Utah Wildlife Forum banner

21 - 40 of 286 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Seven people were murdered on Easter Sunday in Chicago. All seven were shot to death and were likely gang related. Most of the victims between 18-40. As another mentioned, the amount of deaths caused by gang violence, domestic violence, etc is far greater than from a mass shooting. But you really don't hear about these shootings because they are so common, it doesn't grab the medias attention other than where it locally happens, etc. They also don't fit into the liberal agenda. Last year in Minneapolis, after the city decided to defund the police, homicides and other violent crimes shot to record levels. Enough to where local militias were created to help patrol the areas as the police were jumping out of the department as fast as they could. But this wasn't just in Minneapolis... Chicago had record levels of homicides, gun violence, etc.. And that's saying something. But many major cities experienced this as liberal leaning cities sought to defund police. Many of those cities have strict gun laws... But as mentioned many times, bad guys don't give a rip about gun laws...

I agree with Critter, there's little we can do but sit back and watch. We've seen that the dems won't work with the republicans. They will push forward whether there is bipartisan support or not. All we can hope for is that the Supreme Court shoots it down no pun intended! This presidency has been a freak show so far...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
The problem with the left is that they won't admit that the laws that are in place don't work. Their whole solution to a problem is to place more laws on the books for the crooks to ignore.

As a example here is what Colorado has, most of what the left want's in all states.

Magazine ban, no more than 15 rounds

Universal background checks for everyone

Red Flag law, where you can report a person and their firearms are taken away automatically even before a court hearing.

Here is a stupid one that the legislature just passed that the Governor will quite likely sign. If a firearm is stolen you have 5 days to report it. Now who wouldn't report a stolen firearm. They pushed this law through because of a homicide that happened with a stolen handgun that the owner didn't report for some reason. But how is this type of a law going to stop a crime?

As Bax stated, all laws do is to put more restrictions on the honest person, crooks could care less. They are already breaking a law by using a firearm or even possessing one.



As for restriction semi automatic weapons, what's next? Pump action shotguns?
As I understand it, the Colorado red flag law (and most others) actually requires a court proceeding. The evidentiary standards are different for the initial order but at a minimum they are done over the phone if not in person. I've got mixed feelings on such laws but the initial ERPO only lasts 14 days before requiring a follow up court case in which the those who applied for the order must show the threat remains true via the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence".

As was stated earlier, domestic violence is a major risk factor for shooting victims and these can be an important tool to protect family members. I'm torn but the reality of these laws is often more nuanced and thoughtful than the internet claims. The fact that the initial order only lasts 14 days seems reasonable IF you can get past forced surrendering of arms, which is a big IF to consider.

I can tell you second hand that there aren't enough tools available for those in harms way to prevent their own demise in these situations. Without going into details I know of at least one woman who could benefit from such a law. People will abuse any law but these do have the potential to save lives. Time will tell if they work well enough to justify the infringement and survive long term legal challenges.

.

On a different note...this is a legitimate moment to "both sides" the issue. Neither party has shown much interest in compromise. And we keep mocking and voting out moderates from both parties so I'm guessing the team sports will only get worse. Hard to ignore how both sides have run the RINOs and DINOs out of town. We are often our own worst enemies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,670 Posts
Testing the waters to see what he can start getting away with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some of you talk out of both sides of your mouth. One minute his mental health is gone, the next minute he’s testing the waters and being all clever. It isn’t both ways.


The problem with the left is that they won't admit that the laws that are in place don't work. Their whole solution to a problem is to place more laws on the books for the crooks to ignore.

As a example here is what Colorado has, most of what the left want's in all states.

Magazine ban, no more than 15 rounds

Universal background checks for everyone

Red Flag law, where you can report a person and their firearms are taken away automatically even before a court hearing.

Here is a stupid one that the legislature just passed that the Governor will quite likely sign. If a firearm is stolen you have 5 days to report it. Now who wouldn't report a stolen firearm. They pushed this law through because of a homicide that happened with a stolen handgun that the owner didn't report for some reason. But how is this type of a law going to stop a crime?

As Bax stated, all laws do is to put more restrictions on the honest person, crooks could care less. They are already breaking a law by using a firearm or even possessing one.



