HR5717 bill....federal firearm license!

[FamilyFirst]

Let me say first in no way do I believe guns to be the problem. The intrest in taking away assault rifles is disgusting. I believe every amaerican should own one. That being said...

Mass Shootings
60's - 6
70's - 14
80's - 21
90's - 30
00's - 37
10's - 122

Just trying to understand the sharp increase.

Certainly overly harsh words "epidemic of gun violence". An epidemic would say, endanger a large majority of the population, like Covid-19 has done. Guns are in no way an epidemic.

It seems the suicide rate has remained rather constant since the 70's. Definitley a much larger number of homocides from suicides than anything else. No debating their. Disturbing that people (democrats) would use this number to push an alternate agenda. But this is the world we live in.

How do we attack and thwart what they are hiding behind in an effort to take away our rights?

Not possible, most likely.

But can we remove their fuel source to their fire.... In a way that does not infringe upon the rights of the citizens of out great nation?

 

[fl57caveman]

stats are made for manipulation..if they don't support their agenda, they just re-classify they until they do..




I think it all goes back to the 60's, when the absence of the father figure in families, made worse by the govt sending bigger and bigger checks to poor families, didn't take them long to figure out how to game it and get more cause the baby daddy is gone down the road

 

[SAWMAN]

"Sharp increase" - - -> PARENTING SKILLS ?? ( If you own it . . admit it !!) --- SAWMAN

 

[TK5o]

I think we also “see or realize” an increase mostly due to technology and the new and faster ways it spreads “news” more than it did in the 60’s. There may be more incidents now also. I don’t know, but the “info” about incidents is certainly more widespread and available everywhere, not just the local papers anymore

 

[FrommerStop]

stats are made for manipulation..if they don't support their agenda, they just re-classify they until they do..




I think it all goes back to the 60's, when the absence of the father figure in families, made worse by the govt sending bigger and bigger checks to poor families, didn't take them long to figure out how to game it and get more cause the baby daddy is gone down the road

Mass Shootings
60's - 6
70's - 14
80's - 21
90's - 30
00's - 37
10's - 122

One does need to see just how that data was derived. But also take a look at the growth of gun free zones those events that take place in a school or similar instituition and not start including a drive by gangsters in the hood making a point or other gang related actions.

Friend please always consider the source.
Our side has placated way more than necessary with this dangerous bumbstock laws and it only whets the appetite of the guncontrol forces.

 

[donr101395]

Let me say first in no way do I believe guns to be the problem. The intrest in taking away assault rifles is disgusting. I believe every amaerican should own one. That being said...

Mass Shootings
60's - 6
70's - 14
80's - 21
90's - 30
00's - 37
10's - 122

Just trying to understand the sharp increase.

Certainly overly harsh words "epidemic of gun violence". An epidemic would say, endanger a large majority of the population, like Covid-19 has done. Guns are in no way an epidemic.

It seems the suicide rate has remained rather constant since the 70's. Definitley a much larger number of homocides from suicides than anything else. No debating their. Disturbing that people (democrats) would use this number to push an alternate agenda. But this is the world we live in.

How do we attack and thwart what they are hiding behind in an effort to take away our rights?

Not possible, most likely.

But can we remove their fuel source to their fire.... In a way that does not infringe upon the rights of the citizens of out great nation?

Numbers manipulation. Some organization use 3 shot and killed, some use 4 shot an killed, some use the 3 shot and injured. Stats don't lie, but statisticians do.

 

[FamilyFirst]

Appreciate the insight!

 

[polebarn]

Isn't the sponsor of this the guy that thought Guam could tip over?

 

[FrommerStop]

Isn't the sponsor of this the guy that thought Guam could tip over?

One our elected officials at work.

 

[wildrider666]

to "end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities"

"If it saves just one child, its worth it."

"Its common sense."

"Its all about safety."

These and others "slogans or heart tugging narratives" are crafted to sell the issue. They use false titles and discription narratives on proposed legislation so people will make snap decisions in favor of what they're pushing. "Oh, that sounds wonderful" for folks that don't have a clue what's in the Bill! They don't title them gun control Bills any more.

Please, show me a single gun control law that had documented results reducing crime, violence, injury or death? On the other side, show me one that did not restrict Gun Rights?

Fast forward to a gun free America as desired by the gun grabbers. Look at the U.K. as an example knife/blade weapons filled and surpassed gun crime levels. Mass attacks are now vehicle attacks followed by blade attacks and the occasional gun is still used. Those with criminal/evil intent will always find a means to accomplish the desired task. Blade crime is so rampent they want steak knives registered, all knife points squared off, no Web/mail purchases and more. There's "no bang" with a knife attack, dosen't draw the attention of a gunshot and allows un witnessed attackers an easy getaway. The criminal hesitation that was inherent for guns is far less with knives.

