Ryan Busse is a coward

[hossblur]

Which is a disingenuous point as neither are an assault weapon. My grandfather was at Okinawa owned a model 12… never found a grease or Tommy gun amongst his collection.

Your right. It's an actual weapon of war. And for all I know, actually killed someone.

 

[hossblur]

I'd be curious.

Are the life BHA members who got 1911's or concealed .380 from Kimber, also part of the toxic, racist gun culture. Or is it only the 511 wearing guys with similar guns?

 

[hossblur]

I think what the left needs to do is stop arguing about the 2nd, let people own what they want, it's a constitutional right.

What I would do is shove this right back on the right, put the ball in their lap. Ask them why they aren't funding mental health every time some wingnut shoots up a school, a business, a work place, a church, etc. I would bring it up after every mass shooting and rake any politician over the coals that was opposed to funding mental health, every single time.

I think there may be answers to some of the problem through proper and fully funded mental health care. It's really one of the few options to talk about that isn't an infringement of rights.

I have no issue with that, seems common sense.

Now get the lawyers to sign off on it and not sue for involuntary treatment or institutionalization.

 

[more_cowbell]

What do you think of the prospect of increased paperwork to acquire assault weapons? I think there is some middle ground there that could help prevent a few of these high profile shootings. Going forward what if we required people purchasing a semi auto centerfire rifle having an expanded background check? A few more steps in the process to prevent these troubled kids from flying under the radar?

Definitely a lot to consider and find an appropriate line/balance. Oregon is looking to push through a "permit to purchase" which a person must first acquire, before being able to later buy a firearm. (Then when buying it, they must submit to an additional background check.)

One issue that has arisen with respect to Oregon is the voter initiative M114 passed in Novemberr would give authority to local LE to be the gartekeeper on whether someone can get a permit to purchase. Some firearms owners on the "left" have expressed concern with local LE having the potential to discriminate against them (for whatever reason, including if they were arrested during the 2020 protests). This may get into how much info should LE be able to look at, when deciding whether to issue a PTP. I'd think there'd be all sorts of objections to LE accessing or reviewing an applicant's social media posts, to determine whether they've said anything acutely inflammatory, and which may DQ them from a permit to purchase/gun ownership.

This is where "increased paperwork" comes in. How much info should the State (or local sheriff) ask for and/or access to assess whether someone should even have a permit to purchase. Later on if that person wants to purchase an AR15, does that put them on a separate list, subject to higher scrutiny?

 

[hossblur]

I don’t know what the answer is but I think we need to cut the BS, the 4 Republican presidents before Trump all knew exactly what an assault weapon was and said emphatically that we should ban them. This was a bipartisan issue for decades.

IMHO a lot of folks have hook line a sinkered a marketing campaign.

Is it ok to ask what replaces the massive amount of conservation dollars generated by high volume shooters using the AR platform?

 

[more_cowbell]

More commonly the kid is raised and spends a majority of their time with a baby sitter/day care

I don't think many kids with 2 parent households are all that much better off these days.

Unfortunately I think a lot of kids are being babysat with Netflix or Disney streaming services. Then they graduate to video games, by which time their attention span is toast. Then they jump on the social media bandwagon and feel bad about themselves when they see social media influencers living their best life, or their peers doing better than them, or their peers picking on them, and they feel isolated.

 

[more_cowbell]

Like I get the field and stream catalogue a couple times a year and there’s some guns in there, but other than that, i just going see a lot of gun marketing.

Kimber for at least a few years has been advertising in RMEF Bugle magazine. Maybe Busse got that deal through

And at the range it's common to see guys wearing vests and looking like a SWAT guy just because I guess ?

Sadly, some people think John Wick is a real person...

 

[hossblur]

Which is a disingenuous point as neither are an assault weapon. My grandfather was at Okinawa owned a model 12… never found a grease or Tommy gun amongst his collection.

Probably because full auto machine guns had been outlawed before he left. I'll assume you know the difference and we're trying to be funny

 

[SAJ-99]

Agree. I’m not an NRA guy, but disagree with gabby Giffords efforts to ban all firearms. There’s not a lot of trust of gun control advocates saying we just need a “few more” reasonable regulations. States like oregon and Washington are going all out

Then why don’t the 2A advocates come up with regulations on workable solutions? I don’t like Giffords’ idea because it is simply unworkable. The common refrain is it isn’t the gun it’s the person. Fine. But where are the ideas to address that side of the issue? The NRA has never supported red-flag laws because they say it equates to government seizure and Republicans generally think all spending needs to be cut and constantly vote against the idea of more government money for mental health care. I suppose we just wait for crazy people to reach some level self actualization and turn in their guns to authorities and seek help before performing some atrocious act.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Is it ok to ask what replaces the massive amount of conservation dollars generated by high volume shooters using the AR platform?

We could add a PR-style tax to other outdoor equipment, for starters...

 

[Hawk Tuah]

I read to page 3, lost interest, and googled him to see who he was.

 

[more_cowbell]

Then why don’t the 2A advocates come up with regulations on workable solutions? I don’t like Giffords’ idea because it is simply unworkable. The common refrain is it isn’t the gun it’s the person. Fine. But where are the ideas to address that side of the issue? The NRA has never supported red-flag laws because they say it equates to government seizure and Republicans generally think all spending needs to be cut and constantly vote against the idea of more government money for mental health care. I suppose we just wait for crazy people to reach some level self actualization and turn in their guns to authorities and seek help before performing some atrocious act.

I hear what you're saying, but are there only two groups: the 2A advocates and those who want to ban all firearms like Giffords?

Red flag laws can be useful but also easily subject to abuse that's why they're tricky.

I agree more attention and money should be directed to mental health.

Don't forget the "defund the police" and "disband the police" movement. In some areas of the country, it's difficult to get anyone to respond (at least in a timely manner) to a 911 call.

There are also organizations out there whose purpose is to get people out of jail (including violent criminals), with reduced or no bail. And once in a while those released criminals do something else while on bail, and it makes the news.

This is behind a paywall, but is interesting:

Opinion | Progressives Convinced Us to Get a Gun

It’s hypocritical to urge Americans to disarm while also failing to protect them from surging crime rates.

www.wsj.com

The author wrote:

"Though as a child I sometimes resented not fitting in with my friends, I grew to accept that firearms were terrible devices that didn’t belong in our lives. As an adult, for many years I supported banning guns among civilians, even contemplating the merits of repealing the Second Amendment.

But some months ago my thinking changed again. Today, my wife has a gun that she keeps in our home. She has the necessary permits from the authorities and has trained extensively in using the gun safely. Growing up, I never imagined I would have a firearm at home. But I am reassured to have one, even if I’ve never held it myself.

Our decision to acquire a gun is due to the recent release of the man who bludgeoned my wife’s younger sister to death several decades ago. My wife fears that the murderer, released from prison during the Covid-19 pandemic by New York state’s board of parole, poses a potential threat to us.

But our decision also is due to society’s current dysfunction. Crime is surging in our city—Washington—and around the country. Vagrants wander the streets, police are reluctant to tackle criminals, and courts seem unwilling to impose serious sentences on those who break the law. Given these circumstances, owning a gun seems to be one of the few ways to feel even a semblance of personal safety. There is an irony that policies progressives espouse, such as gun control, have prompted us to have a gun in our home.

Progressives nationwide have attacked police and law enforcement, alleging that our legal system is systemically racist and oppressive. They have caused recidivist criminals to haunt our streets and commit more crimes—and have refused to deal with homelessness in spite of the mental illness and drug addictions that so often afflict our cities’ most vulnerable. Numerous efforts to reduce the use of drugs have been rebuffed in the name, of course, of racism.

This approach has unleashed a crime wave and diminished our sense of safety on the streets. It is, therefore, unsurprising to see ever more law-abiding people seeking to arm themselves. As a result, there will be more guns out there, including in the hands of people who should never be near them.

