Nobody wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment, right?

[calfoxwc]

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/miami-fbi-office-mia-nothing-to-see-here-move-on/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=3e6a8bb148-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-3e6a8bb148-20770865#axzz5BEoPns1s

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/miami-fbi-office-mia-nothing-to-see-here-move-on/#ixzz5BKWbk8Ti
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
 

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- To The Editor:

The Orlando Pulse Night Club shooter bragged about having connections to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. He wanted to slaughter Disney World tourists.

The Miami FBI Office investigated.
Nothing to see here. Move on.
Put him on “Radar.”

The Ft Lauderdale Airport shooter told FBI that voices in his head wanted him to join ISIS.
The Miami FBI Office investigated.
Nothing to see here. move on.
Put him on “Radar.”

The Miami FBI Office visited the Parkland MSD HS shooter FIVE times. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office visited over THIRTY times.
Nothing to see here. Move on.
Put him on “Radar.”

Two brave SWAT Officers storm school “without authorization.” They get suspended.
Nothing to see here. move on.

“March for our Lives?”
“Enough is enough”?
“Never again?”
“Ban guns…Now!”?
“The NRA has blood on their hands?”
“Never again”?
“It’s Trump’s fault.”
“It’s Rubio’s fault.”

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

71 dead.

No one fired.
No one suspended.
No one investigated.
Pensions secure.

Nothing to see here. Move on.

Michael Velsmid
Nantucket, Ma

[calfoxwc]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/04/03/illinois-city-bans-assault-weapons-imposes-fines-up-to-1000-per-day

[BaconHound]

I'm not a gun owner.  I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed.  I would like reasonable gun laws.

[Westside Steve]

2 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

I'm not a gun owner.  I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed.  I would like reasonable gun laws.

Like what? 

WSS

[JAFBF]

[calfoxwc]

13 hours ago, BaconHound said:

I'm not a gun owner.  I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed.  I would like reasonable gun laws.

sure - but criminals and violent murderers aren't reasonable. Gun control has made NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc

hell hole homicide zones. The murdering "kid" in Florida - was reported to the local police ...28 times was it? and twice to the local FBI ?

There's a start. There are some things we could go with strengthening the background check system - and some things

that can't be/must not be done. The one thing that will never be done - is gun registration.

[LogicIsForSquares]

16 hours ago, BaconHound said:

I'm not a gun owner.  I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed.  I would like reasonable gun laws.

Tia and I discussed this very thing. I wouldn't care about wanting more stringent background checks. I wouldn't be that upset about raising the age to 21 (though it is logically pretty dumb given you can join the military at 18) to purchase certain types of weapons. But then compromise has to happen. Some laws need to be loosened. This isn't a give with no take. 

[calfoxwc]

that hs where the shooter murdered folks in Florida...Cruz?

his hs wanted him confined in 2016. Nobody did anything.

Liberal slant - obamao style.

The background check system would have worked right there.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/04/04/commentary-in-their-own-words-what-the-founding-fathers-really-believed-about-guns

[BaconHound]

22 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Like what? 

WSS

Much stricter sentencing requirements for individuals who commit crimes in which firearms are involved or present.

An initiative to license all firearms owned as well as all a license requirement for all individuals carrying a pistol.

Increasing the scope of crime that would disqualify someone from obtaining a carry pistol license.

Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and ammunition on one's person during personal carry.  This would not apply to hunting or target range participation.

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

4 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

Much stricter sentencing requirements for individuals who commit crimes in which firearms are involved or present.

An initiative to license all firearms owned as well as all a license requirement for all individuals carrying a pistol.

Increasing the scope of crime that would disqualify someone from obtaining a carry pistol license.

Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and ammunition on one's person during personal carry.  This would not apply to hunting or target range participation.

 

And what one of those laws apply to some crazy Shmuck wanting to kill someone?  None.  

[Westside Steve]

18 hours ago, BaconHound said:

Much stricter sentencing requirements for individuals who commit crimes in which firearms are involved or present.