If civil safety was really the objective Bills would target criminals, more cops, tougher penalties, judicial and prison system to support it. But no: they push bail reform, prision reform, sentence reform and this tells you who's side they're on!

 

[dogamus rex]

this moron thinks an island is actually floating on the surface like a leaf.

 

[FrommerStop]

this moron thinks an island is actually floating on the surface like a leaf.

this oxymoron does not think.

 

[IronBeard]

Government draws up bills knowing exactly how the majority of the American public will react. Compliance. They're in charge. Must respect. God put them there. It's the law; even if it isn't..... In fact, government has amended/legislated the very parameters (laws/fences) we are allowed to operate within, and routinely exempts themselves and their agents.

They'll put everything under the sun in the bill knowing full well they'll only get about 10-20%. If it comes to any kind of public input/vote, one citizen will bash another out of self-interest into compromising. If we don't give a little, we'll lose everything! More like, if you don't give up what you like, I'll have to give up what I like, IMO. And then there's the whole no one needs that crowd, even among gun owners....

So will go the giving a little to avoid a lot being taken, and government will again get the willful compliance they knew they would all along. The agenda advances again. We again celebrate that they didn't "win." Well, not too much anyway. And hey, we're all gun folks, and we should stand together. So, there will be a cooling off period, a big group hug, and we'll all go about united in living within the smaller confines of those fences.

Land of the free. Home of the brave. Constitutional oath. Yeah, not so much. But, but, but, COVID-19. Now is not the time. It never is, is it? And they know, they always know.

 

[GolferPaul]

I already know my line.

For instance, in the case of an intruder in my home, I've already had a conversation with it the moment I see it. How? Well:

There is the fact that my home does not look like anyone else's. My cars probably don't look like theirs. My front porch area has the security system sign staked in the ground. My exterior cameras are visible. My doors are locked and deadbolted all the time. My windows are locked. This is me telling the world: "This is not your property, and uninvited strangers are not welcome here."
By completely disregarding those warnings/signs/indications, an intruder is telling me "I don't understand common social boundaries, and/or I don't care about yours."

Next, once an intrusion occurs, my alarm system will most likely be going off. My dogs will be making their presence known. Heck, they may or may not see me and my family right away. That is me telling an intruder: "This is not your property, and uninvited strangers are definitely not welcome inside."

By continuing to enter the property, and not doing everything possible to verbally explain his/her mistake and make like the most non-threatening posture possible, the intruder is telling me: "even with your locks, cameras, alarms, and dogs, I am STILL gonna stay here and do what I want to do... INSIDE YOUR HOME."

At that point, what more needs to be spoken? I've "said" my piece, and the intruder said theirs. I am under ZERO obligation to continue to put myself and my family at risk to make "triple-sure"...

Same goes for anyone else, regardless of what uniform they wear, or who underwrites their paycheck.
My Rights are inalienable. My home is MY property.

I am not a criminal. I am not a threat to my self, my family, my neighbors, or my beloved Nation.
I refuse to be treated as such, and I will defend, violently if necessary, my Right to exist in Freedom.

These constant threats against our rights will one day be the last straw, and some wall-to-wall counseling sessions will become inevitable.

Well Said !! The line was crossed the instant IT entered your home!! It committed a FELONY !! Once a FELONY is committed With or With out the Castle Doctrine you can use deadly force to contain/stop it. While in the Police Academy they drilled into you when using deadly force "you were in fear for your life and the life of your partner/child/loved one/. The key/line crossing is real simple : You were in fear for your life and the life of your (who ever)..

 

[GolferPaul]

this moron thinks an island is actually floating on the surface like a leaf.

He is a product of the Democratic elected educational system, that has sucked on the tit of the Fed. gov. his entire life. A Fourth Generation Welfare sucking Democrap that was elected by the same and a few hundred thousand dead soles ..The sad part is that He was serious when he asked the question. I thought the General was going to laugh out loud. Was that Maxine Waters Brother ?

 

[donr101395]

Well Said !! The line was crossed the instant IT entered your home!! It committed a FELONY !! Once a FELONY is committed With or With out the Castle Doctrine you can use deadly force to contain/stop it. .

If you're talking in Florida you may want to reread when you can use deadly force FS 776.012 because it's not just for any felony. The statute requires it to be a imminent death or great bodily harm or a forcible felony to justify deadly force.
While breaking the threshold is a forcible felony simply saying that if someone commits a felon you can use deadly will get some unsuspecting dogooder in a cell after they shoot someone for stealing the $300 radio from Walmart.



Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk