SteveA said:

---

I understand that. Is making it harder, not impossible not something you would trade if it made a difference?

---

No because it will not make a difference. There are so few rifle killings in the US and so many of those guns already in circulation that anything you would propose short of door to door confiscation would be negligible and even that would take a generation. We tried an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 and it was laughable. All those grandfathered guns and the same guns just with minor cosmetic changes.

It.Will.Not.Work!

Gunny456 said:

---

Please research how many gun laws are on the books. Let's enforce what we have and see how that works. Start by putting our POTUS son in prison for lying on a federal document to buy a gun.... AS THE LAW is written Right now.
Then we can do the same MORE.

---

Honestly - it might be that I just need to be educated on the gun laws already on the books that just need to be enforced. Please let me know what they are and I'll listen.

That may be true. But if it did, would you make that sacrifice of inconvenience?

dude95 said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

dude95 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Liberals are wrong on the gun issue.

Conservatives are ALSO wrong on the gun issue.

Guns are not a problem. But people with guns are also not a real problem. Even bad guys with guns are barely a problem.

You're not going to die in a mass shooting. Your kid isn't going to die in a mass shooting as school. You're not ever going to be shot at. Knock on wood if you want, but the probabilities are extremely low. So low that other things of such low probabilities you don't even think about much less prepare for. You can live your ENTIRE life in America without even seeing a gun outside of it being attached to a cop's hip.

Guns are an irrelevancy in America. Outside some niche areas and situations. Stop trying to fix problems that don't exist. Its not the guns, its not the mental health, its not the godlessness, its NOTHING.

---

According to the New England Journal of Health, firearm related injury is the number 1 cause of death for kids in America. No - did not say mass shooting. Not even homicide. Just firearm related injury.

Every other cause of death, there is either significant regulation (motor vehicle incident, drug overdose), a disease, or drowning/fire or burns.

For some reason, if we can regulate danger in these major areas we do. We require drivers license, tests, patrolmen watching highways giving out tickets. We require pill bottles to be child-proof for everyone, we require prescriptions for medicine that might be dangerous.

I actually agree with you that the chances of your child dying in mass murder by unknown assailant is low. I am not advocating guns to be banned. I do think putting the same effort at regulating guns as we do pill bottles can be made better for the safety of all.

---

I can name 5 locations in Houston to get pain killers. You really think laws have stopped the black market on medication. I drive over 90 into work every day, never see or pass a cop car. If I need a throw down gun, I know a few places to go to get one. Crazy part, I've arrested this guy 3 times on illegal firearm sells, only does about 2 years state jail and back on the streets. Harris County Judges for you.

If people want something you can find it. Need a fake passport or ID try the Aldine flee markets. DL's look like the real deal until you scan it. And don't get me started on the dark web. Everything from underage girls to hire hitmen.

---

Are you saying we shouldn't have laws or regulations about all of those things you listed? Are laws all pointless?

---

Yes laws are pointless, when judges refuse to hold criminals liable.

SteveA said:

---

I understand that. Is making it harder, not impossible not something you would trade if it made a difference?

---

I'm all for trying to keep guns out of the hands of evil people. However, I'm not willing to strip the constitutional rights of millions of law abiding citizens only for evil people to continue doing what they are doing.

I appreciate your honest answer.

So you don't believe an individual has a right to keep and bear arms. That does explain your willingness to ignore the words "shall not be infringed" which immediately follows the word "the right of the People to keep and bear arms".

I would sincerely encourage you to read Madison's Federalist paper I noted above. He details private ownership of arms and how large a militia they could form with their arms as was done during the Revolutionary war.
I would also sincerely encourage you to read the Bruen decision where there is a great explanation of how the second clause works together with the first clause and how the operative clause is the Right of the People.

Note: Regulating is attached to the militia in first clause of the second amendment. The second clause has Shall not be infringed attached to the People. To flip flop the application is not the intent. It's also not how a proper English sentence would be structured, and the founding fathers were more than articulate and precise in their language.

