Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Gun Thread
Author Message
JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 232
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #1
The Gun Thread
"Imagine a country that loved its guns more than its children."

Can we please finally have an honest, fact-based debate about guns in this country? Sadly, I know the answer is probably not.
02-16-2018 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #2
RE: The Gun Thread
Relevant caveat: I've never fired a gun, partly because of opportunity (the ROTC firing range in Autry isn't used anymore [though I've been in it], so I didn't get to try shooting in a convenient, well-supervised situation the way my mom did when she was at Rice), and partly because of lack of self-trust (I'm not the most coordinated individual, even though I was a percussionist).

It seems to me that the Second Amendment made perfect sense at the time, and to a certain extent still does--but I think we need to have a serious conversation about the adjective clause "well regulated."

A not-good-but-best-I-can-come-up-with analogy: the right to travel was so fundamental that it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights, but we have pretty strict (compared to guns, anyway) regulations on who's allowed to drive. And the increase in power and danger to others from riding a horse to driving an SUV seems roughly commensurate to the increase in power and danger from a 1700s musket to an AR-15.

I'd support explicit limits as to how much ammunition you can buy in a single purchase. I'd also be in favor of that being tracked as well as gun purchases, with rules on how much ammo you can buy in a given period anywhere (so, if you maxed out your limit on Thursday, your max allowed would decrease somewhat to purchase on Friday--something like how credit agencies will dock you for checking your score too much).

I'd support universal background checks, including giving access to background check lookup for private sales (e.g. have the actual exchange of money and goods take place at a gun store, where the owner can run the check for you--I imagine the neutral-territory exchange would be something both buyer and seller would want, too).

I'd support fairly strict shooter's ed training, including going over specific rules and issues with guns, equivalent to driver's ed. Much like driver's ed, I'd support this coming from either a government class, or private school, or parental supervision (I'd explicitly encourage the NRA to sponsor shooter's ed around the country, even--similar to how they behaved before the schism and they primarily turned into. effectively, a political action committee).

I'd support a law for semiautomatic weapons similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And I'd support a three-day waiting period between attempt to purchase and sale. This would help the most, I think, in helping prevent suicide by gun--most suicidal ideation is spur-of-the-moment (see: the story of the person who survives jumping off a bridge who says they did it because it suddenly came to them), and this would help impede that.
02-16-2018 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #3
RE: The Gun Thread
Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.
02-16-2018 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #4
RE: The Gun Thread
I think there are lots of things that can be done and the argument that none of them (collectively or individually) will completely stop gun violence is a pretty stupid argument. Do politicians on either side take that approach to any other issue other than gun violence?

I grew up with a rifle and later added a shotgun. I shot the rifle plenty and received a safety certification in middle school. I went duck hunting a few times and was terrible (I was good at moving, and the ducks were good at spotting my movement and flying the other direction). Never hunted with the rifle. I grew up in Alaska where tons of people have guns. Now I live in New Orleans where tons of people have guns. There are tons and tons of guns everywhere. I think that is a problem.

Lately, I have been pondering the meaning of "to keep and bear arms." Doesn't say anything about bullets, musket balls, or shotgun shells. Does that mean people can buy whatever and how many ever guns they want, but the government can regulate the hell out of bullet production and purchase?
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2018 11:46 AM by mrbig.)
02-16-2018 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #5
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 11:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are lots of things that can be done and the argument that none of them (collectively or individually) will completely stop gun violence is a pretty stupid argument. Do politicians on either side take that approach to any other issue other than gun violence?

I grew up with a rifle and later added a shotgun. I shot the rifle plenty and received a safety certification in middle school. I went duck hunting a few times and was terrible (I was good at moving, and the ducks were good at spotting my movement and flying the other direction). Never hunted with the rifle. I grew up in Alaska where tons of people have guns. Now I live in New Orleans where tons of people have guns. There are tons and tons of guns everywhere. I think that is a problem.

Lately, I have been pondering the meaning of "to keep and bear arms." Doesn't say anything about bullets, musket balls, or shotgun shells. Does that mean people can buy whatever and how many ever guns they want, but the government can regulate the hell out of bullet production and purchase?

It says "arms", not guns, even though that is the common assumption. But I would assume that 'arms" would include ammo. Sounds like a legal argument to me. Maybe we could sell guns without triggers. Nobody ever said we could not regulate parts.

