get guns completely under the radar of authorities. And virtually all of these weapons are semi-automatic. Some are even military or military quality.
> 
> This is precisely why I will not give up my defense weapons, and keep them lockedIf  and loaded. When these guys do a home invasion, they don't normally knock first.



"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught to fear is his victim."

Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

****

And I must add: 

Semper Fidelis, Marine

U.V.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 7, 2022)

StarSong said:


> I knew someone who'd worked for a state representative.  She said the best way to contact someone in office was to make a missive (or phone call) short and concise, and to be clear about which issue I'm addressing.
> 
> This holds whether it's about upcoming vote or a personal matter that I might need help sorting out - people who have problems with the VA, for instance.  She said some people ramble on for pages and pages.
> 
> ...


Thanks!  Here is the above post in its entirety by Carter Moore
-worked at U.S. House of Representatives

Do-people-in-Congress-read-their-constituents-direct-communication-with-them?

No, but not because of lack of interest or desire.
A Member of Congress will receive several hundred pieces of correspondence (letters, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and personal visits) in a week from constituents, lobbyists, the government, other legislators, etc. If there's a particularly controversial issue under consideration by Congress, that could easily swell into the thousands. It's unreasonable for any person, no matter how dedicated, to digest that much mail.
Every Member of Congress hires a staffer, known as a Legislative Correspondent, whose job it is to receive, sort, and respond to every communication. Unless it's a particularly asinine or irrelevant issue, or is too incoherent to understand (which happens a lot), the goal is to respond to every constituent who contacts the office. Most LCs I worked with usually aimed for a communication to be received, filed, and responded to no more than two weeks from the date of receipt - less than one week if they had a form response ready to go for a major topic (eg, immigration reform, health care, the budget, etc.).
When it comes to the Member of Congress, many have their staffers prepare a daily summary of the issues raised by their constituents, and then get a sample of the letters which came in. The Member of Congress can then opt to respond personally, and usually will with a phone call. A lot of Members that I'm aware of also opt to have the staffers prepare a written response, and then will write a quick, personal note to the constituent in the margins or signature block.
Of course, this all varies from office to office. I can think of a couple of Members who were particularly atrocious at providing personal responses to constituents (and off the top of my head, most of them are shockingly no longer in Congress) and others who made dedicated blocks of time on their calendars to respond to constituents, if not for several hours after the end of the day.

If you want to improve your chances at getting a personal response from a Member of Congress, here are a few tips (copied from another answer):  How Do I Get My Congressman (or Senator) to Respond to Me?

tick to your representatives! Don't blast all of Congress and hope for one of them to get back to you. If you're not their constituent, they aren't obligated to give you any attention.
Avoid signing petitions†. Members of Congress will usually respond to the organization which sent in the petition, not the signatories; and if they do respond to each person who signed the petition, it will be a form response. If you want to write in on an issue, make it a personal letter.
Don't rant. Once again, Members of Congress and their staff are incredibly busy, and a 20 page diatribe on [x] with LOTS OF CAPITALIZATION and underlining and accusations in bold that they're not doing their jerb are going to be ignored. My rule of thumb is in three pages or less (or 500 words if an e-mail), you should be able to explain who you are, what your issue is, and then...
Be very, very clear in explaining what it is you want your Member of Congress to do. Do you want them to support or oppose a bill? Do you want them to introduce legislation‡? Do you want them to contact a Federal entity on your behalf to get a response on [x] issue? Would you like to arrange a meeting to explain the issue in more depth? This will prevent you from receiving a form response.
After a sufficient amount of time has passed between when you sent your letter/e-mail and when it reasonably ought to have arrived at the office, pick up the phone and call. Ask them if they've received the letter and, if so, when you can expect a response (or be contacted for a meeting, etc.). If they haven't yet received the letter, very quickly summarize the issue and, if needed, ask if someone is available to speak with you. Go from there, and be polite throughout the call.
If you receive a response from your Member of Congress that you think is insufficient (eg, a form response despite making a specific ask), pick up the phone and call. Explain - calmly - the issue you had raised, what you had asked of the Congressman or Senator, and why you feel the response was insufficient. Ask to speak with a staff member - and if one is not available, ask for their information and request a call back. Keep calling until you're satisfied with their response.
† For more information, feel free to consult my answer to "Does writing your congressman or senator really do any good, or is it merely a diversionary smokescreen to make the average citizen believe that they have some voice in the legislative process?"
‡ You'll get bonus points if you've drafted sample legislation for them.