We can start with the fact people kicked out of the military for mental issues are banned from having guns. Yet the feds failed to enforce it in Sutherland Springs because they didnt put the shooter in the database, and this one seems to he headed for a similar issue

dude95 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Liberals are wrong on the gun issue.

Conservatives are ALSO wrong on the gun issue.

Guns are not a problem. But people with guns are also not a real problem. Even bad guys with guns are barely a problem.

You're not going to die in a mass shooting. Your kid isn't going to die in a mass shooting as school. You're not ever going to be shot at. Knock on wood if you want, but the probabilities are extremely low. So low that other things of such low probabilities you don't even think about much less prepare for. You can live your ENTIRE life in America without even seeing a gun outside of it being attached to a cop's hip.

Guns are an irrelevancy in America. Outside some niche areas and situations. Stop trying to fix problems that don't exist. Its not the guns, its not the mental health, its not the godlessness, its NOTHING.

---

According to the New England Journal of Health, firearm related injury is the number 1 cause of death for kids in America. No - did not say mass shooting. Not even homicide. Just firearm related injury.

Every other cause of death, there is either significant regulation (motor vehicle incident, drug overdose), a disease, or drowning/fire or burns.

For some reason, if we can regulate danger in these major areas we do. We require drivers license, tests, patrolmen watching highways giving out tickets. We require pill bottles to be child-proof for everyone, we require prescriptions for medicine that might be dangerous.

I actually agree with you that the chances of your child dying in mass murder by unknown assailant is low. I am not advocating guns to be banned. I do think putting the same effort at regulating guns as we do pill bottles can be made better for the safety of all.

---

BS on that "study" since when are 18 and 19 years 'kids'..


defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age

No because I already know it would not make a difference.

Let me pose a question for you? Would you be willing to lock up every black male between the ages of 14 and 55? Would you if it made a difference. Protip, this would cut violent crime by almost half, overnight.

Absurd, correct? Sometimes there is nothing you can do but protect yourself.

SteveA said:

---

I understand that. Is making it harder, not impossible not something you would trade if it made a difference?

---

By harder, do you mean more costly? Because every person deserves to be afforded the right to self defense, and the government pricing out the poor from guns, while it may or may not reduce crime, is a crime in itself.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

We can start with the fact people kicked out of the military for mental issues are banned from having guns. Yet the feds failed to enforce it in Sutherland Springs because they didnt put the shooter in the database, and this one seems to he headed for a similar issue

---

Great example - think this is a place we all could agree we could focus attention on. Not only the enforcement - but the process behind it so screw ups don't happen. I do agree.

SteveA said:

---

My hold up is the 'well regulated' part. There is nothing well regulated about gun ownership. But again, I don't care what you have. I want it harder for these mass shooters to get this stuff.

---

I will be "well regulated" when I show up for militia duty with my firearm that meshes well with what the miItary is using and supplying ammo for.. you know…….like 1776.

SteveA said:

---

I'm happy to be wrong about the well regulated part. Again, not trying to strip you of your rights. Just want it harder to get the big stuff.

---

Oh contrare monfrare. And I quote you "A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start." That's definitely taking away rights and you know it. It's hard to have any militia, well regulated or otherwise, when you can't legally own the rifle or mags, and your possession or ownership of firearms allows the government to call you a criminal for it.

Isosceles_Kramer said:

---

This dude is incredible! Love his videos, content, messages, etc. He is a treasure

---

Yeah, watched a few of his videos during Covid including the one on the 1986 Miami-Dade shootout that changed how law enforcement trained and what they started to carry on them and in their cars

Same.

He is so thorough, and has the experience from training, competition, and stopping a home intruder. I want that jacket too haha

samurai_science said:

---

dude95 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Liberals are wrong on the gun issue.

Conservatives are ALSO wrong on the gun issue.

Guns are not a problem. But people with guns are also not a real problem. Even bad guys with guns are barely a problem.

