Would you give up some of your gun rights to allow elimination of bans or restrictions imposed in some States or municipalities?

2015-12-11T21:21:58-05:00

Would you be willing to part with "all or nothing" philosophy on gun ownership if this allowed firearms ownership in places where the guns are banned or severely restricted (i.e., NYC)?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 10:00 PM

2015-12-11T22:00:23-05:00

Let's see....
1. Guns used in San Bernardino were banned, by name, in California.
2. High capacity magazines used were illegal.
3. Guns were purchased illegally by another person (straw purchase).
4. Pretty sure pipe bombs were illegal.
5. Criminals in NYC don't have any weapons, because it is illegal.

Would criminals and terrorists follow any new gun laws if passed? Probably not.

If new gun laws would keep guns off the streets, let's pass some more legislation to keep meth and other illegal drugs off the streets. That will definitely work.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Dec 12 at 2015 10:52 AM

2015-12-12T10:52:58-05:00

Not only No! But HELL NO! give an inch they will take a mile! enforce the laws we have before making new ones.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2015 4:42 PM

2015-12-12T16:42:49-05:00

Hard to argue with overwhelming and passionate responses. Anyone dares to opine differently? But please, keep it civil.

Response by SSG Chris B. made Dec 12 at 2015 4:51 PM

2015-12-12T16:51:09-05:00

No. Giving up any part of your rights for the perceived safety of others only leads to the eventual loss of those rights to all.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Dec 12 at 2015 5:21 PM

2015-12-12T17:21:11-05:00

I think this supports my position! I propose eliminating ALL EXEMPTIONS FROM ANY ANTI-GUN LAWS, The president, the Majority of Congress, The Lame Stream Propaganda Mill, the Public Indoctrination system and the U.S. Jurists and Lawyers, now are supporting gun control. But of course they want to be exempted from all gun control themselves. They want to be able to own, carry, have the right to have assigned armed security, and the right to hire (at taxpayer expense) armed security. Since their position is guns are dangerous and should be outlawed, Disband the Secret Service and Congressional Police, transfer their personnel to other short handed law enforcement units. Confiscate all firearms from anti gun politicians and all anti gun supporters and organizations. Prohibit them from hiring armed security, or being assigned armed security. Place an open ended moratorium on all new gun legislation until all existing gun laws are funded and enforced with no exceptions, or repealed! Then new laws should have to cite Constitutional authority, source and funding amount to enforce the law, and designate the enforcing agency. Only then should the bill be debated, if passed the continued enforcement of the law must be upheld for all, if "Financial Constraints" reduce or eliminate funding to enforce the law it must be automatically repealed!
Over the Last 6 Years - 92% of Mass Shootings have Come in "Gun Free Zones"!

Tim Brown 14 October 2015

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) recently released a report that indicates that since January of 2009 to July 2014 92% of all mass shootings in the US occurred in gun-free zones.
The CPRC report was released to combat the liars over at Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg, communist gun grabbing organization. According to Everytown, who pushed a gun safety study claiming that only 14% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones, 86% of mass shootings have occurred in places where guns are allowed.
In its presentation, the CPRC report, put out by John R. Lott, Jr. and Rebekah C. Riley, claim, "Everytown's recent analysis of mass shootings is riddled with errors. Mistakes are made on the number of mass shootings as well as the extent of mental illness, the killers' ages, and even where the attacks occurred. Those errors occurred because they did not do a complete news search on each case. They made simple accounting errors and included cases that did not fit their claimed criteria (4 or more shooting deaths). Also, their arbitrary definition of "assault weapons" seems chosen to obtain the results that fit their ideological agenda. Their numbers should not be relied on for any type of policy analysis."
So, let's be honest here, because clearly Everytown was not. They did not make errors. They made calculated deceptive claims. In the vernacular, they lied, and they know it.
According to the CPRC report, Everytown's claims of 86% of mass shootings occurring outside of gun-free zones is because of their "inclusion of attacks in private homes" and "numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves."
bloomberg-mayors-against-illegal-gunsNot only does Everytown's report fail to identify cities that infringe on citizens' rights to carry a gun, but they also fail to distinguish between citizens and police officers who carry guns.
The CPRC report also takes the time to educate ignorant people about so-called "assault rifles."
"It may seem obvious that using assault weapons would result in far more victims than if other types of guns had been used," reads the report. "After all, firearms such as the AR-15 and the AK-47 are 'militarystyle weapons.' But the key word is 'style'—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original federal assault weapon ban were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns."
"The civilian version of the AR-15 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage," the report continues. "The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. The civilian version of these guns is hunting rifles. They have just been made to look like military weapons."

