National Emergency Gun Control

[2A_Tom]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...uld-include-how-guns-save-lives/#2d45965c5edc
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives



But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.
The first principle is:
* Firearms save lives as well take lives.
…
A second key principle in judging gun violence research:
* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.
…
Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:
* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.

But, That makes sense. The gun grabbers and MSMBS will never even read it, let alone accept it.

 

[actaeon277]

It means you're smarter than I originally gave you credit for.

Thank you... I think

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[Route 45]

Hey, you don't have to convince me that Trumpers are ignoring the president's 2A stance, while from the other sides of their mouths complaining about Democrats on the 2A. That's pretty obvious. Yes, I agree, those persons are laughably stupid.

But...but..."muh bumpstocks."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/25/wh-veto-dem-bill-criminalizing-private-gun-sales/

 

[KLB]

But...but..."muh bumpstocks."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/25/wh-veto-dem-bill-criminalizing-private-gun-sales/

Talk about click bait. There is nothing that needs to be vetoed. While that bill will probably clear the House, I doubt it will get anywhere in the Senate.

 

[jamil]

Talk about click bait. There is nothing that needs to be vetoed. While that bill will probably clear the House, I doubt it will get anywhere in the Senate.

I was thinking the same thing. I think, though they have to bring it to the Senate floor, I suspect it’s moot in the Senate. All the dems will vote for it. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul will vote for it. Not sure too many other Republicans will vote for it. But, it’s possible that Republicans from purple states will be allowed to vote for it, knowing Trump will veto it anyway.

 

[KLB]

I was thinking the same thing. I think, though they have to bring it to the Senate floor, I suspect it’s moot in the Senate. All the dems will vote for it. I’m fairly certain Rand Paul will vote for it. Not sure too many other Republicans will vote for it. But, it’s possible that Republicans from purple states will be allowed to vote for it, knowing Trump will veto it anyway.

You think that Paul would vote for UBCs?

 

[craigkim]

I feel like they are trying to target straw purchases as I read this. BUT, from what I understand, they aren't prosecuting those currently. Now, they will just make all private transfers illegal?

 

[JettaKnight]

I feel like they are trying to target straw purchases as I read this. BUT, from what I understand, they aren't prosecuting those currently. Now, they will just make all private transfers illegal?

Straw purchases already go through a dealer, so no effect there. And I do believe people do get busted for it.


I don't see why anyone could object to this. There's plenty of INGO'ers already demanding buyers go through these hoops.

 

[craigkim]

Straw purchases already go through a dealer, so no effect there. And I do believe people do get busted for it.


I don't see why anyone could object to this. There's plenty of INGO'ers already demanding buyers go through these hoops.

Well, what I was getting at was... didn't I read that a good portion of firearms used in crimes in Chicago were purchased LEGALLY with a background check by friend, family member, associate, etc and then given/sold to the person using it in a crime despite the knowledge that the person may not be able to legally obtain a firearm themselves? (straw purchase) BUT I also have the impression that there was a disconnect in prosecution of those providing the firearm to that individual....? SO, now they are they are targeting the actual private transfer instead....? Will this really be a deterrent to those who were already willing to break the law anyway?

Just trying to find the logic here, although I realize it may not be there.

 

[jamil]

You think that Paul would vote for UBCs?

No. Sorry. I don't know why I was thinking you guys were talking about the bill that rescinds Trump's emergency declaration.

 

[Ingomike]

Straw purchases already go through a dealer, so no effect there. And I do believe people do get busted for it.


I don't see why anyone could object to this. There's plenty of INGO'ers already demanding buyers go through these hoops.

Very small percentages of straw purchasers are tracked down and prosecuted and that has been a NRA complaint for a long time. They are not enforcing the laws they have and yet they want more laws. They also rarely go after the "lie and buy" that lie on their 4473 forms. Including the idiot that perpetrated the recent Illinois shooting.

MM

 

[cbhausen]

But...but..."muh bumpstocks."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/25/wh-veto-dem-bill-criminalizing-private-gun-sales/

You’re god****ed right “...our bumpstocks...” If you don’t see beyond the bumpstock ban, what it could lead to, wake up. This attitude reminds me of some Fuddd not caring about AR-15s because he only hunts with a shotgun and nobody “needs” an AR-15. When they finally come for his shotgun there will be nobody left to help him keep it.

The time for so-called “compromise” is OVER. We give and never get anything in return.

 

[cbhausen]

Hey, you don't have to convince me that Trumpers are ignoring the president's 2A stance, while from the other sides of their mouths complaining about Democrats on the 2A. That's pretty obvious. Yes, I agree, those persons are laughably stupid.

I logged on to post comments to “educate” the people watching NRA’s live broadcast of House Republican leaders opposing HR8 on the steps of the Capital. I mentioned the bumpstock ban and commented that Trump was no friend of the Second Amendment. That was the one and only comment everyone saw because they muted me instantly.