You're not going to die in a mass shooting. Your kid isn't going to die in a mass shooting as school. You're not ever going to be shot at. Knock on wood if you want, but the probabilities are extremely low. So low that other things of such low probabilities you don't even think about much less prepare for. You can live your ENTIRE life in America without even seeing a gun outside of it being attached to a cop's hip.

Guns are an irrelevancy in America. Outside some niche areas and situations. Stop trying to fix problems that don't exist. Its not the guns, its not the mental health, its not the godlessness, its NOTHING.

---

According to the New England Journal of Health, firearm related injury is the number 1 cause of death for kids in America. No - did not say mass shooting. Not even homicide. Just firearm related injury.

Every other cause of death, there is either significant regulation (motor vehicle incident, drug overdose), a disease, or drowning/fire or burns.

For some reason, if we can regulate danger in these major areas we do. We require drivers license, tests, patrolmen watching highways giving out tickets. We require pill bottles to be child-proof for everyone, we require prescriptions for medicine that might be dangerous.

I actually agree with you that the chances of your child dying in mass murder by unknown assailant is low. I am not advocating guns to be banned. I do think putting the same effort at regulating guns as we do pill bottles can be made better for the safety of all.

---

BS on that "study" since when are 18 and 19 years 'kids'..


defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age

---

Not sure how to help there. If there is another study that shows firearms are not a high % of deaths from 0-17, I'm all ears to expanding that. Either way - the definition of kid isn't as key to me as a significant portion of our population's leading cause of death is firearms.

If you believe that the literal hundreds of firearm laws that are in our federal, state, county and city penal codes can be typed into a public forum.... I don't know what to say....
or you are just simply being obtuse.

dude95 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

dude95 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Liberals are wrong on the gun issue.

Conservatives are ALSO wrong on the gun issue.

Guns are not a problem. But people with guns are also not a real problem. Even bad guys with guns are barely a problem.

You're not going to die in a mass shooting. Your kid isn't going to die in a mass shooting as school. You're not ever going to be shot at. Knock on wood if you want, but the probabilities are extremely low. So low that other things of such low probabilities you don't even think about much less prepare for. You can live your ENTIRE life in America without even seeing a gun outside of it being attached to a cop's hip.

Guns are an irrelevancy in America. Outside some niche areas and situations. Stop trying to fix problems that don't exist. Its not the guns, its not the mental health, its not the godlessness, its NOTHING.

---

According to the New England Journal of Health, firearm related injury is the number 1 cause of death for kids in America. No - did not say mass shooting. Not even homicide. Just firearm related injury.

Every other cause of death, there is either significant regulation (motor vehicle incident, drug overdose), a disease, or drowning/fire or burns.

For some reason, if we can regulate danger in these major areas we do. We require drivers license, tests, patrolmen watching highways giving out tickets. We require pill bottles to be child-proof for everyone, we require prescriptions for medicine that might be dangerous.

I actually agree with you that the chances of your child dying in mass murder by unknown assailant is low. I am not advocating guns to be banned. I do think putting the same effort at regulating guns as we do pill bottles can be made better for the safety of all.

---

BS on that "study" since when are 18 and 19 years 'kids'..


defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age

---

Not sure how to help there. If there is another study that shows firearms are not a high % of deaths from 0-17, I'm all ears to expanding that. Either way - the definition of kid isn't as key to me as a significant portion of our population's leading cause of death is firearms.

---

Yes I have two of them.

Gunny456 said:

---

If you believe that the literal hundreds of firearm laws that are in our federal, state, county and city penal codes can be typed into a public forum.... I don't know what to say....
or you are just simply being obtuse.

---

I don't think I asked you to type in all of the firearms laws - literally or otherwise. You made a broad statement that we should rely on the laws that are already on the books that are being ignored and that would be the first start to solving the problem. I just asked which laws you are referring to. I assume it wasn't a blanket statement that all firearm laws are being ignored?

dude95 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

dude95 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Liberals are wrong on the gun issue.