I don't think anybody says that even complete illegalization of guns would stop gun violence, just abate it. Nor would it stop violence in general. Would it stop mass shootings? Likely so, but not individual violence. Not many guns in prison, but lots of violence, some deadly.
02-16-2018 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #6
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.

In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
02-16-2018 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #7
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 11:45 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I think there are lots of things that can be done and the argument that none of them (collectively or individually) will completely stop gun violence is a pretty stupid argument. Do politicians on either side take that approach to any other issue other than gun violence?

I grew up with a rifle and later added a shotgun. I shot the rifle plenty and received a safety certification in middle school. I went duck hunting a few times and was terrible (I was good at moving, and the ducks were good at spotting my movement and flying the other direction). Never hunted with the rifle. I grew up in Alaska where tons of people have guns. Now I live in New Orleans where tons of people have guns. There are tons and tons of guns everywhere. I think that is a problem.

Lately, I have been pondering the meaning of "to keep and bear arms." Doesn't say anything about bullets, musket balls, or shotgun shells. Does that mean people can buy whatever and how many ever guns they want, but the government can regulate the hell out of bullet production and purchase?

It says "arms", not guns, even though that is the common assumption. But I would assume that 'arms" would include ammo. Sounds like a legal argument to me. Maybe we could sell guns without triggers. Nobody ever said we could not regulate parts.

I don't think anybody says that even complete illegalization of guns would stop gun violence, just abate it. Nor would it stop violence in general. Would it stop mass shootings? Likely so, but not individual violence. Not many guns in prison, but lots of violence, some deadly.

I can't tell what position you're advocating at the end - that because stricter gun control wouldn't result in a total elimination of gun violence, that we shouldn't take steps to reduce it?

Personally, like with most things, I think a complete and total prohibition of something will not result in the exact desired effect. Like you said OO, a complete ban on guns would not completely stop gun violence. However, putting well-thought out regulations and laws in place can help curb problems. And some regulations are better than others at curbing those problems.

I'd advocate for changes in laws that make it more difficult for people to legally buy guns across the board, but do not result in responsible people who have no history of domestic violence, to purchase guns. Things like requiring training/certification courses prior to buying a gun come to mind.

I'd also advocate for an increase in funding to whichever organization deals with illegal gun sales, so that they could then focus on those people who are unwilling or unable to legally purchase guns, but still want to do so.

This is pretty much my stance on things like pot - let people do them, provide assistance/support if they become an issue, keep things in the light of day for those who want to abide by the law, and go after those individuals that don't want to.

No solution will completely stop gun violence, but I would like to at least try something and see if it reduces it.
02-16-2018 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #8
RE: The Gun Thread
It doesn't take many rounds to commit mass murder. Less than one box of ammunition will do. Limiting quantities purchased wouldn't really do any good.
02-16-2018 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #9
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.

In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.
02-16-2018 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #10
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.

In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.

For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?
02-16-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 01:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  It doesn't take many rounds to commit mass murder. Less than one box of ammunition will do. Limiting quantities purchased wouldn't really do any good.

Disagree wholeheartedly and some law like this doing NO good. You're right that it would not stop all mass murders, but that isn't the point.

Look at the Paddock, the Vegas shooter. He began stockpiling both guns and ammunition leading up to the shooting. I saw an article that said he bought something like 20 guns in the past year and had over 5,000 rounds of ammo in his hotel room.

These types of laws have the effect of changing behavior of law abiding citizens and then highlighting those who are not. Paddock would either have been flagged (triggering an investigation) or denied the ability to purchase enough ammo to injure ~500 people.
02-16-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #12
RE: The Gun Thread
Paddock would have been slowed a bit (although it's worth noting that some of his ammunition was purchased illegally), but the recent school shooter would have been unaffected.
02-16-2018 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.

In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.

For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?

I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.
02-16-2018 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #14
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.

In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.

For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?

I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.

