So now Donald Trump wants to tell the NRA that he supports a gun ban on the no-fly list an arbitrary list that no one knows how to get on or off of that can be used to put any citizen for any reason and he thinks this is an acceptable measure of gun control no thank you mr. Trump

 

I suspect this is just Trump playing politician. His handlers had to tell how much he's being perceived as a jerk/idiot, so he comes up with this little olive branch.

 

I also suspect that the NRA will tell him what to think, he'll say "yes, sir" and he'll make his new stance on "gun control" so confusing that people will have no idea where he stands. I.e., much like all his other policy pronouncements.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I suspect this is just Trump playing politician. His handlers had to tell how much he's being perceived as a jerk/idiot, so he comes up with this little olive branch.


I also suspect that the NRA will tell him what to think, he'll say "yes, sir" and he'll make his new stance on "gun control" so confusing that people will have no idea where he stands. I.e., much like all his other policy pronouncements.

"Mr. Trump, what do you think about guns?"

"We're gonna make 'em great again, I'll tell you that much right now."

---

No, it's not. Trump wants to strip Americans of their rights with no oversight or accountability based upon a mysterious, hidden list. So does Obama and, presumably, Clinton. If that concept doesn't terrify you, then by all means, enjoy your RFID chip and your star.

 

It doesn't terrify me, but it does concern me, if I were to believe that was what he was going to do. I couldn't infer that from a tweet about a meeting with the NRA, but that's just me. What truly terrifies me even more than an "Assault Weapons" ban is Smart Guns, which has been discussed as a method for control.

---

It doesn't terrify me, but it does concern me, if I were to believe that was what he was going to do. I couldn't infer that from a tweet about a meeting with the NRA, but that's just me. What truly terrifies me even more than an "Assault Weapons" ban is Smart Guns, which has been discussed as a method for control.

I'm open to various ideas for mitigating the likelihood of guns being used for mass shootings. Using mystery lists and smart guns are two things I would not consider, not is any form of outright gun ban. Assault weapons, eh, I can see the argument on both sides. It's a tough issue, but one side refusing to yield on any point and the other side, well, doing the exact same thing, we'll never get anywhere.

---

I suspect this is just Trump playing politician. His handlers had to tell how much he's being perceived as a jerk/idiot, so he comes up with this little olive branch.

 

I also suspect that the NRA will tell him what to think, he'll say "yes, sir" and he'll make his new stance on "gun control" so confusing that people will have no idea where he stands. I.e., much like all his other policy pronouncements.

This may sum it up

---

Blakes Life Matters

Any of you guys old enough to remember when there was an assault weapons ban?



Those must have been awful times

---

Any of you guys old enough to remember when there was an assault weapons ban?



Those must have been awful times

 

I'm old enough to remember it (obviously).  It was a stupid law then and is a stupid law now.  All it did was supposedly ban the sale of certain firearms to the 1% (or less) people that would use the weapon in a malicious way while disregarding the rights of the 99% (or more) of lawful gun owners.  The "definition" of an "assault weapon" was ridiculous then and is ridiculous now.  If a rifle has a pistol grip, a folding stock or a flash suppressor it's an "assault" weapon?  Really?

 

That's just the beginning list of the faults with that legislation.  The problem is, legislation is written by people that have no clue regarding firearms.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret... I personally own firearms that would have fallen under the guidelines of that legislation.  If our government wants to ban them they will have to take them from me, and I refuse to give them up freely.

 

As of matter of fact, I'm looking at buying another AR-15 for my grandson.  When he gets old enough to learn how to use it, he will probably enjoy it.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm old enough to remember it (obviously).  It was a stupid law then and is a stupid law now.  All it did was supposedly ban the sale of certain firearms to the 1% (or less) people that would use the weapon in a malicious way while disregarding the rights of the 99% (or more) of lawful gun owners.  The "definition" of an "assault weapon" was ridiculous then and is ridiculous now.  If a rifle has a pistol grip, a folding stock or a flash suppressor it's an "assault" weapon?  Really?

 

That's just the beginning list of the faults with that legislation.  The problem is, legislation is written by people that have no clue regarding firearms.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret... I personally own firearms that would have fallen under the guidelines of that legislation.  If our government wants to ban them they will have to take them from me, and I refuse to give them up freely.

 

As of matter of fact, I'm looking at buying another AR-15 for my grandson.  When he gets old enough to learn how to use it, he will probably enjoy it.

 

Hope you stocked up on stripped lowers. It is about to get ugly.