Conservatives are ALSO wrong on the gun issue.

Guns are not a problem. But people with guns are also not a real problem. Even bad guys with guns are barely a problem.

You're not going to die in a mass shooting. Your kid isn't going to die in a mass shooting as school. You're not ever going to be shot at. Knock on wood if you want, but the probabilities are extremely low. So low that other things of such low probabilities you don't even think about much less prepare for. You can live your ENTIRE life in America without even seeing a gun outside of it being attached to a cop's hip.

Guns are an irrelevancy in America. Outside some niche areas and situations. Stop trying to fix problems that don't exist. Its not the guns, its not the mental health, its not the godlessness, its NOTHING.

---

According to the New England Journal of Health, firearm related injury is the number 1 cause of death for kids in America. No - did not say mass shooting. Not even homicide. Just firearm related injury.

Every other cause of death, there is either significant regulation (motor vehicle incident, drug overdose), a disease, or drowning/fire or burns.

For some reason, if we can regulate danger in these major areas we do. We require drivers license, tests, patrolmen watching highways giving out tickets. We require pill bottles to be child-proof for everyone, we require prescriptions for medicine that might be dangerous.

I actually agree with you that the chances of your child dying in mass murder by unknown assailant is low. I am not advocating guns to be banned. I do think putting the same effort at regulating guns as we do pill bottles can be made better for the safety of all.

---

BS on that "study" since when are 18 and 19 years 'kids'..


defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age

---

Not sure how to help there. If there is another study that shows firearms are not a high % of deaths from 0-17, I'm all ears to expanding that. Either way - the definition of kid isn't as key to me as a significant portion of our population's leading cause of death is firearms.

---

You can help by not posting this flawed study that includes 18-19 year old adults engaged in gang violence in Democrat urban areas to try and push gun control.

https://www.gunowners.org/guns-are-not-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-children-2/


https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/leading-cause-death-young-people-us-firearms/


Excluding legal adults from the data set and including all minorsthose under age 18tells a strikingly different story. According to CDC's "Underlying Cause of Death" sorted by "Injury Mechanism & All Other Leading Causes" the top three causes of death are:

• Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period;
• Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities; and
• Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings.[url=https://www.gunowners.org/guns-are-not-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-children-2/#_edn12][12][/url]

If teenagers are excluded and only children up to 12 years old are included in the data set, then suffocation, motor vehicle accidents, and drowning also cause more childhood death than firearms.

Quote:

---

I appreciate your honest answer.

So you don't believe an individual has a right to keep and bear arms. That does explain your willingness to ignore the words "shall not be infringed" which immediately follows the word "the right of the People to keep and bear arms".

I would sincerely encourage you to read Madison's Federalist paper I noted above. He details private ownership of arms and how large a militia they could form with their arms as was done during the Revolutionary war.
I would also sincerely encourage you to read the Bruen decision where there is a great explanation of how the second clause works together with the first clause and how the operative clause is the Right of the People.

Note: Regulating is attached to the militia in first clause of the second amendment. The second clause has Shall not be infringed attached to the People. To flip flop the application is not the intent. It's also not how a proper English sentence would be structured, and the founding fathers were more than articulate and precise in their language.

---

Thanks for the response. I will actually check it out.

dude95 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

dude95 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Liberals are wrong on the gun issue.

Conservatives are ALSO wrong on the gun issue.

Guns are not a problem. But people with guns are also not a real problem. Even bad guys with guns are barely a problem.

You're not going to die in a mass shooting. Your kid isn't going to die in a mass shooting as school. You're not ever going to be shot at. Knock on wood if you want, but the probabilities are extremely low. So low that other things of such low probabilities you don't even think about much less prepare for. You can live your ENTIRE life in America without even seeing a gun outside of it being attached to a cop's hip.

