Proposed Legislation or Initiatives To Incentivize Safe Firearm Storage

[Herb g]

Liberals are no longer liberal anymore. The new ( polite) title is progressive. There are still liberals, but they are libertarians. They still fit the definition of the word. Saul Alinsky was the first community organizer. Obama was his protege. Hillary did her masters discertation on Alinsky's works. He offered her a job, but as we see, she had bigger plans. Alinsky denied he was a communist, though he certainly did quack like a duck. Since the fall of USSR, we now know of the infiltration of our complete infrastructure during the Vietnam Nam anti-war movement - including the MSM ( remember Cronkite ). The American people took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Now, more people are beginning to ask questions, including about our schools, so there is hope. Yes, study how the enemy ticks, like they do us.

 

[Herb g]

Topic : it all still relates to who we select to represent us where it counts.

 

[justcuz]

Ah, 61 posts into the thread of words and Godwin's Law finally enters the discussion.

Further, Saul's postulated theory's were espoused for
'local community' activists pursuing grievances within their community, per se., where all local citizens can be drawn into the community consensus to alleviate the "community's plight."

There is no state level citizen understanding of consensus of any grievance(s), therefore, the subject is not germane to the majority the affected state's citizens.

The NPR discussion reached a larger group of both local & national citizens but even that discusion was significantly biased.

Look around at the discussion on this thread, held in a cloistered environment, and not one member has advocated a way forward to mitigate but rather stated hyperbole about where & whose fault it is.

As the thread now reach the point of invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[Diamondback]

Ah, 61 posts into the thread of words and Godwin's Law finally enters the discussion.

Godwin can choke on a dick while being spitroasted--he *is* a Proggie, and his "law" was coined specifically to suppress the voices of us who actually *did* pay atttention in History class and are aware that unlike the stock market, in the Real World, particularly socio-cultural, political and geopolitical, Past Performance is very much Indicative of Future Results.

 

[Mikej]

Years ago, I may have agreed with you. Now that I've seen how the left operates, I'm solidly in the "No Compromise" camp. I'm sick and tired of being blamed every time some crazy a-hole decides to go on a murdering spree. I had nothing to do with it and am in no way responsible - period. There is absolutely no reason for me to give away my rights because of the actions of a lunatic or because the left is having a hissy fit.

I'm in agreement with no compromise, but I'm not looking for anyone to agree with me. I'm making a true statement. Agree/disagree, what ever suits you. I know those people, I talk with them frequently. They DO believe we are nuts, (While fully believing THEY are in the right!). They especially believe the ones of us that say "No compromise" are nuts. We believe THEY are nuts for expecting us to just let the 2nd amendment be watered down to nothing. I've got no solution.

 

[HB of CJ]

Respectfully ... Regarding the original thread. ...

Tactics of Despair? Why give anything away? The Left only responds to shear force, be that power, money or votes. Anything else is just Whistling Dixie

A study of post WW2 in Eastern Europe is enlightening. The Commies tried and did just about everything. The tactics used today by our own USA left is similar.

I wonder why that is so.

Respectfully ...

 

[justcuz]

So, Diamondback, et al., how does/has Godwin's Law suppressed anyone's voice, but first could you specifically explain to group how any reference to the 1938 > activities is germane to this discussion so we can share your outrage about Godwin's observations.

 

[Herb g]

So, Diamondback, et al., how does/has Godwin's Law suppressed anyone's voice, but first could you specifically explain to group how any reference to the 1938 > activities is germane to this discussion so we can share your outrage about Godwin's observations.

If that's all he's got, I think Godwin's 15 minutes of fame are done. Ho-hum.

 

[3MTA3]

Respectfully ... Regarding the original thread. ...

Tactics of Despair? Why give anything away? The Left only responds to shear force, be that power, money or votes. Anything else is just Whistling Dixie

A study of post WW2 in Eastern Europe is enlightening. The Commies tried and did just about everything. The tactics used today by our own USA left is similar.

I wonder why that is so.

Respectfully ...

I must have missed something somewhere - how does the proposal give anything away? The proposal involves an incentive to purchase secure storage, training classes, and liability protections. Nobody would be forced to purchase anything or give up any rights. Nobody would have increased liability if they do not have secure storage.

 

[justcuz]

A quotation widely used in recovery programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous to gravitated into an investment proverb and mis-attributed to Franklin, Twain, as well as to Einstein, whom never uttered the phrase, is apropos:

The definition of "insanity" has been described as "doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result." Unknown

 

[nwslopoke]

I must have missed something somewhere - how does the proposal give anything away? The proposal involves an incentive to purchase secure storage, training classes, and liability protections. Nobody would be forced to purchase anything or give up any rights. Nobody would have increased liability if they do not have secure storage.

Once you give the authority or put the government in a position to say we gave you these safes or whatever locking devices, we also give them the power to say, place a red sticker 2" left of center. The device must be facing north at all times or some other ridiculous rule. Look at California gun regs if you belive this is hyperbole.

 

[bbbass]

I must have missed something somewhere - how does the proposal give anything away? The proposal involves an incentive to purchase secure storage, training classes, and liability protections. Nobody would be forced to purchase anything or give up any rights. Nobody would have increased liability if they do not have secure storage.

On the face of it, it is "common sense" gun proposal. Ask the NRA how that worked out for them.

The problem as I see it is we are letting the opposition push our buttons and make us dance. Go for it if you want, but I doubt you'll get very far anyway.