----------



## JB in SC (Jun 7, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Yep, Scalia "legislated" his twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case to mean that any pinhead can own firearms, with just a few exceptions. Before that point, the 2nd Amendment was commonly accepted to be a collective right of states.


Read what Scalia wrote in Heller, no where in his majority opinion did he allude that anyone could own a firearm.

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, *the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned*. (55)


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 7, 2022)

JB in SC said:


> Read what Scalia wrote in Heller, no where in his majority opinion did he allude that anyone could own a firearm.
> 
> 3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, *the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned*. (55)


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## win231 (Jun 7, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> No gun buying expert ,here. Gun shows are unregulated in most states. I don't know if Cal does. Private sales- few states regulate them.  And nothing says people can't flaunt the law.


All gun sales in CA, including private sales & gun shows are legally required to go through a licensed dealer with 10-day waiting periods & detailed background checks.
But criminals don't do it that way.  They know they would never pass a background check.  And they are committing a crime just by walking into a gun shop.  The sale is denied if any felonies or misdemeanors involving violence are found.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 7, 2022)

JB in SC said:


> Read what Scalia wrote in Heller, no where in his majority opinion did he allude that anyone could own a firearm.
> 
> 3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, *the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned*. (55)


Can not speak for Ben, but I am assuming his statement meant, the right is no longer collective in nature, but an INDIVIDUAL right, meaning anyone can own, legislated exceptions of course.


----------



## JB in SC (Jun 7, 2022)

ohioboy said:


> Can not speak for Ben, but I am assuming his statement meant, the right is no longer collective in nature, but an INDIVIDUAL right, meaning anyone can own, legislated exceptions of course.


 
Any pinhead, to be specific. Elites don’t like the populace armed, it’s been that way for centuries.


----------



## dseag2 (Jun 7, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> I know that you like to have the last word, so this is mine (feel compelled to reply) - As I said, this would apply before any new gun purchase.  If you couldn't prove you had such insurance, you wouldn't be sold a weapon.  End of discussion.


Yes, clearly @rgp  likes to have the last word.  There will never be a post that he doesn't argue with.  He will probably reply to mine.  1,2,3, go...  And if so many people "know him" that speaks to his posts.


----------



## dseag2 (Jun 7, 2022)

Open for discussion.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/f...provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/


----------



## SeniorBen (Jun 7, 2022)

JB in SC said:


> Any pinhead, to be specific. Elites don’t like the populace armed, it’s been that way for centuries.


I don't have a problem with keeping a few guns at home for self protection or to protect your family or even to protect your stuff. My home was broken into back in the '80s and I definitely would have shot the perpetrator had I been there and been armed.

But that's not a right protected by the 2nd Amendment, or at least it wasn't until Heller.

Before Heller, the accepted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was that it was a collective right of states. At the time, every citizen was required to serve in a militia, and they were also required to own a weapon for that purpose, although that requirement wasn't enforced, nor did most people abide by it. People had guns for hunting and for protection, but few owned them simply because of a federal requirement. 

Since people were required to own guns, it takes some convoluted logic to interpret that as a "right."


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 7, 2022)

Here are some overturned decisions, and I do believe I see some Original 7 and AM retractions. Hmmm!  (Not directed at you Ben). This supports my post 117 about SC interpretations not needing an AM to redefine an AM.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions


----------



## JB in SC (Jun 7, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> I don't have a problem with keeping a few guns at home for self protection or to protect your family or even to protect your stuff. My home was broken into back in the '80s and I definitely would have shot the perpetrator had I been there and been armed.
> 
> But that's not a right protected by the 2nd Amendment, or at least it wasn't until Heller.
> 
> ...



I believe. prior to Heller, the 2nd amendment cases were concerning collective rights of militias or members, there really weren’t cases that were taken by the court claiming the 2nd as an individual right.

Courts change, majority opinions as well. Segregation and voting rights, ie.