This is important because the call from gun grabbers pushes the fear of scary looking weapons, when the rest of us gun owners understand they're really just "cool" looking. But here's an important question, are there more fatalities when these kinds of guns are used? CPRC answers:
"Mass public shootings vary greatly and averages can be misleading. Except for the tragedy at Newtown, the typical attack with an assault weapon actually results in slightly fewer deaths than shootings with other types of guns. That one attack greatly skews the results as Adam Lanza used an assault weapon to kill 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as his mother. When all mass public shootings are counted, the average number killed with assault weapons is 10.2 per attack versus 6.5 in a non-assault weapon attack. Excluding the Newtown shooting, assault weapons are actually associated with slightly fewer fatalities -- 6 versus 6.5."
So, sticking to the actual definitions of what a mass shooting is (four or more injured or dead in a single shooting), CPRC takes the same data, but deals with it fairly and demonstrates that Everytown is pulling a Climate Change data fraud on the American people. In the same manner that Climate Change should be dismissed as being advanced by Communists, the same can be said of the anti-gun push by Bloomberg's communist organization Everytown for Gun Safety.
Climate Change isn't about the environment. It's about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well. In the end, it matters not what the numbers spell either way, as the restrictions on government over the rights of the citizens continues to remain in black and white in Article 2 of the Bill of Rights… "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Dec 12 at 2015 8:04 PM

2015-12-12T20:04:56-05:00

I've given up my rights for 20 years already to defend other's rights. I will not give my rights up any further since I have paid that cost already.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Dec 12 at 2015 8:48 PM

2015-12-12T20:48:29-05:00

I'll give up no rights. Period.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 12 at 2015 11:11 PM

2015-12-12T23:11:21-05:00

Nope...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2015 2:32 AM

2015-12-13T02:32:53-05:00

No. Many people make their residency decisions based on the benefits and restrictions of the state (taxes, gun rights, etc.). If the citizenry cannot see the relationship of crime rates to the onerous gun control legislation in those states, then they deserve the lot they have chosen to live in. My 2nd Amendment rights are not open to a socialist agenda of my giving up some of my freedom so that someone else has more because they refuse to stand up for their rights and hold their elected officials accountable.

Response by PO2 Ron Burling made Dec 13 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-12-13T12:52:44-05:00

I am 69 yrs old, and a broken down ex-cop. One of the real lessons I have learned is this; Gun Control Laws do not work. They serve only to disarm those who obey such laws, while doing nothing to reduce crime. I am part of the crowd that says no more new gun laws.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 8:33 PM

2015-12-14T20:33:37-05:00

Having moved from VA to CA last year I see a considerable different in gun right ownerships and purchasing process.....I prefer to leave my little collection as is.

Response by SPC Andrew Craig made Dec 14 at 2015 11:51 PM

2015-12-14T23:51:00-05:00

hell no, not giving another inch to the antigun weirdos. if things were done correctly and constitutionally then absolutely everything would be legal. i'd be driving to work in a patton with the main gun loaded. lol. seriously any gun law at all is one to many. our rights have already been infringed. if one right can be taken away and then resold back to you in the form of a permit, then what stops the government from doing the same with any other right?

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Dec 15 at 2015 10:49 AM

2015-12-15T10:49:33-05:00

The problem is we have already given up to much, and received NOTHING in return. I support going back to the Bill of Rights and making them understand what "shall not be infringed" means. It is not about hunting, it is not about sport shooting, it is not about home defense. It IS about protecting this country against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. And to the idiots that claim it's out-dated and only represents muskets...then get off your phone and computer, because they weren't around when the 1st was written either.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 4:08 PM

2015-12-15T16:08:09-05:00

The uncommon sense of how to fix the mess with gun laws, independent and free from the opinion of a local sherif or police commissioner. This one sided discussion against relinquishing even a tiny bit of gun rights has been a learning exercise for me that made me understand better the total opposition to any gun laws. Simply put, the 2nd amendment guarantees every citizen the right to bear arms against enemies foreign and domestic and has nothing to do with sport or hunting. I get it! However, I believe the 2nd amendment should not be a license to issue a firearm to every moron that has not been properly trained and vetted.

Many countries in Europe, particularly those with draft laws, introduce mandatory fire arms courses at 8th grade and then in high school. It is mostly 22LR but the system teaches safety handling, shooting skills, and respect for a deadly weapon. I wish this system was introduced in our high schools but I realize it's an utopian idea.

The next best thing would be mandatory firearms safety classes/courses prior to purchase. We have NRA safety courses in some places but I think it should be mandatory for every one buying firearm for the first time, spare the soldiers and cops. The instructors should also have the right to fail an applicant just like in the driver school. Who else is better equipped to spot an idiot or an absolute Rambo nut. Of course the applicant would have the right to appeal or adjudicate his/her case (preferably in the presence of a psychologist). The instructors should be independent from any gun selling activity and not be incentivized to pass the applicant.

And above all, it should be a federal law that would prevent places like California, D.C., or NYC from doing their own restricting and banning.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 1:15 PM

2015-12-30T13:15:16-05:00

No, and I try to ensure I only go places that don't restrict the guns that I own.

Response by PO2 Ralph Parris made Jan 2 at 2016 2:00 PM

2016-01-02T14:00:45-05:00

Not a chance! Even as an LEO and firearms instructor, I believe the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on this subject. While I always encourage and highly recommend training, I do not see it as a mandatory precursor to firearms ownership. It is simply a citizens rights.

Response by PO2 Ralph Parris made Jan 2 at 2016 2:13 PM

2016-01-02T14:13:58-05:00