As for restriction semi automatic weapons, what's next? Pump action shotguns?
Such flawed logic. Then let’s make meth, heroine, and remove speed limits as well as it being illegal to drink and drive because well....criminals will still drink and drive so all those laws are useless because some people will obviously break them. Your entire logic is that laws don’t work so why have any? And the killing efficiency of a semiautomatic weapon is simply more. Semi-automatic weapons are more affective killing machines than loading that requires an action every shot. Many of you are right it’s not AR’s that are the boogey man. Semi automatic guns however absolutely ARE the weapons used in the vast majority of criminal activity and killing. Why? Well because they are very efficient at what they do.
Ok, like what? The vast majority of the firearms used in shootings were all purchased legally. What additionally would you add to the current process?

-DallanC
Universal background checks, a waiting period, a mental health screening, and requirement that they are registered in a database, and add on a $150 tax to semi-automatic weapons making more simple action guns far cheaper. Raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to 21. It’s currently like this with hand guns but not all semi-automatic weapons. Also, require a gun safety course before being able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon. The fact hunting requires a course while buying the actual gun requires nothing should cause pause in any of our minds. It should be a pain in the ass to buy certain guns.

Many of you contest laws and stricter regulations don’t work, and yet how many fully automatic weapons are used across the country in crimes or in these high profile cases? They go with the easiest weapon they can get, and yes that may be a car if the gun isn’t available but why not add some reasonable layers to get a hold of that gun? Bolt action, pump action, and lever action guns are not in the same league as semi-automatic weapons as far as efficiency of killing especially with less experienced users. I think the current process is fine for them. Semi-automatic weapons between rifles and handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals because they are very good at what they do. Add layers to get a hold of them. Laws don’t stop all crime, but laws do and can make crimes harder to commit. I don’t think outright bans are the right approach, but I do think being completely resistant to making the process to obtain certain guns a little more stringent of a process is being willfully stubborn in the approach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,670 Posts
Seven people were murdered on Easter Sunday in Chicago. All seven were shot to death and were likely gang related. Most of the victims between 18-40. As another mentioned, the amount of deaths caused by gang violence, domestic violence, etc is far greater than from a mass shooting. But you really don't hear about these shootings because they are so common, it doesn't grab the medias attention other than where it locally happens, etc. They also don't fit into the liberal agenda. Last year in Minneapolis, after the city decided to defund the police, homicides and other violent crimes shot to record levels. Enough to where local militias were created to help patrol the areas as the police were jumping out of the department as fast as they could. But this wasn't just in Minneapolis... Chicago had record levels of homicides, gun violence, etc.. And that's saying something. But many major cities experienced this as liberal leaning cities sought to defund police. Many of those cities have strict gun laws... But as mentioned many times, bad guys don't give a rip about gun laws...

I agree with Critter, there's little we can do but sit back and watch. We've seen that the dems won't work with the republicans. They will push forward whether there is bipartisan support or not. All we can hope for is that the Supreme Court shoots it down no pun intended! This presidency has been a freak show so far...
Drunk drivers don’t give a rip about drunk driving laws either.....why have any laws I guess right? The talk of “gun free zones” from conservatives and talk of places like Chicago ignore the fact all you have to do is cross a state or county line in most these places and buy any gun you want. If the entire country more heavily regulated the purchase of some guns they would be harder to get. The precise reason it’s an argument is that people like yourself don’t want the inconvenience of them being harder to get. Seems like what you’re actually worried about is the law doing what it’s intended? And yes, many of those communities DO care about the violence in their communities and it is being worked on, so just like Democrats use AR15’s as their prop stick maybe you should stop using the lives lost in Chicago as your political talking point. All you have is political talking points you’re regurgitating here. You talk about the “liberal agenda” lol. Then go on to use your gross Chicago conservative talking point in the next breath with your own agenda. This is the entire issue. No one is reasonable in the approach to this. You are every bit as agenda driven as any leftist. If everyone wasn’t so busy pointing their finger they might have time to look in the mirror.

The irony in many of the comments saying “laws don’t work” while simultaneously being bent out of shape that the process to get a hold of certain guns may be more of a process (laws working) is quite something. The literal fear is that the laws will in fact make certain weapons harder to obtain. I’m not saying ban anything. Add layers to getting a hold of certain weapons? Yeah on most measures I’m not opposed. Can’t stop all criminals or crimes but I’m fine making it harder on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Some of you talk out of both sides of your mouth. One minute his mental health is gone, the next minute he’s testing the waters and being all clever. It isn’t both ways.



