An American 2nd Amendment thread (Page 2/23)
Boondawg SEP 28, 11:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by Monkeyman:

I'm all for stringent background checks (which should be pre-performed if you get a CCW in your state....I'll expound on this in a minute). Personally, I don't see that anybody (other than LE or military) "needs" a fully automatic weapon although I don't think there should be a law against owning one as long as you can pass a background check. I don't own one and don't plan on getting one. I own at least (1) gun (possibly more than 1). While I may sell a gun here and there, I don't plan on giving up any of mine involuntarily. Buyback? Sure. As long as it's voluntary and I get whatever I think it's worth. Saves me from having to advertise. You want to melt it down after you buy it from me? What do I care? It's no longer mine. Same if you want to "buyback" my car.

Background checks. They should be strict as hell, IMHO. These days, other than felons and those convicted of domestic violence, just about anybody can get a CCW permit. If you've ever been convicted of a violent crime whether you used a weapon or not, felony or misdemeanor, you don't get a gun (handgun, rifle, BB gun, anything)....EVER. If you've ever been convicted of domestic violence, same thing. If you suffer from any number of mental defects/illnesses that need to be controlled with medication and would/could result in violence (I'm thinking things like schizophrenia, etc), no gun. You've gotten into multiple bar fights? No gun. You have a tendency towards violence.

Every state should require a CCW/weapons permit. The rules should be the same among all 50 states + DC. If I can carry in NC (and I can), I should be allowed to carry in WI or CA or TX. In order to get a weapons permit, a gun safety course should be mandatory. (It happens to be in NC although pretty much anybody can open carry. It WASN'T required when I lived in IN and I've seen some people unknowingly doing some stupid things.) Speaking of which, open or concealed carry shouldn't matter. Either you're allowed to carry or you're not. (IMO, none of this should matter on your own private property unless you've been convicted of a violent crime. If I'm on my property and want to carry, I shouldn't need someone elses permission. Also, a CCW/weapons permit should cover every weapon out there (excluding NBC or things like rockets/grenades/etc...nobody other than LE/military needs a grenade). If I can carry/possess a handgun, I should be allowed to carry/possess a fully automatic weapon or a can.

Consequences for public carrying withOUT a permit? Harsh and standard across the board. I don't give a flying you-know-what if you're rich, poor, black, white, tall, short, prior military or consciencious objector. You're in a gang and you carry cuz that's the "rules", you go to prison. I don't care. We'll buind another prison for your sorry butt. (Don't get me started on the pansies who currently run most of the prisons across America. They were "inmates" or "convicts" 20 years ago. That's not PC enough. Now, they're "guests" or "internees". You think I'm kidding? I'm not. Disgusting.)

With all that said, I'm very PRO 2A. Always have been, always will be. I've been subjected to gun violence which is one of the reasons why I carry. Like an American Express card, I never leave home without it. I was a Correctional Sergeant in a maximum security adult male prison (15 years, 3 weeks and 1 day). I've listened to the scum of the earth talking about what they did with a gun, who they did it to and how they got around the "laws". It makes me sick. I think (and again, this is just my opinion), if there were standard rules and harsh consequences, things would be better.



Sounds sensible to me.
All things being equal, that is.
And there's the rub.

We just gotta' keep trying to hold this sh!t together.
Our fellow American is not our enemy.
We need each other...(ugh).

Why divide?
Historically, we've always been stronger together.

Hold on, wait.
I think we're on the same page....
rinselberg SEP 29, 03:45 AM
"How Pennsylvania created a model gun background check system"
Jane C. Timm for NBC News; November 25, 2017.
https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...check-system-n822026

I just scrolled through this very quickly. I have had it in an open browser window like "forever" because it looked like something I would eventually want to post in a 2A thread like this one. Like chucking another charcoal briquet into the "pit."

I'm kind of a "squish" when it comes to the Second Amendment. It's not something I think about very much, until it becomes front page news or there's yet another Pennock's thread about it in play.

If anyone here wants to look at it, I would be interested in their reading of it. Was there anything in it that is news or newsworthy for "you" (anyone)? What would "you" (anyone) say about the way that the article is set up--the title or banner--as a "model" background check system? Do you remember already having read this news report or a very similar one about Pennsylvania and this "model" background system?

Done! Now I'm finally going to close that browser window.
MidEngineManiac SEP 29, 08:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by Monkeyman:

Background checks. They should be strict as hell, IMHO. These days, other than felons and those convicted of domestic violence, just about anybody can get a CCW permit. If you've ever been convicted of a violent crime whether you used a weapon or not, felony or misdemeanor, you don't get a gun (handgun, rifle, BB gun, anything)....EVER. If you've ever been convicted of domestic violence, same thing. If you suffer from any number of mental defects/illnesses that need to be controlled with medication and would/could result in violence (I'm thinking things like schizophrenia, etc), no gun. You've gotten into multiple bar fights? No gun. You have a tendency towards violence.