 

[jamil]

I logged on to post comments to “educate” the people watching NRA’s live broadcast of House Republican leaders opposing HR8 on the steps of the Capital. I mentioned the bumpstock ban and commented that Trump was no friend of the Second Amendment. That was the one and only comment everyone saw because they muted me instantly.

^^^ He said orange man bad!

It’s just not what they want to hear while they’re so busy “winning”. I was really astonish when some folks even questioned that Trump had anything to do with it.

 

[MRP2003]

Republicans will vote for this as they attached something to that ICE will be able to get reports if undocumented immigrants apply for a transfer. This was something that they attached and upset the democrats as they do not want to give ICE and support or information on where illegal immigrants are located.

There is also to be exceptions in the law such as family transfers and borrowing a rifle/gun such as for hunting.

This closes a small loop hole but will not stop criminals from attaining a gun.

 

[BigRed]

Republicans will vote for this as they attached something to that ICE will be able to get reports if undocumented immigrants apply for a transfer. This was something that they attached and upset the democrats as they do not want to give ICE and support or information on where illegal immigrants are located.

There is also to be exceptions in the law such as family transfers and borrowing a rifle/gun such as for hunting.

This closes a small loop hole but will not stop criminals from attaining a gun.

There are no "loopholes", only infringements.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I logged on to post comments to “educate” the people watching NRA’s live broadcast of House Republican leaders opposing HR8 on the steps of the Capital. I mentioned the bumpstock ban and commented that Trump was no friend of the Second Amendment. That was the one and only comment everyone saw because they muted me instantly.

Wow

 

[engi-ninja]

You’re god****ed right “...our bumpstocks...” If you don’t see beyond the bumpstock ban, what it could lead to, wake up. This attitude reminds me of some Fuddd not caring about AR-15s because he only hunts with a shotgun and nobody “needs” an AR-15. When they finally come for his shotgun there will be nobody left to help him keep it.

The time for so-called “compromise” is OVER. We give and never get anything in return.

I was thinking about this concept of "compromise" the other day. People seem to think that in order to be a "reasonable person," you have to be open to compromise. They seem to be under the impression that anyone who says "This thing is right, and good, and true, and any deviation from that is necessarily bad in as much as it is less right, good and true," about any topic whatsoever, is some kind of unreasonable child. They point to the founding fathers and say "Look at them! They compromised all over the place, and that's how we got such a great country."

This used to stump me a bit, but just recently, I realized that it's really equivocation. It's 2 different meanings, but using the same word. The compromise that the founding fathers practiced involved generally good, honest men who all wanted the same thing, namely, maximum personal freedom within the context of justice. They compromised on how best to achieve this end, and their compromise resulted in a better product than they could have achieved otherwise.

This is completely different from compromise between 2 different groups of people who want polar opposite and mutually exclusive things; namely, maximum personal freedom within the context of justice, versus total abdication of personal responsibility. These two things are diametrically opposed; no compromise between them gets you closer to your goal. Furthermore, these 2 ideas are statements about the fundamental nature of Man and the nature of reality itself. Because of this, any compromise necessarily means movement away from, or denial of, each group's understanding of reality.

So, with that being said, I think we're totally justified in brooking zero compromise of our rights, and we are not, in fact, unreasonable or childish for doing so.

 

[Ingomike]

I was thinking about this concept of "compromise" the other day. People seem to think that in order to be a "reasonable person," you have to be open to compromise. They seem to be under the impression that anyone who says "This thing is right, and good, and true, and any deviation from that is necessarily bad in as much as it is less right, good and true," about any topic whatsoever, is some kind of unreasonable child. They point to the founding fathers and say "Look at them! They compromised all over the place, and that's how we got such a great country."

This used to stump me a bit, but just recently, I realized that it's really equivocation. It's 2 different meanings, but using the same word. The compromise that the founding fathers practiced involved generally good, honest men who all wanted the same thing, namely, maximum personal freedom within the context of justice. They compromised on how best to achieve this end, and their compromise resulted in a better product than they could have achieved otherwise.

This is completely different from compromise between 2 different groups of people who want polar opposite and mutually exclusive things; namely, maximum personal freedom within the context of justice, versus total abdication of personal responsibility. These two things are diametrically opposed; no compromise between them gets you closer to your goal. Furthermore, these 2 ideas are statements about the fundamental nature of Man and the nature of reality itself. Because of this, any compromise necessarily means movement away from, or denial of, each group's understanding of reality.

So, with that being said, I think we're totally justified in brooking zero compromise of our rights, and we are not, in fact, unreasonable or childish for doing so.

I too have been thinking along these lines and it is an uncompromising position on both sides when the reality is as you laid out.

MM