Such flawed logic. Then let’s make meth, heroine, and remove speed limits as well as it being illegal to drink and drive because well....criminals will still drink and drive so all those laws are useless because some people will obviously break them. Your entire logic is that laws don’t work so why have any? And the killing efficiency of a semiautomatic weapon is simply more. Semi-automatic weapons are more affective killing machines than loading that requires an action every shot. Many of you are right it’s not AR’s that are the boogey man. Semi automatic guns however absolutely ARE the weapons used in the vast majority of criminal activity and killing. Why? Well because they are very efficient at what they do.

Universal background checks, a waiting period, a mental health screening, and requirement that they are registered in a database, and add on a $150 tax to semi-automatic weapons making more simple action guns far cheaper. Raise the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to 21. It’s currently like this with hand guns but not all semi-automatic weapons. Also, require a gun safety course before being able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon. The fact hunting requires a course while buying the actual gun requires nothing should cause pause in any of our minds. It should be a pain in the ass to buy certain guns.

Many of you contest laws and stricter regulations don’t work, and yet how many fully automatic weapons are used across the country in crimes or in these high profile cases? They go with the easiest weapon they can get, and yes that may be a car if the gun isn’t available but why not add some reasonable layers to get a hold of that gun? Bolt action, pump action, and lever action guns are not in the same league as semi-automatic weapons as far as efficiency of killing especially with less experienced users. I think the current process is fine for them. Semi-automatic weapons between rifles and handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals because they are very good at what they do. Add layers to get a hold of them. Laws don’t stop all crime, but laws do and can make crimes harder to commit. I don’t think outright bans are the right approach, but I do think being completely resistant to making the process to obtain certain guns a little more stringent of a process is being willfully stubborn in the approach.
The only flawed logic is your own, if one would even call it logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Many of you contest laws and stricter regulations don’t work, and yet how many fully automatic weapons are used across the country in crimes or in these high profile cases?
Literally almost zero. Getting a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult, expensive as hell, costing at least 10k for the gun and it takes 9 months to get, on average, because of the extensive background check they go through.

Judging by your talk tracks, maybe you meant “fully semi-automatic”?
 

·
senior member
Joined
·
750 Posts
When I saw that AR pistols were getting popular I thought to myself that it would only be a matter of time until someone did something stupid with one, just like the bump stocks , then they would also be banned. The problem is that you can conceal a mini semi automatic rifle. I'm not for banning guns but why does anyone need one of these anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,415 Posts
Thank the folks that voted for "the man". I think he should be paying more attention to what's happening in the Arctic with the Russians than pissing off the American People!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
As I understand it, the Colorado red flag law (and most others) actually requires a court proceeding. The evidentiary standards are different for the initial order but at a minimum they are done over the phone if not in person. I've got mixed feelings on such laws but the initial ERPO only lasts 14 days before requiring a follow up court case in which the those who applied for the order must show the threat remains true via the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence".

As was stated earlier, domestic violence is a major risk factor for shooting victims and these can be an important tool to protect family members. I'm torn but the reality of these laws is often more nuanced and thoughtful than the internet claims. The fact that the initial order only lasts 14 days seems reasonable IF you can get past forced surrendering of arms, which is a big IF to consider.

I can tell you second hand that there aren't enough tools available for those in harms way to prevent their own denise in these situations. Without going into details I know of at least one woman who could benefit from such a law. People will abuse any law but these do have the potential to save lives. Time will tell if they work well enough to justify the infringement and survive long term legal challenges.

.

On a different note...this is a legitimate moment to "both sides" the issue. Neither party has shown much interest in compromise. And we keep mocking and voting out moderates from both parties so I'm guessing the team sports will only get worse. Hard to ignore how both sides have run the RINOs and DINOs out of town. We are often our own worst enemies.
Stop confusing us with the truth.
But seriously, your "On a different note" comment is right, absolutely spot on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Literally almost zero. Getting a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult, expensive as hell, costing at least 10k for the gun and it takes 9 months to get, on average, because of the extensive background check they go through.