To me, that's assinine. As humans, we ALL have a tendency towards violence. We are still basically animals animals at the end of the day. BUT, the guys who have gotten into fist-fights, bar fights, pushing matches ect have already proven they aren't going to run for a weapon at the 1st sign of trouble and consider it a means of last resort. They will try fists first so there is no need to restrict them. Plus, depending on the jurisdiction, something as simple as screaming at someone is considered a "violent crime", so is "uttering threats (a REAL popular one here) :IE, touch my car and I'll break your damn arm....ooopppsss, violent crime ! (say the thought/speech police).
Monkeyman SEP 29, 10:04 AM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:


To me, that's assinine. As humans, we ALL have a tendency towards violence. We are still basically animals animals at the end of the day. BUT, the guys who have gotten into fist-fights, bar fights, pushing matches ect have already proven they aren't going to run for a weapon at the 1st sign of trouble and consider it a means of last resort. They will try fists first so there is no need to restrict them. Plus, depending on the jurisdiction, something as simple as screaming at someone is considered a "violent crime", so is "uttering threats (a REAL popular one here) :IE, touch my car and I'll break your damn arm....ooopppsss, violent crime ! (say the thought/speech police).



You're entitled to your opinions, MEM. I might have a tendency towards violence since I'm human (barely) but I've NEVER gone postal. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow but until I snap (and I'm unlikely to), I get to carry. If/when I snap, there goes my chance of ever carrying again. I've seen more people than I can count who started out using fists and ended up with a knife/gun in their hands. I don't know the laws in Canada but down here, screaming at someone or uttering threats isn't considered (by law) a "violent crime". Threats can be a crime (depending on what's said and to whom) but that doesn't make it "violent" at least according to the law.
2.5 SEP 29, 04:37 PM
The issue is much of the laws they want to enact now affect everyone, people with no reocord, people with no history of any issues. Its baby steps in some folks eyes. To me its overstepping farther when we already arent as free as the the founders intended.
2.5 SEP 29, 04:59 PM
THEY MADE THE VIDEO "PRIVATE" DAYS AFTER I SHARED IT. I HOPE YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO SEE IT.
IF YOU CAN FIND VIDEOS DEPICTING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST IN ALL THE COUNTRIES THAT BANNED GUNS AND WENT SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST, PLEASE POST.

Why you never restrict firearms from citizens. You must see this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lts99ezwgrI
warning: real footage

I'd bet they don't teach this in school.

Something I quoted earlier. "The group identity game...ends in blood."

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-08-2020).]

Patrick SEP 29, 05:38 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

BUT, the guys who have gotten into fist-fights, bar fights, pushing matches ect have already proven they aren't going to run for a weapon at the 1st sign of trouble and consider it a means of last resort.



It's amazing how that is "proof" enough for you ... yet nothing will convince you that COVID-19 is a threat.
MidEngineManiac SEP 29, 06:40 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

It's amazing how that is "proof" enough for you ... yet nothing will convince you that COVID-19 is a threat.



So are my farts, and a mask wont protect you from them either !

https://www.msn.com/en-us/h...re-false/ar-BB16Yche

Oh, and a 99%+ survival rate.

I'm one hell of a lot more cautious of Lake Erie.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 09-29-2020).]

rinselberg SEP 29, 10:16 PM
Survival is just that... surviving the initial or acute phase of the disease.

There are people who continue to suffer from the effects of Covid-19, even months later, after the virus is no longer detectable in their bodies. There is organ and tissue damage that shows up in diagnostic tests and imaging scans that looks to be irreversible. Even among people who were not conscious of having any symptoms. Even among younger people who have been infected.

This, by various media reports that I've seen.

I am not going to wax euphoric or wane in caution because of that reported 99 percent survival rate. I'm not sure what it actually means for any one individual.

I was about to post a brief YouTube video about this, but since this started as a 2A discussion, I will stand down (on that.)
2.5 SEP 30, 11:17 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

... reported 99 percent survival rate. I'm not sure what it actually means for any one individual.

...a 2A discussion...



Thank you for keeping it 2A related.

I wonder what the survival rate is for unarmed citizens when attacked by mobs of armed people? This is a big reason why the 2nd amendment exists.

See my last post, 4 posts up.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-30-2020).]