---

If Trump goes along with this idea wholesale then that will be it.  He will concede the mantle of "Presidential Temperament" to Clinton and the left.   The libertarians were already dubious of him and that will send them running to the hills.  The natural gun lobby of the right won't back him and you can forget about blue dog democrats in coal country.  

 

Moreover, it came down to him and Cruz in the end because the base of the party feels like the establishment betrayed them.  5% difference in a presidential election can be chalked up to independents moderates undecideds etc.  The historical blow outs happen when your base doesn't even support you.  If he betrays the Base now then you might be looking at something worse than Dukakis.  

 

In fairness, he just sent out a tweet that he was going to meet with the NRA (the presumptive experts on the subject).  If that's all it is, then that's all it is.  I think that Bill nelson Put forth a bill that would in a sense ALERT the FBI if someone on one of the lists purchases a firearm so that the case can be reopened or brought to a conclusion. 

 

Eric, Jag, FBT and others have brought up some really great points that i am both familiar with and in 100% agreement with.  The problem from a political perspective is that "No one on a ______ List should be able to buy an assault weapon" Is a seductive three second sound bite.  If he comes out with a proposal to knock the stink off of it a little it might have a chance but if so he better have the Head of the NRA sign off on whatever it is and it better be so simple transparent and common sense that the more libertarian wing (we see you Eric) would feel 100% comfortable with it.  Short of that, it could be one of the only things that could truly sink his campaign.  

---

Seems like his campaign is sinking pretty fast...

---

What is Trump's scenario? He put out a tweet saying he was going to have a meeting about the topic everyone else was talking about with the most anti-gun-control lobbying force in the world, who probably told him stay the course (the course being extremely anti-gun-control, which he has been this entire election). Until he has specifically said he was going to bar people on terror watchlists from purchasing guns, I don't understand where people are getting this idea that he has changed positions. Is it the media planting this false idea? Yes. Yes it is.

 

Trump is saying he is at least open to the idea of a no fly no buy list. The fact that he is even open to it should scream alarm bells at you. It's either ignorance or compliance either way it's a deal breaker for anyone that is serious about the 2nd amendment. 

---

A new day...  A new angle on the gun topic I'd like to present to you all:

 

With the current discussion between Trump and the left being should we relinquish due process (Trumps idea) or should we curtail assualt weapons and large round magazines? 

 

I submit the following quote to you:

 

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”  http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the...-ban-work/

---

A new day...  A new angle on the gun topic I'd like to present to you all:

 

With the current discussion between Trump and the left being should we relinquish due process (Trumps idea) or should we curtail assualt weapons and large round magazines? 

 

I submit the following quote to you:

 

Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”  http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the...-ban-work/

 

Ending all immigration from Muslim countries and deporting all Muslims currently in America (both citizen and non) would have a far greater impact on crime. So would deporting all Christians. So would deporting all African Americans. Hell, just building a wall around Chicago and declaring it No Man's Land would. But we don't talk about that because those rights are "different."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ending all immigration from Muslim countries and deporting all Muslims currently in America (both citizen and non) would have a far greater impact on crime. So would deporting all Christians. So would deporting all African Americans. Hell, just building a wall around Chicago and declaring it No Man's Land would. But we don't talk about that because those rights are "different."

Like they did in that divergent movie? Lol....


But what about the suggestion of banning military style weapons and large ammo clips?

---

Like they did in that divergent movie? Lol....


But what about the suggestion of banning military style weapons and large ammo clips?

Well, a few things. First, a ban on such weapons and clips might well mitigate damage, However, as I stated in another thread (sorry if this is repetitive), while I think such weapons are of little distinct value outside of a battlefield, my libertarian side (hmm, is that the one on the left shoulder or the right  ) is hesitant to call for a ban without a really strong justification. And as I state, that is not due to the second amendment. A case could be made for far more stringent gun control being in line with the second amendment in my opinion. Simply opposition to decreasing people's rights. But I think it is up for discussion. Would saving 100  lives justify such a ban?  100,000? It is not as simple a utilitarian calculation of course, but those might be considered points for discussion. 

 

Also, just another note. that comment about gun violence. I was talking with a buddy the other night regarding the whole 'assault weapon' and magazine size thing (he is partial to Glocks), and he said that the stats like the ones you quote also include suicides. Just mentioning that, because, if I recall correctly, the most expansive list I have seen that explicitly filters mags and AR's, from Mother Jones, limits the impact in mass shootings to 1/3. But for suicide, it might have zero impact, and for any other scenario where you use a gun for violence, I am not sure what difference such a ban would make. 