Judging by your talk tracks, maybe you meant “fully semi-automatic”?
No I think he meant what he said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
I think the comparison between Drunk Driving and Class 3 firearms with overall gun control is simply not analogous. In the case of drunk driving, it is illegal. Simple as that. There are no additional laws being put in place in attempts to reinforce the main point. This is not true with regards to gun control. Like drinking and driving, shooting people is illegal. The comparison would be correct if we were trying to put laws into place that would PUNISH non offenders such as raising the age to buy alcohol, placing a HUGE tax on alcohol, or putting a 10 day waiting period on alcohol purchases. What if the state made it illegal for anyone deemed as 'alcoholic' to buy alcohol. Now we are talking apples to apples.

The use of the Class 3 example is ridiculous as well. Crimes are not committed with these types of weapons because literally no one get them because of cost and process constraints. Placing similar constraints on all semi automatic firearms would limit the freedom of millions of citizens for a miniscule benefit. Kinda like banning cars in attempts to prevent drunk driving accidents.

The fact is that gun control advocates simply do not want to address the real problems that are the drivers behind gun violence. Mainly because they are uncomfortable to deal with and often implicate their own constituents. Its much easier to ignore the root problems and take advantage of the chance to punish your political enemies.

The best news is that this issue is fast becoming the biggest driver of unity that we have right now. EVERYONE is out buying guns at record pace including those on the left side of the isle. Like ONeeye said, only the fringe extremists on the left are really pushing this, meanwhile, mainstream folks on both sides are buying guns at record levels. Even big, black, scary, semi-automatic guns. --------SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
When I saw that AR pistols were getting popular I thought to myself that it would only be a matter of time until someone did something stupid with one, just like the bump stocks , then they would also be banned. The problem is that you can conceal a mini semi automatic rifle. I'm not for banning guns but why does anyone need one of these anyway?
Doesn’t matter about need. Why do you need that 7mm, or that .308, or any gun you own for that matter. It’s about that thing in the constitution, 2A I think it is.

Also for another poster, red flag laws are an infringement also on. It violates 4A due process, and infringing on a persons 2A when no crime has been committed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
I think the comparison between Drunk Driving and Class 3 firearms with overall gun control is simply not analogous. In the case of drunk driving, it is illegal. Simple as that. There are no additional laws being put in place in attempts to reinforce the main point. This is not true with regards to gun control. Like drinking and driving, shooting people is illegal. The comparison would be correct if we were trying to put laws into place that would PUNISH non offenders such as raising the age to buy alcohol, placing a HUGE tax on alcohol, or putting a 10 day waiting period on alcohol purchases. What if the state made it illegal for anyone deemed as 'alcoholic' to buy alcohol. Now we are talking apples to apples.

The use of the Class 3 example is ridiculous as well. Crimes are not committed with these types of weapons because literally no one get them because of cost and process constraints. Placing similar constraints on all semi automatic firearms would limit the freedom of millions of citizens for a miniscule benefit. Kinda like banning cars in attempts to prevent drunk driving accidents.

The fact is that gun control advocates simply do not want to address the real problems that are the drivers behind gun violence. Mainly because they are uncomfortable to deal with and often implicate their own constituents. Its much easier to ignore the root problems and take advantage of the chance to punish your political enemies.

The best news is that this issue is fast becoming the biggest driver of unity that we have right now. EVERYONE is out buying guns at record pace including those on the left side of the isle. Like ONeeye said, only the fringe extremists on the left are really pushing this, meanwhile, mainstream folks on both sides are buying guns at record levels. Even big, black, scary, semi-automatic guns. --------SS
Nailed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Well he couldn't have Trump being the president to implement the most gun control measures since Clinton! Of course President Biden is going to have to try and out-do his predecessor on this one, being as he ran on a gun control platform.

I agree with 1-Eye that this is a move to say "See, we did something!" I also agree with Brettski that it is a good litmus test on what he can get away with.

I think almost everyone agrees that we can and should have "reasonable" regulations of firearms. It is what "reasonable" means where we start having our differences. If not a ban, what is the next option for the left? There is very little out in the public forum beyond bans. Same goes for the right. There is lots of opposition for bans, but what "reasonable" regulations are okay?