To limit guns in America, much as my father wished, policy makers should focus on the underlying problems that are generating a spike in crime. It is disingenuous and hypocritical to argue that Americans should disarm themselves while at the same time depriving them of protection against those who would inflict a kind of anarchy on us. Society can’t thrive if it won’t stand up for itself. The absence of such protection will merely lead people to take up arms themselves.

This is what is happening to our family—once vigorously anti-firearm and now reluctantly in possession of one. The ultimate concern is that a steadily arming population will someday use those weapons in a civil conflict. It would be wise to stop undermining our citizens’ security and thereby avoid such a dire fate."


I'm straying here, but point is there are now also a lot of new firearms owners. I'm sure not all of them are AR15 owners, but probably do believe in a right to be able to defend themselves (and are "not anti-2A").

 

[grizzly_]

Wait a minute 8 non english speaking house robbers

Do ARs work better on some languages than others?

 

[Sam Colt]

 

[Labman]

View attachment 278599

Don’t get me wrong here. Reagan was awesome. Probably the best pres we’ve ever had, but he wasn’t perfect. https://www.kqed.org/quest/38853/the-man-who-made-california-safe-for-mountain-lions

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is it ok to ask what replaces the massive amount of conservation dollars generated by high volume shooters using the AR platform?

I think the ship sailed banning ARs, I mean in MA they are illegal and you can only buy pre-ban ones but I can walk into any shop in the state and get one.

Don’t get me wrong here. Reagan was awesome. Probably the best pres we’ve ever had, but he wasn’t perfect. https://www.kqed.org/quest/38853/the-man-who-made-california-safe-for-mountain-lions

My point this entire thread is that our politics has ossified. IMHO it’s because our two party system is broken and everything is just to hold power not to benefit the American people.

Much of the rhetoric around assault weapons is bullshit, conservatives supported bans, the NRA didn’t support the paramilitary marketing image for decades.

At some point gun companies saw they were sitting on a goldmine, the Republican Party saw a wedge issue and here we are today.

If our country is ever to work again folks on both sides of the aisle need to start focusing on working together and solving problems and need to have a bit of intellectual honesty.

 

[grizzly_]

That is just a myth , less than 1 percent of murders are mass shootings and only a small percentage of murders are from rifles , of any kind .
Handguns are the number one weapon for murder .
99.0009 of all assault type weapons are never used in a crime .
Check the facts -

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

ucr.fbi.gov

ARs represent a small number of the overall gun murders, but a disproportionate amount of the "deadliest" shootings.

Of the 11 deadliest mass murders in US history, eight of them involved an AR. Two of the remaining three happened prior to 1985, only Virginia Tech is a mass shooting in the modern era that killed more than 15 people without an AR-style rifle. They're highly effective killing machines.

I own an AR with a silencer. I use it for predator hunting and (hopefully never) self-defense. I would turn it in to the government in a heartbeat if I thought it would save kid's lives in a school shooting. The problem is that the cat is out of the bag and there's no way they're ever seizing the 20,000,000 AR-15s already in America. The War on Guns would make the War on Drugs look like a raving success.

The problem, as I see it, is that most of the shooters bought their weapons legally. I don't know of any that bought them at gun shows without a background check, had prior convictions that would've prevented their possession of weapons, used "ghost" guns or weapons previously reported stolen, etc...

My point is that I can't see any of these proposed restrictions actually saving lives.

"Red Flag" laws are ripe for abuse by an anti-gun therapist or an estranged spouse that wants to harm their partner by claiming the partner is dangerous to themself or others. I'm not really keen on the idea of taking law-abiding citizen's constitutional rights without heavy judicial oversight... which can already be done for convicted criminals or those with certain restraining orders.

The bottom line is I don't have an answer.

 

[Cogreeny]

Do ARs work better on some languages than others?

It gets the point across when words don’t.

 

[SAJ-99]

I hear what you're saying, but are there only two groups: the 2A advocates and those who want to ban all firearms like Giffords?

Red flag laws can be useful but also easily subject to abuse that's why they're tricky.

I agree more attention and money should be directed to mental health.

Don't forget the "defund the police" and "disband the police" movement. In some areas of the country, it's difficult to get anyone to respond (at least in a timely manner) to a 911 call.

