Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights

Vol Horn 4 Life said:
And this is why actors should never have any influence on politics. If they aren't smart enough to safety check a weapon before pointing it at someone and squeezing the trigger then they deserve what they get. Clearly since it fired an actual live round it wasn't a "prop gun" and he knew it. I hope he spends some time in jail for negligence in a death, but unfortunately because he is in Hollywood he'll get away with this then go on a gun confiscation crusade. What he should do is go on a crusade to keep real weapons out of idiot actors hands on movie sets.
Click to expand...
That's the difference between the you's of the world and the and ii's of the world. They're fire breathing conservatives but they're at least reasonable on the edges and aren't so blatantly hacky and team oriented. If this were Ted Nugent or Kirk Cameron or Scott Biao you wouldn't have this mind set. However, ii's would have the same outlook.
 
OUBubba said:
That's the difference between the you's of the world and the and ii's of the world. They're fire breathing conservatives but they're at least reasonable on the edges and aren't so blatantly hacky and team oriented. If this were Ted Nugent or Kirk Cameron or Scott Biao you wouldn't have this mind set. However, ii's would have the same outlook.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Any person who handles a weapon like an idiot deserves what he gets especially when they cause a death. I just can't stand Baldwin because he's a loud mouth *******.

Funny you mention Ted Nugent. Of all people he wouldn't point a weapon at another person unless he intended to shoot them.
 
OUBubba said:
I think on an action movie that changes a little. I read up on this and the guy in charge of "safety" had a history of not being "safe".
Click to expand...

I agree being on an action movie (a job site) does change everything they should of have additional safety protocols than the personal world.
For example, at the chemical plant changing a pump we have the switch off, and lock it off, and turn off breaker and lock it off. Then write a safe work permit (SWP) with the guy doing the work going over that the breaker is locked off, and the switch is locked off. Then we both sign the SWP that is the pump number that’s going to be replaced. Then the work can begin, most times it takes longer to get the SWP then it takes to do the actual job.
So yeah being on a job site changes a little. Both are responsible.
 
humahuma said:
I agree being on an action movie (a job site) does change everything they should of have additional safety protocols than the personal world.
For example, at the chemical plant changing a pump we have the switch off, and lock it off, and turn off breaker and lock it off. Then write a safe work permit (SWP) with the guy doing the work going over that the breaker is locked off, and the switch is locked off. Then we both sign the SWP that is the pump number that’s going to be replaced. Then the work can begin, most times it takes longer to get the SWP then it takes to do the actual job.
So yeah being on a job site changes a little. Both are responsible.
Click to expand...
Who put film majors in charge of firearms? That's where the buck stops.
 
OUBubba said:
So a prop gun was improperly put into inventory and it's the actor who's responsible? It's an accident. There may be civil liability but it would rest on whoever had the authority/responsibility to manage the property. If Baldwin is an Executive Producer, his culpability may rest there. Ironic, that it may be some title to get a few extra $ that should cost him.
Click to expand...
Yep. 100 percent he’s responsible. Doesn’t matter what anyone else did. Baldwin pointed his gun at someone and pulled the trigger. Now as a rich Party Member in Good Standing, in a state run entirely by the Democrat party, doubtful he gets charged. But he should.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
Yep. 100 percent he’s responsible. Doesn’t matter what anyone else did. Baldwin pointed his gun at someone and pulled the trigger. Now as a rich Party Member in Good Standing, in a state run entirely by the Democrat party, doubtful he gets charged. But he should.
Click to expand...
He will find a way to blame it on Trump!
 
OUBubba said:
Who put film majors in charge of firearms? That's where the buck stops.
Click to expand...
Most movies have a dedicated armorer who coordinates obtaining the firearms, maintenance, set up, and use, and who come from a gun background not film.
Still doesn’t matter - Baldwin is still who killed the woman and shot another.
 
I read the bullet when into one person, then another. Could have just grazed the guy and the hit the woman in a vital spot.

sounds reasonable as you would guess the director would be closer to the actor that the camera lady during a rehearsal.
 
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, with regards to the right to bear arms. It didn't go well for the gun grabbers.

Couple of summaries below.

SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments In Critical Right To Carry Case

WaPo: Looks Like SCOTUS Is Going To Strike Down NY Carry Laws

Majority of court appears dubious of New York gun-control law, but justices mull narrow ruling - SCOTUSblog

Even Roberts managed to put his big boy pants on, and seemed to bristle at the idea of NY issuing a permit if they felt like it, for a Constitutional right:

From the SCOTUS Blog:

"Roberts made a related point in his questioning of Fletcher. He told Fletcher that, with other constitutional rights, the Constitution “gives you that right, and if someone’s going to take it away from you, they have to justify it.” Why, Roberts asked, should citizens need to prove that they are entitled to – or have a special need to – exercise their constitutional right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense?"

The SC will most certainly scrap NY's, and by extension the other 8-9 "May Issue" carry license states like CA, MA, etc., law and require them to finally see the light that 42 other states have, with "Shall Issue" carry licenses. Now this is hardly going to be a bold move by the SC - the 6th Circuit Court forced Illinois to go to Shall Issue about a decade ago, and even DC has Shall Issue courtesy of the DC Court of Appeals.

The SC should have taken this case up shortly after those lower court rulings, as there was a spilt in the circuits as to if the 2A provided for the right to carry. But they've been very lazy and cowardly about protecting both the 2A, and their own Heller case which protected the right to keep arms.

As I wrote before, hopefully the SC doesn't just let NY scurry back to their holes and write some Shall Issue law that is so onerous to meet that most don't - very high costs, multiple references, long waits, application needs to be signed in unicorn blood, and so forth. For the lower courts, who had previously said it was A OK to only have May Issue carry laws, aren't going to bang the hammer down on NY if they go this route.

It will most likely be spring or early summer before a ruling - the contentious cases are decided last and the SC's term ends usually late June to July.
 
Wonder why he felt the need for a permit with the new law? Guess he felt was safer got the elf’s that he get some training.
 
OUBubba said:
That's the difference between the you's of the world and the and ii's of the world. They're fire breathing conservatives but they're at least reasonable on the edges and aren't so blatantly hacky and team oriented. If this were Ted Nugent or Kirk Cameron or Scott Biao you wouldn't have this mind set. However, ii's would have the same outlook.
Click to expand...
There is only one ii’s. Don’t forget it sooner boy!:yippee:
 
269719039_4990892504276172_9085743855157882571_n.jpg
 
About me- let me get this on record so I don’t have explain later.
Conservative Republicans, ProLife (even when I was agnostic) , Pro 2nd Amendment , Christian, Marine Infantryman 1981-85, own a AR15.

One of my biggest concerns is someone walking around packing heat without the proper mental training to ensure the don’t shoot my grandkids by mistake.
I don’t carry, primarily because I have had situations that would probably fall under the “stand your ground” laws and I have been able to take the actions to diffuse the situation and everyone went home.
I do support the right for responsible adults to carry. Don’t get me wrong.

I don’t want to see anyone with an AR strapped to their back picking through the vegetables at HEB. How do I know this guy is not a nut?

My old neighbor used to hear noises outside and come out with his firearm pulled like he was Clint Eastwood. Went about a buck 10 soaking wet.

This is one of those really tough social issues.
 
NRHorn said:
About me- let me get this on record so I don’t have explain later.
Conservative Republicans, ProLife (even when I was agnostic) , Pro 2nd Amendment , Christian, Marine Infantryman 1981-85, own a AR15.

One of my biggest concerns is someone walking around packing heat without the proper mental training to ensure the don’t shoot my grandkids by mistake.
I don’t carry, primarily because I have had situations that would probably fall under the “stand your ground” laws and I have been able to take the actions to diffuse the situation and everyone went home.
I do support the right for responsible adults to carry. Don’t get me wrong.

I don’t want to see anyone with an AR strapped to their back picking through the vegetables at HEB. How do I know this guy is not a nut?

My old neighbor used to hear noises outside and come out with his firearm pulled like he was Clint Eastwood. Went about a buck 10 soaking wet.

This is one of those really tough social issues.
Click to expand...
I think it's crazy that your stance can be painted as "Anti 2nd Amendment". I pretty much agree with you. I get tainted as anti 2nd amendment when I put forth that you, as a gun owner, have a duty to validate that I'm eligible under the local laws to purchase your AR-15 if/when you want to purchase another firearm or sell your firearm to pay for your grand daughter's $500 softball bat. Seems logical.
 