The history is convoluted and complex.


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 8, 2022)

JB in SC said:


> I believe. prior to Heller, the 2nd amendment cases were concerning collective rights of militias or members, there really weren’t cases that were taken by the court claiming the 2nd as an individual right.
> 
> Courts change, majority opinions as well. Segregation and voting rights, ie.
> 
> The history is convoluted and complex.


I was trying to remember a case concerning the 8th AM's excessive bail provision. Although the USSC has never "directly" incorporated it to apply to the states, only through "considered dictum", many federal courts have directly incorporated it. This is a good example of Judicial discretion.


----------



## rgp (Jun 8, 2022)

dseag2 said:


> Yes, clearly @rgp  likes to have the last word.  There will never be a post that he doesn't argue with.  He will probably reply to mine.  1,2,3, go...  And if so many people "know him" that speaks to his posts.




 First of all .... You and no one here "knows" me. Have we ever stood in the same room , shook hands & shared a beer ?? No ! You do not know me , you & others make assumptions about me ...... assumptions that fit the opinion you have drawn about me , mostly because i disagree with many .. often. 

 I like to have the last word ? ....... At what point do you think I should stop discussing ? arguing ? a point .......... Oh let me guess, perhaps the moment I disagree with you ?


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 8, 2022)

dseag2 said:


> Open for discussion.
> 
> https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/f...provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/


My, I'm impressed with California's common sense.  Too bad it isn't contagious!  (Although New York is beginning to make some progress.) These impressive statistics really shut down most of the inane arguments against gun control and safety.


----------



## dseag2 (Jun 9, 2022)

rgp said:


> First of all .... You and no one here "knows" me. Have we ever stood in the same room , shook hands & shared a beer ?? No ! You do not know me , you & others make assumptions about me ...... assumptions that fit the opinion you have drawn about me , mostly because i disagree with many .. often.
> 
> I like to have the last word ? ....... At what point do you think I should stop discussing ? arguing ? a point .......... Oh let me guess, perhaps the moment I disagree with you ?


And I will never stand in the same room nor shake hands with you.  And I don't like beer.


----------



## CrowFlies (Jun 9, 2022)

weapons have no business sold to the public.
weapons are used by the Military.


----------



## win231 (Jun 9, 2022)

CrowFlies said:


> weapons have no business sold to the public.
> weapons are used by the Military.


Any idea how many weapons are in people's hands now?  Isn't it a little late to stop selling them to the public?


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 10, 2022)

win231 said:


> Any idea how many weapons are in people's hands now?  Isn't it a little late to stop selling them to the public?


It's quite late, but new legislation to slow the proliferation would affect those young folks coming of age and those people who suddenly want a weapon to solve a personal problem.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> It's quite late, but new legislation to slow the proliferation would affect those young folks coming of age and those people who suddenly want a weapon to solve a personal problem.


Absolutely.  When confronted with someone bleeding profusely, first responders' immediate priority is to staunch the bleeding.  This is no different.  The very concept that the US should maintain fully armed personnel at elementary schools so that ordinary citizens can own weapons of war, is ridiculous and ass-backwards.


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Absolutely.  When confronted with someone bleeding profusely, first responders' immediate priority is to staunch the bleeding.  This is no different.  The very concept that the US should maintain fully armed personnel at elementary schools so that ordinary citizens can own weapons of war, is ridiculous and ass-backwards.


The purpose of armed security at schools is not so ordinary citizens can own weapons.  They already do - both good & bad guys.
It's facing the reality that it's the only way to protect students.
The same people who say, _"The answer is not more guns"_ all have the same response when asked,
_"When you have trouble at your house, who do you call?"
"Police."
"So.....at the first sign of trouble, you immediately call someone who will bring a gun with them?"_


----------



## StarSong (Jun 10, 2022)

win231 said:


> It's facing the reality that it's the only way to protect students.


That's a supposition, not a reality.


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

StarSong said:


> That's a supposition, not a reality.


Feel free to offer a better method.  You'd be the first person in history who did.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 10, 2022)

StarSong said:


> That's a supposition, not a reality.


Win231 said:
Feel free to offer a better method. 