My biggest issue is I'm tired of "feel-good" options. I don't like passing a law just so we can say we passed a law. I want it to have meaning and an impact. So much of the discussion around this topic is all "feel-good" measures and wouldn't really do anything. So why would I or should we support it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
PS- Topics like gun control will never have solutions, because neither team wants solutions. Both sides have immense amounts of money in coffers fundraised on this issue alone. If it got resolved, where would they get their money?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Doesn’t matter about need. Why do you need that 7mm, or that .308, or any gun you own for that matter. It’s about that thing in the constitution, 2A I think it is.

Also for another poster, red flag laws are an infringement also on. It violates 4A due process, and infringing on a persons 2A when no crime has been committed.
No right in the Bill of Rights (IE-constitution) is absolute and limitless. This is a principle recognized in our country for as long as the document itself has existed. So to suggest that no regulation is appropriate under the 2nd Amendment is legally and constitutionally incorrect.

Also, due process is not in the 4th Amendment. Just as an FYI.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
I love legal language and study it regularly. So I want to call to attention the Preamble of the US Constitution below:

US Constitution Preamble said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note that the Preamble immediately outlines the reasoning and purpose of creating the Constitution. But before we explore the Preamble, lets look at what the term "constitution means":

Webster's Dictionary defines Constitution as - the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it.

I think its important to understand what this term means as it sets the tone for the intent and purpose of the document. Had any other term been used to define what their intent was, then we could be having a different conversation. Imagine if it were called the "US List of Good Ideas" instead. But our forefathers were very deliberate in the verbiage and terminology they used, and they wisely chose Constitution as the operative word because they wanted to guarantee and ensure specific rights to all citizens it governs.

Now lets explore the Preamble itself. Its fascinating to consider the reasoning they used to use this document to govern the nation. It wasn't just something to govern the fledgling nation, but it was something they knew would be the cornerstone of America forever.

I think the first thing that catches my eye is that certain words are capitalized immediately tells me that there are certain things that were important to the Framers of the Constitution. In fact these were so important that they made these terms stand out (called Defined Terms in legal jargon for those interested).

So what was the purpose? I don't think it could be more plain. To ensure we are safe, secure, prosperous, and endowed with liberty (the quality or state of being free) and they knew that these points outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were necessary to secure and maintain the liberty of each and everyone of us including our Posterity (which tells me that this document was meant to live on forever and not just satisfy the needs of 1791 when it was written).

Our Founding Fathers wanted to form a national government to secure freedom from Britain, but they also wanted to ensure that this new government put fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at risk so they needed to build upon the framework outlined in the Constitution that set the ground work for government structure by establishing the Bill of Rights that solidified points that they knew were important to guarantee to citizens to prevent infringement of those unalienable rights they held so important.

Obviously the Bill of Rights encompasses many topics but for the sake of this post and for consistency, lets look at the 2nd Amendment:

Bill of Rights said:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Pay particular attention to the verbiage I underlined. They immediately call out why they feel these Amendments are important to American Citizens. They wanted "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" by telling the entities defined in the Constitution that they cannot infringe upon these rights. In fact, they actually felt so passionately about one of these rights knowing that it could dismantle democracy if it were violated that they used that text within the Amendment itself.

The first thing that stands out to me with the 2A, aside from the capitalized defined terms, is the use of commas to separate ideas or concepts that although related are uniquely separate.

I have heard many arguments that militias are the ones who should be allowed to own firearms and that the purpose of the 2A was to grant militias the right to bear arms. But I beg to differ, the commas clearly denote that although militias can bear arms, they are separate ideas linked together. It is clear that the right to keep and bear Arms (also capitalized) is guaranteed to ALL citizens.

Really the point of my rambling here is that attacks on firearms by the Washington Fatcats really isnt surprising and truthfully I dont need a firearm (life is so busy anymore), but my biggest concern is that if we crack the door open, even an inch, and are willing to give up even on of our rights, then what else will we give up in the future? We've all heard the saying "give them an inch, then you've given them a mile." So my message here is simply that we cant give an inch unless we want to give a mile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
No right in the Bill of Rights (IE-constitution) is absolute and limitless. This is a principle recognized in our country for as long as the document itself has existed. So to suggest that no regulation is appropriate under the 2nd Amendment is legally and constitutionally incorrect.

Also, due process is not in the 4th Amendment. Just as an FYI.
14. My mistake. And yes it violates both. Plain and simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
21 - 40 of 286 Posts
Top