Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: When will America's gun laws be set by our hearts & not by the gun makers, the national rabid association & koc h & alec

Posted 2 years ago on July 21, 2012, 6:19 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


when we completely stop corporate crapitalist money from buying our nation

34 Comments

34 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Is there any reason to think that a war on guns will be any more successful than the failed war on drugs? No, stop wasting time with this gun control nonsense.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

We have to be sure that it happens again and again.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Reasonable gun laws are needed now! close the gun show/private sale loophole. increase penalties for sale/possession of illegal guns.

It's the only way.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

I posted this on another thread a few days ago. It bears repeating.

Depending on who’s numbers you believe, there are between 220 and 340 million privately owned guns in America today. There are an estimated 85 million gun owners in the US. Earlier this year two major gun manufactures (S&W and Ruger) had a million order backlog and suspended new orders to catch up. The best selling gun right now is small, almost pocket size 9MM pistol; followed by the AR-15 and similar assault rifles.

Last year, 2011, was a banner year for gun sales and 2012 is looking to outpace it. Guns are selling like hot cakes. Also, gun laws are trending toward more gun rights rather than more gun restrictions. Almost every State has some type of conceal carry license and some have legal open carry. Good or bad, Americans love their guns

I’m a gun enthusiast, and this worries even me. I’m afraid there are millions of people walking around armed who have virtually no training on when or how to properly use a weapon. I mean people who maybe shot fifty or sixty rounds and never give any serious thought what they would do in a self defense situation. Then there’s the random cowboy walking around hoping someone will mess with them so he can pull a weapon.

The lack of required training to own a gun is way too lax. Rather than a one day class it should be month long class involving defensive shooting strategies, what happens after you shoot, how to properly carry a weapon and so on. I know I’d feel better knowing people were trained.

Gun owners are paranoid about the “gun grabbers” coming to confiscate their weapons. That’s partly why every time a mass shooting occurs they rush out and buy more guns. Just in case the feds outlaw some guns they will be grandfathered in with their current guns.

Personally I’m not worried about the feds confiscating guns. Too many guns and too many gun owners. Just couldn’t be done. However, I am worried the gun grabbers will nickel and dime us. They’ll try to outlaw semi-auto rifles (AR’s. AK’s and the like), then reduce magazine capacity, outlaw some types and caliber of ammo (.45, .50 and 10MM caliber and hollow-point ammo). Then require unnecessary features such as manual safeties, staging triggers, magazine removal disconnects, etc…

So, as I said before, for good or bad Americans love their guns. It doesn’t much matter if you or I like it or not. Probably not going to change anytime soon. Think about it, if everyone else has a gun, would you want to be the only one without the ability to defend yourself?

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

As far as I'm concerned we should make an effort to uphold the first part of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") rather than doing away with the second ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and that would solve a lot of our firearms issues.

What I'd like to see us do is set up a basic 3.5-month training program over the summer following the senior year of high school providing the basic skills required to make someone an asset rather than a liability in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) or natural disaster (far more likely on a local or regional level). I'm thinking of having everyone learn basic CPR and EMT training, basic physical fitness training, exposure to disaster-like scenarios in order to teach people to keep their heads when things go to pieces, and of course firearms sense. How to shoot a gun, how to shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, how to defend yourself with a firearm (or hand-to-hand) without accidentally ventilating your walls or your neighbor or the bystanders down the street (something that was touched on earlier in a firearms thread on another forum), and so on. Successful completion of the program would lead to the issuance of a conceal-and-carry permit valid for one or two handguns as well as a possession license for long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.) After the program is completed people would remain "on reserve" for a period of years ("on reserve" meaning a couple days a month of training and the possibility of standing in for or assisting the National Guard if something happens).

I wouldn't change the rules about background checks and waiting periods prior to obtaining a gun, nor the requirement that people register and keep track of their firearms, and I would make it seriously illegal to pull a firearm while legally intoxicated, or to draw within 100 feet of an establishment selling or serving intoxicating liquors, a school or daycare, and most other property on which concealed carry is currently a violation of federal law (with exceptions for situations in which the life or personal property of an innocent is in danger). Furthermore, I'd continue the practice of attaching significantly elevated penalties to crimes in which firearms were displayed or used, and possibly increase such penalties in certain cases.