Locked doors, security checkpoints, security passes, metal detectors, and even an armed guard on premises as a last resort are options.  The local elementary school that my kids and grandkids attended had the first two options in use long ago.  You had to identify yourself and what child you were there to see, be buzzed in, report straight ahead to the office, They had a sign-in book.  Your driver's license or photo ID was checked.  Your name was checked against the authorized persons for each child.  If there was no match, you got no further.


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Locked doors, security checkpoints, security passes, metal detectors, and even an armed guard on premises as a last resort are options.  The local elementary school that my kids and grandkids attended had the first two options in use long ago.  You had to identify yourself and what child you were there to see, be buzzed in, report straight ahead to the office, They had a sign-in book.  Your driver's license or photo ID was checked.  Your name was checked against the authorized persons for each child.  If there was no match, you got no further.


All excellent!  BUT each one of those precautions comes with a price tag.  A price that schools don't want to pay.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

win231 said:


> All excellent!  BUT each one of those precautions comes with *a price tag.  A price that schools don't want to pay*.


Could you please explain what I highlighted?  Thx


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

Pepper said:


> Could you please explain what I highlighted?  Thx


It's simple.  Who's going to pay for metal detectors, personnel at checkpoints & armed guards? 
You couldn't possibly think they're free.
Cost is the biggest issue.  That's why after a previous school shooting, one moronic school administrator suggested teachers keep a bucket of rocks next to their desks to throw at a shooter.  A bucket of rocks costs nothing; that's why he was willing to make a fool of himself by suggesting it.
Well, let's look at his suggestion.  A professional baseball pitcher can throw at 95 mph -_ 139 feet per second_ - much faster than an average teacher.
A bullet out of an AR-15 leaves the barrel at _3,100 feet per second._
Which would get there faster?


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Win231 said:
> Feel free to offer a better method.
> 
> Locked doors, security checkpoints, security passes, metal detectors, and even an armed guard on premises as a last resort are options.  The local elementary school that my kids and grandkids attended had the first two options in use long ago.  You had to identify yourself and what child you were there to see, be buzzed in, report straight ahead to the office, They had a sign-in book.  Your driver's license or photo ID was checked.  Your name was checked against the authorized persons for each child.  If there was no match, you got no further.


We agree.  I was only referring to StarSong's statement.  You added other useful information & included armed security.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

We have to raise taxes on the wealthiest, we have to go back to the tax rates of when we were booming in the '50's.  It's ridiculous.  It's not the individual schools paying, it's a whole system.  They have got to pay up.  We're starving ourselves and eating each other while the rich get fat.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 10, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Win231 said:
> Feel free to offer a better method.
> 
> Locked doors, security checkpoints, security passes, metal detectors, and even an armed guard on premises as a last resort are options.  The local elementary school that my kids and grandkids attended had the first two options in use long ago.  You had to identify yourself and what child you were there to see, be buzzed in, report straight ahead to the office, They had a sign-in book.  Your driver's license or photo ID was checked.  Your name was checked against the authorized persons for each child.  If there was no match, you got no further.


and in addition to the fear of harm, I'm sure that kind of environment on a daily basis isn't good for kids (armed guards, etc.).  What then-  claim anxiety, depression, etc., are 'mental illnesses' and put them all on drugs?


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> and in addition to the fear of harm, I'm sure that kind of environment on a daily basis isn't good for kids (armed guards, etc.).  What then-  claim anxiety, depression, etc., are 'mental illnesses' and put them all on drugs?


I think it's better than the alternative.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2022)

Pepper said:


> We have to raise taxes on the wealthiest, we have to go back to the tax rates of when we were booming in the '50's.  It's ridiculous.  It's not the individual schools paying, it's a whole system.  They have got to pay up.  We're starving ourselves and eating each other while the rich get fat.



 So in essence you want to punish folks [ the rich as you put it] for their success ?

 If we tax them in an uneven manner, that is exactly what we would do. Where is their ambition , desire to be more succesful , to grow a better company, employ  other people  to come from if we say just hand over more to the Fed?

 Be greatful for the rich ..... you will never be granted a job by a poor person.

 If they are paying  in conformance with the law ? .... well then , they are doing just like you.