You currently have to jump through more hoops and prove more competency to legally operate a car than a gun. I'm more than comfortable with regulating gun use in a manner that is just as strict as vehicle use. And I don't think the slippery slope argument is strong enough to advocate against that.
02-16-2018 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
baker-'13 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #15
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since B-13 gave a bit of background, so will I:

My Dad bought me my first gun at age 12, and taught me the right things to do with it.At age 14, I got my driver's licence, and would often drive to a relatively remote ranch to hunt. I currently own four guns, all rifles and shotguns, including that first one my Dad got me 60 years ago. I have not fired any of them in 35 years, and gave up hunting in my thirties. Just no interest.

The most recent shooter passed a background check, and I think the shooting occurred more than 3 days after he bought the gun. No sure how the ammo limits would help, unless they had an annual limit and covered the whole state, otherwise all that needs to be done is multiple trips to multiple stores.

The only solution I can offer is that mental health professionals should be required to report mentally unstable people do they can be put on a No Buy list. Maybe require school counselors do the same. But some way must exist for people to get off those lists, too.

Here is something interested and related:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/what...li=BBnb7Kz

Also, I heard a commentator last night advocating the Israeli way of preventing school shootings: apparently they do two things: lock the doors, and have several teachers assigned to concealed carry. Not all the teachers, just a random 3 or 4. But it struck me that I have never heard of a school shooting in Israel, while I have heard of a massacre of dozens of kids in Sweden.

In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.

For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?

I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.

While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.

There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.

It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.
02-16-2018 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #16
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 02:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Paddock would have been slowed a bit (although it's worth noting that some of his ammunition was purchased illegally), but the recent school shooter would have been unaffected.

Agreed - but that is why I said that the argument that ammunition limits would have no affect was false. I don't think there is a single silver bullet, but I think a combination of changes to how we regulate firearms could have a net positive effect, and I see no reason not to try.

Look at seat belt laws. These laws don't stop people from wearing seat belts, but people who don't wear a seat belt can be pulled over and ticketed for not doing so. I believe research indicates that these laws have increased seat belt use overall and led to decreases in deaths in traffic accidents. This is a perfect example of a law that won't have a 100% efficacy rate, but was still implemented because it would have a net positive effect.
02-16-2018 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #17
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 02:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  In response to the section I bolded: this is what I was trying to get at with the credit-score-like thing. I.e. if it was known that you'd bought x amount of ammo yesterday, you'd only be allowed to buy y amount today, where y < x.

I wanted an adaptation of the National Firearms Act to address things like this specifically. At one point in this country, we decided that it should be difficult to purchase machines of warfare, so we made a law to do it. Semi-automatics seem to have taken this role now. I'd like to believe that we can stand up and agree that we should make it harder for school shootings to happen again.

I'd also support guidelines limiting the amount of breathless coverage that the details of the shooter receive, because I personally think that part of why this keeps happening is because people see it as a way to go out in a blaze of glory. If you take the glory away, that could help discourage things like this. (We see this in other countries' press coverage of terrorist-like events in their country.) But I'm not sure how to enforce that, since government enforcement of it would run up against freedom of the press. If Broadcast Standards among the news networks could agree to it, that'd be wonderful, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.

For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?

I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.

While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.

There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.

It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.

As they say: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
02-16-2018 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #18
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 02:59 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:49 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The time period is important - that's why I went annual. If a person can buy X amount of ammo weekly/daily/monthly, then how many long will it take before he thinks he has enough to terrorize a school? One purchase may be enough, or if he has been hoarding for a while, he may have enough already. How much is enough? Most shooters leave unexpended ammo.

the number for X is important, too. If a person is limited to one box, that can be 50 rounds. if he is limited to three shells, that may not be enough for legitimate purposes such as target shooting or hunting. what if he is a biathlete? And should X cover all calibers? What about shotguns? Same umbrella or different one? If the potential shooter has a 30.06 and a .228, should the limit X apply to each caliber or all calibers?

The LV guy had multiple guns and calibers.

For sure. As I explained in my background, I don't know enough about shooting to necessarily know if these things will definitely work. That's part of why I'm mentioning them--so that people with more experience can pass on useful information (like this--I appreciate the response).

Not gonna lie, part of the inspiration for the ammo limit was Chris Rock's bit about it.

I agree with your assessment on mental health, though I'd note that most people with mental health issues are not necessarily a danger to themselves or others (and that bringing up mental health as a thing to address in these situations, while important, helps stigmatize mental illness).