 Excellent choice. Do you wonder why the laws that are actually in place or almost universally ignored?

An initiative to license all firearms owned as well as all a license requirement for all individuals carrying a pistol.

 I can live with that as well. I'll see that and raise you a requirement for training.

Increasing the scope of crime that would disqualify someone from obtaining a carry pistol license.

 Yeah maybe. Good luck with that one though. Then you're treading into the area of selecting people who have done their time and still being denied their constitutional rights. I'm not sure which laws even today constitute a reason to take away somebody's firearm. How about his driver's license? Right to vote?

Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and ammunition on one's person during personal carry.  This would not apply to hunting or target range participation.

Of course that's another one of those laws that the psycho killer probably won't give a flying fack about. Really there's no reason he should just because if he's going to commit mass murder I doubt that $1,000 fine for having 3 10-round round clips on his person will dissuade him from his mission.

 

Well I have no real problems with those you'll see where I have made notes. So quite a while back I was talking this over with our English friend Chris. He had a similar list of common sense restrictions. So I asked him if I could wave my hand and make every one of them come to pass would he be okay with that law being in place, with no more restrictions, for the next 100 years? He said no of course. I think it's the slippery slope the NRA and 2nd Amendment aficionados fear.

 

WSS

[Axe]

21 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

Much stricter sentencing requirements for individuals who commit crimes in which firearms are involved or present.

 

"Florida's “10-20-Life” law is a law that requires courts to impose a minimum sentence of 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life for certain felony convictions involving the use or attempted use of a firearm or destructive device. If the firearm is an assault weapon or machine gun, they must impose a sentence of 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life. The penalty is in addition and consecutive to the sentence for the underlying felony conviction (Fla. Stat. § 775.087)."

[syd]

32 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

And what one of those laws apply to some crazy Shmuck wanting to kill someone?  None.  

exactly that's why you ban all guns being caught with one you will be put to death,there you go problem solved

[Axe]

1 minute ago, syd said:

exactly that's why you ban all guns being caught with one you will be put to death,there you go problem solved

Better to be caught WITH a gun than WITHOUT one

[syd]

Just now, Axe said:

Better to be caught WITH a gun than WITHOUT one

don't bring brass knuckles to a knife fight

[calfoxwc]

2 hours ago, BaconHound said:

Much stricter sentencing requirements for individuals who commit crimes in which firearms are involved or present.

YEP.

An initiative to license all firearms owned as well as all a license requirement for all individuals carrying a pistol.

OH HELL NO. THAT IS GUN REGISTRATION. NAMES OF GUN OWNERS WERE PUBLISHED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER IN NY TO INTIMIDATE THEM, AND PUBLICLY OSTRACIZE THEM. AND THE LEFT WOULD LEVY HUGE FEES EVERY YEAR< ETC ETC ETC TO MAKE MOST AMERICANS UNABLE TO AFFORD TO KEEP THEM. THAT IS FREAKING INFRINGEMENT. AND CRIMINALS WON"T COMPLY EITHER. THAT IS REALLY DUMB, AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Increasing the scope of crime that would disqualify someone from obtaining a carry pistol license.

Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and ammunition on one's person during personal carry.  This would not apply to hunting or target range participation.

OH GEEZ. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 and 12? AGAIN, CRIMINALS DON"T FOLLOW YOUR DUMB LAWS< OR EVEN OUR GOOD LAWS.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

2 hours ago, Axe said:

"Florida's “10-20-Life” law is a law that requires courts to impose a minimum sentence of 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life for certain felony convictions involving the use or attempted use of a firearm or destructive device. If the firearm is an assault weapon or machine gun, they must impose a sentence of 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life. The penalty is in addition and consecutive to the sentence for the underlying felony conviction (Fla. Stat. § 775.087)."