 Why should they have to pay a higher percentage ? How'bout a flat tax ? For everyone ?


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 10, 2022)

win231 said:


> Feel free to offer a better method.


Locked doors, security checkpoints, security passes, metal detectors, and even an armed guard on premises as a last resort are options. The local elementary school that my kids and grandkids attended had the first two options in use long ago. You had to identify yourself and what child you were there to see, be buzzed in, report straight ahead to the office, They had a sign-in book. Your driver's license or photo ID was checked. Your name was checked against the authorized persons for each child. If there was no match, you got no further.


JaniceM said:


> and in addition to the fear of harm, I'm sure that kind of environment on a daily basis isn't good for kids (armed guards, etc.).  What then-  claim anxiety, depression, etc., are 'mental illnesses' and put them all on drugs?


Kids see cops all the time.  Even Fisher-Price toys has an armed police figure.  An armed guard is a better option than an armed psycho accessing a school building, in my opinion.  And to Win's other point about who do you call when there's a problem at your home and he states that everyone calls the police (who he points out are people with guns) - Yes, however they are supposedly background checked, trained, authorized and paid for by our tax dollars.  That's *their* job.


----------



## win231 (Jun 10, 2022)

Em in Ohio said:


> Locked doors, security checkpoints, security passes, metal detectors, and even an armed guard on premises as a last resort are options. The local elementary school that my kids and grandkids attended had the first two options in use long ago. You had to identify yourself and what child you were there to see, be buzzed in, report straight ahead to the office, They had a sign-in book. Your driver's license or photo ID was checked. Your name was checked against the authorized persons for each child. If there was no match, you got no further.
> 
> Kids see cops all the time.  Even Fisher-Price toys has an armed police figure.  An armed guard is a better option than an armed psycho accessing a school building, in my opinion.  And to Win's other point about who do you call when there's a problem at your home and he states that everyone calls the police (who he points out are people with guns) - Yes, however they are supposedly background checked, trained, authorized and paid for by our tax dollars.  That's *their* job.


Yes, police are background checked & trained.  So am I.
In CA, I undergo a detailed background check & a 10-day wait for a gun purchase.  And fingerprint & records for ammo purchase (though I make my own ammo for most purposes - competition).


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

rgp said:


> So in essence you want to punish folks [ the rich as you put it] for their success ?
> 
> If we tax them in an uneven manner, that is exactly what we would do. Where is their ambition , desire to be more succesful , to grow a better company, employ  other people  to come from if we say just hand over more to the Fed?
> 
> ...


I know we were just kids when the moon landing occurred, but how do you think we got there?  Eisenhower taxed their asses off.  A Republican.  If the rich lived with it then, they can live with it now.  Hire me?  Here you go again.  Besides, my husband & I hired ourselves for our own business.  We didn't evade taxes or any other responsibilities.  I also worked a lot of non profits.  The big wigs made good money, but they paid for it too, in personal taxation.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2022)

Pepper said:


> I know we were just kids when the moon landing occurred, but how do you think we got there?  Eisenhower taxed their asses off.  A Republican.  If the rich lived with it then, they can live with it now.  Hire me?  Here you go again.  Besides, my husband & I hired ourselves for our own business.  We didn't evade taxes or any other responsibilities.  I also worked a lot of non profits.  The big wigs made good money, but they paid for it too, in personal taxation.




Well, I wasn't a kid ..... I was 20 years old, and Eisenhower wasn't in office ..... Nixon was

Now .... if you have some proof of your statements ? Please provide said proof.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

What were the tax rates in 1960?

"The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was *91%*, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today's dollars. Approximately 0.00235% of households had income taxed at the top rate.Sep 29, 2011"
Some Historical Tax Stats
https://taxfoundation.org › some-historical-tax-stats
Search for: What were the tax rates in 1960?


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

You are right, @rgp, you and I were not little kids for the moon landing.  I think I confused it with Sputnik!  What a long strange trip it's been.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2022)

Pepper said:


> What were the tax rates in 1960?
> 
> "The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was *91%*, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today's dollars. Approximately 0.00235% of households had income taxed at the top rate.Sep 29, 2011"
> Some Historical Tax Stats
> ...