My worry there would be the potential for doc-shopping to find someone who will clear you regardless of whether your status has actually changed. Similarly, if it was strictly governmental, there'd be the chance for never getting off, like you mentioned (which is why I don't agree with no-fly-list/no-guns laws unless the process of getting off said list changes). Possibly a three-person panel, supervised by an Article III court? That seems like it might have its own procedural issues, though.

Any thoughts on the NFA-like legislation?

I realize my offering for mental health issues is weak, but I cannot think of any other actions to take other than bringing in mental health professionals. Otherwise we would be be just taking reports that "my neighbor is crazy, and you should lock him up". Either that, or we would just have a list of people who have already snapped once.

It is a rather bleak assessment, but everything I see leads eventually to a complete ban on guns by the State. Whether it is a limit on ownership, a limit on accessories, a limit on ammo, all the limits inexorably lead to a total ban. Not once have i heard anybody say, let's do this, but I promise it will stop there, because that is enough. What I do hear is more of the same, followed by even more. Stronger background checks, more registration, more restrictions, and someday they will reach the goal of a gunless america. i won't be around, and my kids and grandkids have no guns, so I guess it won't affect my family.

I hear people say, what does a 19 year old kid(or anybody) need an AR-15 for? Well, who is the authority that will define the things a 19 year old kid(or anybody) needs, and limit him to only those those things he needs? I am not a fan of the people who want to tell us what we need and outlaw the things we merely want.

While I'm not a fan of them, either, I think there needs to be a balance between desires. Yes, a 19-year-old might want an AR-15 and we shouldn't legislate just based on what they don't need, but 17 kids probably wanted to live, too.

There are countries that have a robust hunting culture and don't have a similar epidemic of mass shootings. I personally lean toward doing the things they've done to minimize things like this.

It won't prevent all of them. But it might get us closer to having less than 1 school shooting a week, when this year alone we're at about 2.5 a week.

As they say: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Lord have mercy, is that what you think I said????

I will restate it for you:

This country is slowly but inexorably progressing to a strict and complete gun ban. Every step taken to "reduce" or stop these incidents is leading there. If my countrymen don't care, I don't care.
\
Not a damn word about perfect.
02-16-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #19
RE: The Gun Thread
I think the mental health arguments miss the point a little. While we can all agree that there are certain kinds of mental illness where you would not one of those individuals to purchase a firearm ... every country in the world has mental illness and none but the USA have the same level of gun violence or mass shootings. Mental illness might be a piece of the picture, but not everyone with mental illness is going to be diagnosed in a way that would block their access to the legal purchase of guns (even if additional restrictions or hurdles are enacted). So to me it is a low-hanging fruit, just like limiting gun purchases by people who have been convicted of committing certain violent crimes.
02-16-2018 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: The Gun Thread
(02-16-2018 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(02-16-2018 02:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Paddock would have been slowed a bit (although it's worth noting that some of his ammunition was purchased illegally), but the recent school shooter would have been unaffected.
Agreed - but that is why I said that the argument that ammunition limits would have no affect was false. I don't think there is a single silver bullet, but I think a combination of changes to how we regulate firearms could have a net positive effect, and I see no reason not to try.
Look at seat belt laws. These laws don't stop people from wearing seat belts, but people who don't wear a seat belt can be pulled over and ticketed for not doing so. I believe research indicates that these laws have increased seat belt use overall and led to decreases in deaths in traffic accidents. This is a perfect example of a law that won't have a 100% efficacy rate, but was still implemented because it would have a net positive effect.

Look at gun control laws that have been enacted. Which of them have caused a material reduction in gun violence? UK? No, their rates of gun violence are actually higher now than before they enacted those laws. Australia? Not exactly, their rates have declined in the 20 years since they passed perhaps the most draconian gun laws anywhere—but at exactly the same rate as in the 20 years before. Plot 40 years of gun violence on a graph and you get a straight line with no perceptible effect. And they have more guns today than before they passed their law.

Bottom line, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that net positive impact that you assume.

With that in mind, if this keeps up then at some point the hysteria will reach a point that we do something stupid. Therefore it seems to me that 2nd Amendment supporters need to figure out things that will work consistent with the 2nd Amendment and get them enacted. Without the 2nd Amendment, all the rest are worthless.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2018 03:49 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-16-2018 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.