Guns are an irrelevancy in America. Outside some niche areas and situations. Stop trying to fix problems that don't exist. Its not the guns, its not the mental health, its not the godlessness, its NOTHING.

---

According to the New England Journal of Health, firearm related injury is the number 1 cause of death for kids in America. No - did not say mass shooting. Not even homicide. Just firearm related injury.

Every other cause of death, there is either significant regulation (motor vehicle incident, drug overdose), a disease, or drowning/fire or burns.

For some reason, if we can regulate danger in these major areas we do. We require drivers license, tests, patrolmen watching highways giving out tickets. We require pill bottles to be child-proof for everyone, we require prescriptions for medicine that might be dangerous.

I actually agree with you that the chances of your child dying in mass murder by unknown assailant is low. I am not advocating guns to be banned. I do think putting the same effort at regulating guns as we do pill bottles can be made better for the safety of all.

---

BS on that "study" since when are 18 and 19 years 'kids'..


defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age

---

Not sure how to help there. If there is another study that shows firearms are not a high % of deaths from 0-17, I'm all ears to expanding that. Either way - the definition of kid isn't as key to me as a significant portion of our population's leading cause of death is firearms.

---

If we are talking about teenagers intentionally shooting each other, we have plenty of laws on the books to address this already.

If we are talking about gun safety, that is an individual parenting issue sprinkled in with some child endangerment laws. So again, already covered.

America has over 400 million guns. Guns are ubiquitous. That genie is never going back in its bottle. Not here.

Quote:

---

By harder, do you mean more costly? Because every person deserves to be afforded the right to self defense, and the government pricing out the poor from guns, while it may or may not reduce crime, is a crime in itself.

---

No. But some type of mental evaluation? Cursory training? Is that out of the question?

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

By harder, do you mean more costly? Because every person deserves to be afforded the right to self defense, and the government pricing out the poor from guns, while it may or may not reduce crime, is a crime in itself.

---

No. But some type of mental evaluation? Cursory training? Is that out of the question?

---

Yes and Yes.

The former means they will deny the right to own a gun for having the wrong set if beliefs.

"Oh, you voted for Trump, then you're mentally ill, no gun for you."

The latter is just another way to create a national gun registry which is the first step to confiscation.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

By harder, do you mean more costly? Because every person deserves to be afforded the right to self defense, and the government pricing out the poor from guns, while it may or may not reduce crime, is a crime in itself.

---

No. But some type of mental evaluation? Cursory training? Is that out of the question?

---

I think you aren't out of bounds there. I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms, the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who are already signing up to do that. They learn discipline and leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, etc.

Then everyone who passes the eval gets out with a license to operate automatic weapons.

If the wording was number 1 cause of death of Americans between the ages of 16-21 - does this make you feel good about it.

Hey - I get very few babies die from firearms. Same for 3 year olds. At some point, gather up all the deaths of kids and you end up with #1 across everyone. It skews older. That's due to gun violence in Chicago, and it's also due to hunting accidents, suicides, felonies performed by teenagers.

The fact that it skews to a bit older kid still means that your child is more likely to die in gun related incident than in a car accident or from cancer or from drowning.

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

I appreciate your honest answer.

So you don't believe an individual has a right to keep and bear arms. That does explain your willingness to ignore the words "shall not be infringed" which immediately follows the word "the right of the People to keep and bear arms".

I would sincerely encourage you to read Madison's Federalist paper I noted above. He details private ownership of arms and how large a militia they could form with their arms as was done during the Revolutionary war.
I would also sincerely encourage you to read the Bruen decision where there is a great explanation of how the second clause works together with the first clause and how the operative clause is the Right of the People.

Note: Regulating is attached to the militia in first clause of the second amendment. The second clause has Shall not be infringed attached to the People. To flip flop the application is not the intent. It's also not how a proper English sentence would be structured, and the founding fathers were more than articulate and precise in their language.

---

Thanks for the response. I will actually check it out.