 OK, assuming all of that is correct ...... It was the rate & the law in those years. That is no longer the case. Like i said, if the rich are filing legally @ todays rate & under the law then I have no problem with it.

If you want to change the tax law ? First let me say, good luck .... you're going to have a fight on your hands . Then the really bad part is ...... you will just send more jobs overseas.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2022)

Pepper said:


> You are right, @rgp, you and I were not little kids for the moon landing.  I think I confused it with Sputnik!  What a long strange trip it's been.



 Yeah Sputnik was in {I believe 1957] .


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

Hate to think the rich are blackmailing us...........I haven't eaten Oreos since the plant was moved to Mexico.  I do indulge at my son's home, but I won't pay for it!

Aw shucks, let's make it the next generation's problem.  It is, anyway.


----------



## rgp (Jun 10, 2022)

Pepper said:


> Hate to think the rich are blackmailing us...........I haven't eaten Oreos since the plant was moved to Mexico.  I do indulge at my son's home, but I won't pay for it!
> 
> Aw shucks, let's make it the next generation's problem.  It is, anyway.





Are Oreos made in Mexico?


*Production was moved to Salinas, Mexico*. Mondelez decided not to make $120 million in upgrades to their Chicago facility and announced that half of the 1,200 workers at the factory would be laid off.

   My point exactly ...... rich folks are not stupid ..... they did not get rich by being stupid. 

 Like the above ........ someone pressured Mondelez into needing $120 million in upgrades so ......... He moved to where these upgrades are not needed , and stays in business & in profit.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 10, 2022)

I blame the governments and their trade deals.  I blame safe havens for tax cheats.  I blame...............


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 10, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> I sent E-Mails to the White House asking for no more legally manufacturing and selling of semi-automatic weapons to civilians . Bolt-pump-lever action rifles and revolvers only. Also if who ever owned a semi-automatic weapon could not legally sell it or give it to someone else.


Hi Lawrence.  Last night, I watched the first January 6 (2021) House Select Committee Investigation on the Capitol attack and thought *"If a mob like that breached government barriers in most any other country, they would have been gunned down immediately."* The armed protesters would have likely returned fire and it would have been an even *more* horrible episode in US history.  https://january6th.house.gov/


----------



## Lawrence (Jun 10, 2022)

I received a E-mail reply from the white House a few days ago and it was a basic reply thanking me for expressing my concerns.


----------



## Lawrence (Jun 22, 2022)

I received a E-mail from the current President of the U.S.A. and was thanked for expressing my concerns and it stated what is currently being done.


----------



## Happy Heart (Jun 22, 2022)

On Fox yesterday they reported that IRS is stock piling ammunition.  Wonder what their plans are for us?


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 22, 2022)

win231 said:


> All excellent!  BUT each one of those precautions comes with a price tag.  A price that schools don't want to pay.


Actually, Win and @Em in Ohio, the reason schools can't lock doors and gates is because it's illegal to impede students' coming and going. Legally that's defined as wrongful imprisonment. It's also considered a safety hazard, i.e., in case of fire.

Signing in to pick up a student is unrelated.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 22, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Actually, Win and @Em in Ohio, *the reason schools can't lock doors and gates is* *because it's illegal to impede students' coming and going. Legally that's defined as wrongful imprisonment. It's also considered a safety hazard, i.e., in case of fire.
> *
> Signing in to pick up a student is unrelated.


Exactly.  Schools are not jails.


----------



## win231 (Jun 22, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Exactly.  Schools are not jails.


If they can't have physical barriers to anyone entering or exiting, that leaves security at the entrance.  And the only security worth anything is armed security.  It goes back to cost.
Guess what country is the most prone to mass shootings & terrorist attacks.  How do they protect their students?

*SCHOOL SECURITY IN ISRAEL*By: Michael Csere, Legislative Fellow
*SUMMARY*
Our research indicates that Israel has taken a number of steps to protect schools and students from terrorist attacks and gun violence, with a greater emphasis on the former.

Israeli law currently requires a guard in schools of 100 or more students. These guards are generally employed by private security companies, while the Israel Police (the country's civilian police force) have overall responsibility for guidance, oversight, and control for the entire security system of educational institutions, from kindergartens through universities. The law permits certain individuals to carry firearms in schools.