The whole point of what I described above is to find a rational solution to the firearms problem that most people can accept. I want to see us embrace a culture in which responsible firearm ownership is allowed and encouraged, but use of firearms for negligent or criminal purposes is treated as a serious breach of the people's trust and discouraged (and punished) accordingly. By providing basically universal training and making permit availability contingent on completion of such training, this plan would encourage most of the population to earn the right to use a firearm while at the same time cracking down on people who misuse guns or have no clue what they're doing. Furthermore, having training that encompasses more than just how to use a firearm but also how to respond on the fly to dangerous situations should both reduce the number of times that guns pop out because people are nervous or angry, and ensure that in the event of another attack like Aurora the potential victims are both armed and trained and thus less likely to die.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

That, my friend, is one of the best ideas I’ve ever heard on the gun issue. It’s so simple it’s genius. I think both sides of the gun argument would embrace it. I’ve never heard of a gun owner complaining about more training; and the anti-gun folks should feel more comfortable.

As I said earlier I’m a gun enthusiast (or gun nut if you prefer). I own lots of guns, of all types, from old west collectables to ,modern day combat weapons. Guns are my hobby. I subscribe to a number of gun forums; and with your permission I’d like to share your post (without the name or source) and see what the feedback from other gun nuts. I predict they’ll agree with you. So how do we implement your idea?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Feel free to share it, and I'd be very interested to hear what they think about the idea. As far as implementation is concerned, I'd write the mandate and minimum training standards into federal law, then redirect funding from the current DOD budget to the National Guard on the state level and earmark it for the creation of civilian summer training programs.

The programs themselves would be the responsibility of the state National Guard units, which would be given the funding and authority to open local and regional training facilities such that physical proximity to training locations would not present undue hardship for anyone wishing to go. Ideally, the program would begin in the middle of May and wrap up by late August, allowing completion of training immediately following secondary education (although people of all ages and experience levels would be welcome, from high school students wishing to participate in JROTC to middle-aged men and women).

Participation would be universal (although standard rules for conscientious objectors would apply), and the exact standards to be met for a person to be considered to have successfully completed the program would be left up to the states (although there would be federally set minimum standards and a federally enforceable obligation on the states not to arbitrarily set standards ridiculously high to de facto restrict gun ownership). Furthermore, failing the firearms part of the course would mean not receiving firearms licenses (although it would be acceptable to repeat the course as many times as necessary to obtain licenses).

Basically, once people successfully complete their initial training with the National Guard they would then become part of an informal home guard. They wouldn't have police or military authority, but they would be responsible for handling accidents or disasters until the relevant authorities (police, fire, EMT, National Guard proper, etc.) showed up, and in case of severe disasters they could be asked to stand alongside the National Guard units. They would be responsible for going to a couple of training days a month up until the age of 45, but they would not be available for domestic or foreign deployment, not subject to the UCMJ, and so on. They would in fact be a true citizen response force, and neither I nor anyone else I can think of would have a problem with them being quite well-armed.

As for the training facilities, during the eight or nine months out of the year they're not employed in training they would be kept on an absolute skeleton staff except for the days in which they'd be used for training exercises (mostly home guard people, but there's no reason not to have joint exercises with the National Guard).

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

I'm going to share both your posts on a a few gun forums (without name and source). I'll get back to you in a two or three days.

I think the only people who might not like it are the true paranoid folks who don't trust the government on anything. Talk to you soon.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

law 1 every gun must be registered like a car law 2 every gun owner must be licenced like a driver law 3 every gun sold without a registration or to an unlicensed buyer has a punalty of $100,000
law 4 the police will buy any un-registered gun at full retail { note - all "legal" guns will be registered so no one is going to steal a gun to sell to the police }

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Reasonable gun control WILL save lives.