---

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" Richard Henry Lee

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."- Zachariah Johnson

The_Desert_Fox said:

---

No because I already know it would not make a difference.

Let me pose a question for you? Would you be willing to lock up every black male between the ages of 14 and 55? Would you if it made a difference. Protip, this would cut violent crime by almost half, overnight.

Absurd, correct? Sometimes there is nothing you can do but protect yourself.

---

Locking up the demographic you picked out has ZERO to do with the intent of my OP. Please leave my thread.

dude95 said:

---

If the wording was number 1 cause of death of Americans between the ages of 16-21 - does this make you feel good about it.

Hey - I get very few babies die from firearms. Same for 3 year olds. At some point, gather up all the deaths of kids and you end up with #1 across everyone. It skews older. That's due to gun violence in Chicago, and it's also due to hunting accidents, suicides, felonies performed by teenagers.

The fact that it skews to a bit older kid still means that your child is more likely to die in gun related incident than in a car accident or from cancer or from drowning.

---

Yes I feel good about it. Reason is simple, look at the 16-21 year olds, they are involved in gang violence using HANDGUNS in Democrat Urban areas and killing each other. Start with that problem before you try to strip my rights away.

So no, my two teenagers are MUCH more likely to die in a car accident because they are not black or in a gang, and not involved in crime.

They are however, much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime from a black man between the ages of 16 and 24. Stats don't lie, and we know the groups involved in the majority of violent crime in this country.

B-1 83 said:

---

The_Desert_Fox said:

---

No because I already know it would not make a difference.

Let me pose a question for you? Would you be willing to lock up every black male between the ages of 14 and 55? Would you if it made a difference. Protip, this would cut violent crime by almost half, overnight.

Absurd, correct? Sometimes there is nothing you can do but protect yourself.

---

Locking up the demographic you picked out has ZERO to do with the intent of my OP. Please leave my thread.

---

It's absurd. Everyone is willing to shred constitutional rights until it is out to them in an absurd example but one that would also "make a difference and save lives." Sorry you cannot understand the point.

Shredding the 2nd is no more palatable than shredding the 14th. But apparently that is not apparent.

dude95 said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

If you believe that the literal hundreds of firearm laws that are in our federal, state, county and city penal codes can be typed into a public forum.... I don't know what to say....
or you are just simply being obtuse.

---

I don't think I asked you to type in all of the firearms laws - literally or otherwise. You made a broad statement that we should rely on the laws that are already on the books that are being ignored and that would be the first start to solving the problem. I just asked which laws you are referring to. I assume it wasn't a blanket statement that all firearm laws are being ignored?

---

Here is the Texas Penal codes. Everything a Judge, lawyer and LEO has to know and understand.

Start with chapters 22, 28, 29, 30, 31.

Then ask yourself, how many more laws should there be.


https://txpenalcode.com/

The number would still be more than what could be reasonably typed into a forum.... but let's just start with the requirements on the form 4473 that are falsely answered. Then secondly the enforcement in all jurisdictions and levels of convictions and punishments of criminals committing crimes that involved firearms. And that would be collectively like fighting a ant bed with a ice pick.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

SteveA said:

---

Quote:

---

By harder, do you mean more costly? Because every person deserves to be afforded the right to self defense, and the government pricing out the poor from guns, while it may or may not reduce crime, is a crime in itself.

---

No. But some type of mental evaluation? Cursory training? Is that out of the question?

---

I think you aren't out of bounds there. I think a great compromise would be requiring 18 months of military service out of HS. Everyone goes through the military evaluation, everyone gets trained in firearms, the only people who are actually going to the frontlines as grunts are the people who are already signing up to do that. They learn discipline and leadership qualities and trade skills like logistics, etc.

Then everyone who passes the eval gets out with a license to operate automatic weapons.

---

I don't think automatic weapons are a huge issue with so few in circulation and the stringent requirements to own them.

They did raise the federal 922 statutory penalties from 10 to 15 years after Uvalde. So a step in the right direction.