But remember these people are just garden-variety mugs. Criminals bank robbers stick up artists Second Story man etc etc. Mass shootings are the work of maybe one in millions. Actual over the top out of touch with reality lunatics. Not ghetto rats and street thugs.

What I'm saying is that these people are getting confused by the types of crimes they want to curtail which is supposedly school shootings.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

[calfoxwc]

yeah- remember when woody and a few others went "haha nobody is wanting to take your guns away" ?

of course- it was their ulterior motive all along. It would give them a permanent victory over non-socialist, pro-Constitution Real Americans who

believe in freedom.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-gun-control/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=7884e6a5d8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-7884e6a5d8-20770865#axzz5BiUppOCp

[BaconHound]

19 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Well I have no real problems with those you'll see where I have made notes. So quite a while back I was talking this over with our English friend Chris. He had a similar list of common sense restrictions. So I asked him if I could wave my hand and make every one of them come to pass would he be okay with that law being in place, with no more restrictions, for the next 100 years? He said no of course. I think it's the slippery slope the NRA and 2nd Amendment aficionados fear.

 

WSS

 I’ve always subscribed to the ideas that laws change as society changes.  DWI laws have become more stringent while abortion laws have ebbed and flowed.  You won’t ever solve the “mass shooting” issue the same way you’ll never eradicate terrorism.  I think you try your best to avoid bad situations while allowing personal liberty. 

[Westside Steve]

3 hours ago, BaconHound said:

 I’ve always subscribed to the ideas that laws change as society changes.  DWI laws have become more stringent while abortion laws have ebbed and flowed.  You won’t ever solve the “mass shooting” issue the same way you’ll never eradicate terrorism.  I think you try your best to avoid bad situations while allowing personal liberty. 

No doubt. But it is school shootings that are driving this entire conversation. 

And let's not be coy DWI laws have not changed because anybody gives a rat's asp about drunk driving. It's all about the revenue stream flowing from the courts upon communities like Manna From Heaven. Face it, a lot of people that drive under the influence have got enough money to pay a lawyer and a big big fine. The mug that sticks up grandma in the street probably doesn't have a pot to piss in so there's no Financial reward. And just let the left get their hands on locking up more young black men.

WSS

[JAFBF]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/

 

Quote

Violating the ordinance could result in a fine of at least $250 and up to $1,000 for each day the violation occurs.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I'm sure they want gun owners to register their weapons...

more money to buy more indigent votes.

[JAFBF]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

I'm sure they want gun owners to register their weapons...

more money to buy more indigent votes.

They probably already have most of the names from background checks and so forth.

Been a while since I lived in Illinois, they've got some different Laws   .   .   .  

 

Definitely going to be Lawsuits over this - they need to be sued back to pre Stone Age for this $#!+

 

 

 

[BaconHound]

4 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

No doubt. But it is school shootings that are driving this entire conversation. 

And let's not be coy DWI laws have not changed because anybody gives a rat's asp about drunk driving. It's all about the revenue stream flowing from the courts upon communities like Manna From Heaven. Face it, a lot of people that drive under the influence have got enough money to pay a lawyer and a big big fine. The mug that sticks up grandma in the street probably doesn't have a pot to piss in so there's no Financial reward. And just let the left get their hands on locking up more young black men.

WSS

I won't deny revenue is a factor but to deny public welfare is also a main component is just an attempt to be argumentative.  The point still stands that laws evolve and liberties, or perceived liberties, are infringed upon.  The 2nd Amendment was drafted after we won our independence, using muskets and a militia presence.  Our nation has significantly evolved in technology to render militias unnecessary.  Our military is such that militias are not essential to our independence.  The need for firearms has shifted from essential to the defense of our fragile nation to recreation.

Are there some people that would love to get rid of all guns, absolutely.  Are there some who feel that RPGs should be issued to any red-blooded american who wants them, yep.  The question is can an intelligent society come to an understanding that compromise is part of governance and liberties can be infringed upon when public welfare is in jeopardy.