 

[GUNARCHER]

just a thought about preemption of local laws: If you would feel threatened by state wide laws and demand more restrictive laws for your "special" city, then you should be happy with a restriction that keeps you safe---you can't travel outside your protective legal bubble. Same approach that you force on gun owners.

 

[awshoot]

oneharmonic said it best:

As we stare down the barrel of IP43, and understand that every shooting event between now and November is another nail in the coffin for gun rights, we have to decide if we want to focus our time on changing the morals and values of society, or address lower hanging fruit (like secure storage).

Taking proactive steps to reduce school shootings protects gun rights -- it is the direct opposite of compromise.

There is no ground to be made arguing over why kids are shooting up schools because nobody is going to agree on what the source of the issue is. The focus should be on concrete solvable problems:

1. Prevent kids from getting guns,
2. Prevent kids who get guns from getting them in schools,
3. Prevent kids who get guns in schools from living long enough to do mass damage.

Gun owners could propose means to address each and every one of these topics through the initiative process. No compromises, no BS. The suggestion posted in this thread addresses #1. Metal detectors and other means could address #2. Multiple on-school armed personnel and features providing cover for students would address #3. None of those things are compromise. None of them require endless unresolvable arguments about how tweaking culture might affect shootings. They are direct and concrete measures to address a real problem threatening gun rights.

In contrast, the "no-compromise" slogan is being misapplied here -- what it amounts to is doing nothing to address school shootings which ultimately means doing massive damage to gun rights.

 

[Kruel J]

A quotation widely used in recovery programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous to gravitated into an investment proverb and mis-attributed to Franklin, Twain, as well as to Einstein, whom never uttered the phrase, is apropos:

The definition of "insanity" has been described as "doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result." Unknown

I'll give that one to Einstein, I think he earned it.

 

[Cavedweller]

I don't see it as a compromise -- I see it as separate independent action aimed at reducing or minimizing school shootings. As gun owners we should be interested in that if for no other reason than the fact that school shootings will tip the bulk of people in the middle, those who aren't yet Antis, into the Anti camp. At that point, you can kiss your guns goodbye or die in a firefight when they come to take them, neither of which are good outcomes. That's why I think we should focus on:

1. preventing kids from getting guns,
2. preventing kids who get guns from getting into schools,
3. preventing kids who do get guns into schools from doing mass damage.

All of these would help achieve that goal:

1. Secure firearms in such a manner that is hard for kids to get them -- safes for example.
   
2. Monitor the things kids bring into schools -- metal detectors, dress code, clear backpacks for example.
3. Ensure that any kid who gets into a school with a gun is neutralized fast -- arm teachers and if that is too politically charged, have armed guards (and more than one -- the guard should not be 100 yards away).
4. Harden schools to some extent with items that can be used as cover or architectural features that could serve a similar purpose.

That's not compromise, it as an independent solution designed to protect gun rights from the anti-gun marketing all these school shooters generate by their actions.

You could stop school shootings completely, and while that would be an admirable and worthwhile goal, it won't protect your gun rights. The gun grabbers would simply focus on other types of incidents (Las Vegas comes to mind) to advance their agenda.

 

[awshoot]

You could stop school shootings completely, and while that would be an admirable and worthwhile goal, it won't protect your gun rights. The gun grabbers would simply focus on other types of incidents (Las Vegas comes to mind) to advance their agenda.

We have three groups: 1) Gun owners; 2) non-gun owners, many of whom hold a favorable firearm position (*); 3) Antis.

The largest and legislatively most important group is #2. If we have them on our side, gun rights survive. If we don't, gun rights die. School shootings will have a disproportionate psychological impact on this group more than any other statistic. General crime probably would make that group more sympathetic to gun ownership. Suicide rates probably have little impact. Their special little sprog getting gunned down at soccer practice? That's a whole different story. There is something so shocking about school shootings that they give group #3 amazing marketing power to those in group 2, a power they would not have if such shootings were rare or non-existent.

(*) Section 2: Opinions of Gun Owners, Non-Gun Owners

However, many people who do not have guns at home are also sympathetic to the potential downsides of gun control legislation. Nearly half (49%) of those in households without guns say that stricter gun laws would give the government too much power over average citizens. A majority (55%) say that stricter gun laws would make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.

 

[Diamondback]

We have three groups: 1) Gun owners; 2) non-gun owners, many of whom hold a favorable firearm position (*); 3) Antis.

The largest and legislatively most important group is #2. If we have them on our side, gun rights survive. If we don't, gun rights die. School shootings will have a disproportionate psychological impact on this group more than any other statistic. General crime probably would make that group more sympathetic to gun ownership. Suicide rates probably have little impact. Their special little sprog getting gunned down at soccer practice? That's a whole different story. There is something so shocking about school shootings that they give group #3 amazing marketing power to those in group 2, a power they would not have if such shootings were rare or non-existent.

(*) Section 2: Opinions of Gun Owners, Non-Gun Owners

Which explains why school shootings and the defeat of legislation for actually effective countermeasures are so important to the Antis... they want, need and DEPEND ON them to keep the sheeple herded their way.

 

[awshoot]

Which explains why school shootings and the defeat of legislation for actually effective countermeasures are so important to the Antis... they want, need and DEPEND ON them to keep the sheeple herded their way.

Absolutely -- which is why I think we should move forward without the Antis and propose our own initiatives designed to prevent/minimize school shootings.

 

[Diamondback]

I like the John Lott option: "More Guns, LESS Crime." Ask them why they hate the *proven* Federal Flight Deck Officer framework that has worked so well allowing carefully selected, trained and armed *volunteers* to keep our airliners safe...