 

Finally, the whole watch list thing has its own issues. I will merely start by stating it is my understanding that such a restriction would have had no impact the Orlando case, or an any other mass shooting in America. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, while this might be more of a black swan thing, could such a restriction be used inversely? Say an individual was planning something REALLY bad. Could applying for a gun and being denied tip them that they were under surveillance, or would this be the same as the no-fly list? This ine might be out there, but it popped into my head as a possible unintended consequence.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

One wonders if the Founding Fathers anticipated the development of the type of weapons and the scope of violence we have today, and whether it would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

One wonders if the Founding Fathers anticipated the development of the type of weapons and the scope of violence we have today, and whether it would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

I wonder the same. They had different issues in different times. Having said that however, I might need to revisit something I said previously. I had been reading up on some stuff, and had run across an article talking about Elbridge Gerry and the Swiss type of militia system, and what influence that might have had on his thinking. But I have seen other quotes attributed to the founders that are distinct from militia discussions, and seem to indicate a number of them thought that every law-abiding citizen should have the right to bear arms. I am by no means a constitutional law scholar. However, I am not sure than any stringent restrictions would be in line with the general intent of the founders. Of course the founders intent is not always indicative of what we ought to do, but it does have some bearing on interpreting the Constitution.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Well, a few things. First, a ban on such weapons and clips might well mitigate damage, However, as I stated in another thread (sorry if this is repetitive), while I think such weapons are of little distinct value outside of a battlefield, my libertarian side (hmm, is that the one on the left shoulder or the right ) is hesitant to call for a ban without a really strong justification. And as I state, that is not due to the second amendment. A case could be made for far more stringent gun control being in line with the second amendment in my opinion. Simply opposition to decreasing people's rights. But I think it is up for discussion. Would saving 100 lives justify such a ban? 100,000? It is not as simple a utilitarian calculation of course, but those might be considered points for discussion.


Also, just another note. that comment about gun violence. I was talking with a buddy the other night regarding the whole 'assault weapon' and magazine size thing (he is partial to Glocks), and he said that the stats like the ones you quote also include suicides. Just mentioning that, because, if I recall correctly, the most expansive list I have seen that explicitly filters mags and AR's, from Mother Jones, limits the impact in mass shootings to 1/3. But for suicide, it might have zero impact, and for any other scenario where you use a gun for violence, I am not sure what difference such a ban would make.


Finally, the whole watch list thing has its own issues. I will merely start by stating it is my understanding that such a restriction would have had no impact the Orlando case, or an any other mass shooting in America. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, while this might be more of a black swan thing, could such a restriction be used inversely? Say an individual was planning something REALLY bad. Could applying for a gun and being denied tip them that they were under surveillance, or would this be the same as the no-fly list? This ine might be out there, but it popped into my head as a possible unintended consequence.

Lol, I was hoping you'd repost your thoughts I this thread from the other thread.


To me, reducing the number of mass killings by 33% or whatever the amount may be is worth the loss of choices of arms to bear.


I agree with you and out conservative friends that barring entire groups of people that are but on "a list" which is not transparent and open to public scrutiny is an awful idea and clearly is unconstitutional based on due process alone.


So I circle back to military style or modern sport rifles, or whatever cute term one may want to attach to these arms...


As we all know, there are already restrictions on the type of arms one can buy. Let's look at fully automatic guns, they are illegal. Are you less free because you don't have one? Next, consider the argument that if you make it illegal, then only the bad guys will have them.


In regard to mass shootings, how many of the shooters or terrorists used an automatic? I believe the number is very close to zero. So that argument does not hold water to me.


At the end of the day, if a military weapons and ammo ban lessens the number of mass killings by any significant amount, it's worth doing.


In the previous iteration of the weapons ban, a small group of folks could own these arms. Why not allow gun ranges to own these weapons, that way people could go shoot them when they wanted to?


Living in New Mexico, I know a ton of guys that hunt. None of them go out with their tactical arms to hunt elk or other game they get licensed for.


Therefore, if one is only using these types of arms at the range, why not make them range only weapons that must stay with the business?


That's my take on it...

---

Like they did in that divergent movie? Lol....


But what about the suggestion of banning military style weapons and large ammo clips?

 

I could've done the same damage in that nightclub with 2 Glock 17s, are those next?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I could've done the same damage in that nightclub with 2 Glock 17s, are those next?

Why do you need 17 rounds in a magazine?

---