Support reasonable gun control. Vote out republicans

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

What we need to do is get rid of the police. they kill more people than gun owners by far. Reasonable gun control is an oxymoron anyway.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who will "protect & serve"?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

The police don't protect & serve now. Private security & law arrangements should be allowed. People that we can choose to hire & fire.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What if we have no money?. Do we not get police service.?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

If your going to ask about money the question should be how can we afford the present bloated PDs we now have? The answer is we can't. The system I advocate gives everyone a chance to actually be protected rather than abused & controlled.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What about poor people.? Do they get no police service?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Now the "service" the poor get is police abuse. Under my system there will be no govt police to deliver "service" to anyone. Private security arrangements will be made by everyone including the poor.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How will they pay for service if they are poor?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

By taking the money they're forced to give to their govt oppressors & using it secure their neighborhoods. Additionally, there is the do it yourself route of securing an area, along the lines of the Guardian Angels, for example.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Aaahhh! civilian neighborhood watch. Stand your ground? Zimmerman? Trayvon? Sounds wonderful.

Sounds like people who can't afford police service are on their own in your systemn. The wild west. I don't think the smart thing is to to go backwards 150 yrs.

Certainly improvements in policing, and protections of our civil rights from govt police intrusions must be considered. I think you are talkin about saving money, and what you suggest would cost more and create more threats to privacy so I have to disagree.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

Peace, Love, & Solidarity.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Oh, so you want more Rodney Kings, Abner Louimas, Kelly Thomas, ad nauseum. You're babbling nonsense. The police are out of control. I'm talking about providing protection & you're defending the abusers! Get real. http://youtu.be/QSabELADB-I

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're not making sense.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

To you I'm sure I don't, 'nuff said.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Well you know the old story.First they came for your drugs and you say nothing.Then they came for your privacey and you say nothing.What else are they coming for?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

your money

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 2 years ago

When will people stop voting on fact based issues with their hearts rather than looking at empirical data, and the rules of unintended consequences. OWS of all groups should understand that giving more power to people to take your last line of defense, your claws away, and those people have completely and utterly demonstrated themselves to be absolutely corrupt and in opposition to YOU. You don't think there will be any unintended consequences..??? Seriously? At this point, not a good idea. That's my professional opinion.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

a gun ban doesn't stop murder.

And this is coming from someone who doesn't own a gun.

I don't see how gun laws will prevent murder.

No hand gun, no assault rifle... then he uses a shot gun which blows people in half. No shot gun, then he uses a bolt action rifle. No guns, then he uses homemade explosives or knives, or poison.

War on guns would fail as hard as war on drugs.

It would put more people in prison for no reason but owning something. Murder is already illegal.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I don't buy that parallel
My parallel is driving:
If you own a gun, register it
If you own a gun, get training & prove you know how to savely use it & get licensed


you can't register or license your illegal drugs


besides if we legalize drugs, who should we put in the thousands of empty cells to support the prison industrial complex?
ask wayne

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You said "If you own a gun, register it. If you own a gun, get training & prove you know how to savely use it & get licensed "

I agree with that fully actually.

That is not what your political cartoon is suggesting though

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I read the cartoon as the national repugnant association
shilling for ITS MASTERS
the gun manufacturers

[-] 1 points by NoCoOptingOWS (3) 2 years ago

bensdad is a dedicated two-party tyranny propagandist who rarely posts anything here that doesn't look and read like a paid political advertisement for the current corporate-controlled fascist regime.

Learn more about his propaganda tactics here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption/

This forum is for OWS Revolutionaries. Get the fuck out, bensdad!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6463) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How long before they say we should arm movie goers?

In AZ they have already said that about schools after VA Tech, we have passed laws to allow students be arm in class. Calling this crazy is an insult to crazy.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

ADULTS who realize there are a lot of crazy people out there and they dont want them coming into their home and doing something to their family.

You will never be able to get them out of the hands of the criminals, never. Will never get the criminals to register them.

If you are worried about the people who are responsible registering them, I think your worries are misplaced.

The gov cannot control supply and demand. Abortion, guns, drugs, prostitution, and back in the day prohibition. It can take it out of the mainstream, but it cannot control the black/gray market.

I think we need to take a look at our culture as a whole. Video games, TV, and music all FILLED with violence. Filled with it. Its everywhere.

I dont think you can ever really stop the random instances of random killing. But the other 14k murders in a country who is supposed to be pretty damn well off is very worrisome, especially once the money runs out.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreed.!

This is a great issue to flush out the partisan republicans. They are vicious about it. Nothing seems more important to them. People cuold starve, go homeless, or by gunned down, and they would not be as passionate about those issues as they are tokeep their guns.

It's psychotic.

Peace