There has been considerable controversy over the law's funding and implementation, including criticism of the expertise and capability of the guards. While not required to have them, some schools, notably smaller ones, have experienced difficulty funding security guards.

Additionally, the Israeli Ministry of Education has provided funding to (1) construct shelters and fences, (2) add reinforced protection to school buses, (3) hire and train security guards, and (4) provide professional psychological care to treat students' emotional reactions to terrorist attacks. Armed security guards sometimes accompany students on field trips, although it is unclear whether this is currently mandated or how frequently it occurs.

The Ministry has also collaborated with the Israel Police to provide security awareness training elementary-age students. And at least one high school has adopted its own security protocols.
*ISRAELI LAW
Security Guards*
According to officials at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., Israeli law currently requires educational institutions with more than 100 students to post a guard. The Security and Emergency Department within the Israel Police has the overall responsibility to provide security for all schools and surrounding areas, while the guards actually stationed at the schools are generally employed by private security companies working with local authorities. The principal of each school oversees the specific security arrangements, and must appoint a designated security aide to assist with these arrangements.

By law, the guard must check the school site 30 minutes before school starts. He or she then checks people and vehicles entering the school and can permit or refuse entry to unauthorized people. The guard is generally stationed at the school entrance and is responsible for security outside the school (but not internal security issues, like fights between students). In the event of actual hostile activity (essentially terrorist in nature), the guard must engage with the attacker or attackers.

In the last Knesset (the Israeli legislature), a bill was introduced authorizing guards to intervene in certain cases inside schools. This was in response to a perceived rise in non-terror-related violent incidents in schools (i.e., fights between students). The proposal failed.

*Authorization to Carry Firearms in Schools*
The law permits the following people to carry firearms in schools:
1. the guards (provided they are the security company's property and not their own weapons),
2. authorized Education Ministry personnel using ministry firearms,
3. the police, and
4. the army.
According to the U.S. and Israeli embassies, the lawful purposes for carrying firearms are to (1) protect school personnel and students, (2) create a sense of security, (3) deter the ill-intentioned, and (4) provide self-defense. The guard must possess a valid license to carry guns issued by the Ministry of Public Security and the Israel Police. The qualifications of the license holder normally include a high school diploma, clean record, and weapons training. Additionally, strict protocols and guidance exist regarding carrying a weapon and the types of weapons that can be carried.

*TEL AVIV --* It's an inescapable fact that school shootings are rare outside the United States, and virtually unheard of in Israel. So, what are the Israelis doing differently?

At one high school in Israel, we saw a typical scene -- an armed guard outside the main entrance. Since 1974 there have only been half a dozen terror attacks on Israeli schools. Principal Nati Stern says there are about 145 teachers at the school, and none are armed with guns.

"We have at least one security guard," Stern said. "I think it provides us with everything we need."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-schools-in-israel-keep-students-safe-and-prevent-mass-shootings/


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 22, 2022)

win231 said:


> If they can't have physical barriers to anyone entering or exiting, that leaves security at the entrance.  And the only security worth anything is armed security.  It goes back to cost.


Some schools here in Calif installed metal detectors and a bunch of parents had fits about it.
The metal detectors were eliminated and the state had to eat the cost.  

I do agree that armed security is a pretty good idea.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 22, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Actually, Win and @Em in Ohio, the reason schools can't lock doors and gates is because it's illegal to impede students' coming and going. Legally that's defined as wrongful imprisonment. It's also considered a safety hazard, i.e., in case of fire.
> 
> Signing in to pick up a student is unrelated.


Please don't rat out my local school!  (I do know that we could not lock hallway doors in nursing homes.) I don't know how or _if_ they got away with the locked front doors - perhaps our law _allows_ them to be locked and having to buzz-in, like apartment buildings.  They are not locked from the inside, so egress in not an issue.


----------



## Em in Ohio (Jun 22, 2022)

StarSong said:


> Exactly.  Schools are not jails.


As above, at our local elementary school:  Perhaps our law _allows_ front doors to be locked and having to buzz-in, just like in apartment buildings. They are not locked from the inside, so egress in not an issue.  It's not a jail if the kids can exit freely.


----------