I still believe, unfortunately, punishment is the more effective way to police our society but there are other commonsense measures that may also be effective.  Holding the opinion of banning all firearms is as dangerous and counterproductive as believing any law curbing unfettered firearm sales and uses is unconstitutional.

[calfoxwc]

yo - "unfettered" WHERE? age limits, background checks, some 3 day waiting periods... "unfettered" is baloney. not true. I don't know anybody who ever thought we should have RPG's. More baloney. The only question is, baloney out of ignorance, or deliberate misrepresentation to make an emotional plea?

  There will never be changes to society that would warrant taking away God-given, PERMANENT absolute rights of American citizens. There isn't any "evolving" that lets you liberals establish tyranny.  You may was well be Donald Sutherland playing his role in "Hunger Games".

     If there was ever an attack on our grid - go read "Lights On" about what happens when a large part of a grid goes down.  Our safety has been undermined at every turn the last eight years of ObaMao, with rampant illegal immigration.

It isn't like you, and it's permanent, unless you realize you've been wrong, and get a gun to protect yourself and your family.

I was threatened in our woods once - threatened that the deer hunter just off our property  was going to shoot a "deer next to my head" and had his shotgun raised. I was hiding behind a big tree, had my Wife call the sheriff - he said he would do the same exact thing to protect our beautiful woods if he had some - but he would -never- go out there without a loaded gun. He said every week they run into people on whatever drugs it was, every week, and they are so out of it they will flat out kill you like a vicious wild animal. He tells all his family and friends to get a CCW, and CARRY it everywhere you are allowed to...because times were changing.

Criminals don't listen to your gun laws. The homicide rate in huge gun control town - London - has surpassed NYC in homicides.

Your rationalizations about "well times are changin so we should be able to get rid of most of your guns, etc etc blah blah blah" has been discredited all the way up to the U.S.Supreme Court. With only hard core liberals dissenting.

 

[LogicIsForSquares]

11 hours ago, BaconHound said:

I won't deny revenue is a factor but to deny public welfare is also a main component is just an attempt to be argumentative.  The point still stands that laws evolve and liberties, or perceived liberties, are infringed upon.  The 2nd Amendment was drafted after we won our independence, using muskets and a militia presence.  Our nation has significantly evolved in technology to render militias unnecessary.  Our military is such that militias are not essential to our independence.  The need for firearms has shifted from essential to the defense of our fragile nation to recreation.

Are there some people that would love to get rid of all guns, absolutely.  Are there some who feel that RPGs should be issued to any red-blooded american who wants them, yep.  The question is can an intelligent society come to an understanding that compromise is part of governance and liberties can be infringed upon when public welfare is in jeopardy.

I still believe, unfortunately, punishment is the more effective way to police our society but there are other commonsense measures that may also be effective.  Holding the opinion of banning all firearms is as dangerous and counterproductive as believing any law curbing unfettered firearm sales and uses is unconstitutional.

So how far down the rabbithole of giving up liberties are you willing to go for the sake of public welfare? Only some and then the people taking them will stop because they are so good natured?

[BaconHound]

11 hours ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

So how far down the rabbithole of giving up liberties are you willing to go for the sake of public welfare? Only some and then the people taking them will stop because they are so good natured?

This type of rhetoric is dangerous.  People don't take liberties.  Our elected leaders make decisions that affect our liberties but we don't live in a totalitarian state that many will use to make arguments.  There are several liberties I don't enjoy.  Drugs are illegal, I don't keep all the money I earn, I'm not allowed to drive wherever I want or as fast as I want.  I'm not allowed to assault people I don't agree with and even some forms of speech are not allowed.  This country has recently reduced certain liberties in the name of safety without much opposition.  The Patriot Act reduced our liberties.  The Federal Real ID standards as well as FAA regulations before we board flights.  The problem with this country, and even those of who disagree seem to agree on this, is every faction, except strict libertarians which few truly exist, support their liberties but could care less about those that they don't.