There are also organizations out there whose purpose is to get people out of jail (including violent criminals), with reduced or no bail. And once in a while those released criminals do something else while on bail, and it makes the news.

This is behind a paywall, but is interesting:

Opinion | Progressives Convinced Us to Get a Gun

It’s hypocritical to urge Americans to disarm while also failing to protect them from surging crime rates.

www.wsj.com

The author wrote:

"Though as a child I sometimes resented not fitting in with my friends, I grew to accept that firearms were terrible devices that didn’t belong in our lives. As an adult, for many years I supported banning guns among civilians, even contemplating the merits of repealing the Second Amendment.

But some months ago my thinking changed again. Today, my wife has a gun that she keeps in our home. She has the necessary permits from the authorities and has trained extensively in using the gun safely. Growing up, I never imagined I would have a firearm at home. But I am reassured to have one, even if I’ve never held it myself.

Our decision to acquire a gun is due to the recent release of the man who bludgeoned my wife’s younger sister to death several decades ago. My wife fears that the murderer, released from prison during the Covid-19 pandemic by New York state’s board of parole, poses a potential threat to us.

But our decision also is due to society’s current dysfunction. Crime is surging in our city—Washington—and around the country. Vagrants wander the streets, police are reluctant to tackle criminals, and courts seem unwilling to impose serious sentences on those who break the law. Given these circumstances, owning a gun seems to be one of the few ways to feel even a semblance of personal safety. There is an irony that policies progressives espouse, such as gun control, have prompted us to have a gun in our home.

Progressives nationwide have attacked police and law enforcement, alleging that our legal system is systemically racist and oppressive. They have caused recidivist criminals to haunt our streets and commit more crimes—and have refused to deal with homelessness in spite of the mental illness and drug addictions that so often afflict our cities’ most vulnerable. Numerous efforts to reduce the use of drugs have been rebuffed in the name, of course, of racism.

This approach has unleashed a crime wave and diminished our sense of safety on the streets. It is, therefore, unsurprising to see ever more law-abiding people seeking to arm themselves. As a result, there will be more guns out there, including in the hands of people who should never be near them.

To limit guns in America, much as my father wished, policy makers should focus on the underlying problems that are generating a spike in crime. It is disingenuous and hypocritical to argue that Americans should disarm themselves while at the same time depriving them of protection against those who would inflict a kind of anarchy on us. Society can’t thrive if it won’t stand up for itself. The absence of such protection will merely lead people to take up arms themselves.

This is what is happening to our family—once vigorously anti-firearm and now reluctantly in possession of one. The ultimate concern is that a steadily arming population will someday use those weapons in a civil conflict. It would be wise to stop undermining our citizens’ security and thereby avoid such a dire fate."


I'm straying here, but point is there are now also a lot of new firearms owners. I'm sure not all of them are AR15 owners, but probably do believe in a right to be able to defend themselves (and are "not anti-2A").

I agree. But "why" people own guns doesn't address a solution to the problem that some of those people should not be allowed near a firearm.

Red flag laws do create due process problems, but it doesn't mean there isn't some common ground to be found. Both sides just get too entrenched in the extremes to find them. I guess the hard stuff is just too hard (and there is no $$ in it for anyone).

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Is it coincidence that there is a correlation in the drastic rise in suicides and mass shootings as we are FORCED to normalize things that aren't normal? Science says these things aren't normal in fact science says it's not possible. Things like the fact that men can't give birth to a child. I know this is a touchy feely thing but the rise in this shit definitely coincides with this other garbage. Which brings me back to mental health, and the radical forceful ones in society are to blame for FORCING the normalizing of mental illnesses. These illnesses can range over a variety of things from gender dysphoria to pedophilia which im convinced there is an effort to normalize. In turn the forceful normalization of these things pisses off the radicals on the other end of the spectrum which causes suicides and shootings from that side to.

im sorry but there is a portion of society who are the loudest that live in an effing fantasy land on both sides of the coin! We live in a society where up is down, left is right, and wrong is right because of the loudest radical people.