OUBubba said:
I think it's crazy that your stance can be painted as "Anti 2nd Amendment". I pretty much agree with you. I get tainted as anti 2nd amendment when I put forth that you, as a gun owner, have a duty to validate that I'm eligible under the local laws to purchase your AR-15 if/when you want to purchase another firearm or sell your firearm to pay for your grand daughter's $500 softball bat. Seems logical.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree OU.
Okay trying to define that line is hard.
I personally know people who should not have access to guns. Yes they can get one, but at the risk of being hit hard as convicted felons and off to prison for having one.
My old neighbor was not a felon, but that lil weirdo concerned me- I don’t know how to keep one out of his hands but he was an accident waiting to happen. Claimed to have PTSD from the Navy- while never leaving stateside.
 
I'll preface my opinion on this...
Our constitution was created by people that were concerned with Government overreach and control so the constitution is not about home safety, hunting, sport shooting or any other use of firearms. These are all valid uses but the reason this amendment exists is because the framers wanted citizens to have the means to resist a government that was out of control. I would go so far as to say that this right is the one that has allowed us to retain all of the other rights, even more than the right to free speech, IMO. I would also suggest that since our democracy rests on this right, and democracy throughout the globe rest on American democracy as an example, then essentially the entirety of Democracy throughout the globe rests on our ability to retain 2A as a robust right of the citizenry.

Whenever i get into a "DJT will destroy democracy debate" with someone from left, I always like to play devils advocate..... "ok, what's your stance on guns. Then riddle me this....If DJT had 'destroyed democracy' how do you suppose patriots would have ever retaken it back from DJT.....without guns"

There is a reason the first thing "freedom fighters" from around the globe always ask for is be armed by outsiders. They know that there is virtually no way for a revolution to succeed against an entrenched power without a great deal of guns.

That being said, i think we can all say that if we applied common sense to a decision to arm all the people that are currently armed, we could find a lot of them that we would almost universally give a thumbs down to.

so how do we vet and/or limit the people that common sense says shouldn't have firearms in a temporary or even permanent fashion.

We have some laws in place but clearly they aren't accomplishing everything we want/need.

I was in the army at 18. I had a sidearm and M16 in my hands on a regular basis, BUT I never had them in my hands when I might be prone to make a typical 18 yr old irrational decision out of anger, jealousy, etc. I would be ok with further age limits on firearms beyond what we have now.

When i buy firearms, I lock them up. I have two that are readily accessible for home defense but those are visible to me and my wife daily and we would notice if they were gone. I'm an advocate for the gun owner being a responsible party when bad things happen with their firearms. While parents aren't entirely to blame for their children's actions, they should bear substantial liability if a child in their house commits a crime with their weapon. Perhaps not the same murder charges, but something with some jailtime.

I think there is a level of common sense that we could apply to rapid acquisition of firearms or large volume of acquisition. I would be ok with a 5 day (or so) waiting period. If you are buying based on typical good motivations then you could tolerate 5 days. If you are buying out of an emotional place, perhaps you should be waiting anyway. I would also be ok with a SHORT LIVED database that recorded a persons gun purchases and retained that record for 2 yrs or so. But this is a registration that needs to be "vanishing". Meaning the government should not be able to go back and print out a list of all the firearms i ever purchased over 10-15 yrs. If we saw that someone acquired 15 or so guns in a year then perhaps it is worth an announced visit from ATF. And collecting data for this requirement should apply to anyone (professional or private) that sells more than 2 guns per year.

what is absolutely not ok are the Dem efforts outlaw any style of weapon, or to skirt the 2nd amendment by making owning a gun so "tax heavy" that typical buyers will be priced out of the market.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I'll preface my opinion on this...
Our constitution was created by people that were concerned with Government overreach and control so the constitution is not about home safety, hunting, sport shooting or any other use of firearms. These are all valid uses but the reason this amendment exists is because the framers wanted citizens to have the means to resist a government that was out of control. I would go so far as to say that this right is the one that has allowed us to retain all of the other rights, even more than the right to free speech, IMO. I would also suggest that since our democracy rests on this right, and democracy throughout the globe rest on American democracy as an example, then essentially the entirety of Democracy throughout the globe rests on our ability to retain 2A as a robust right of the citizenry.

Whenever i get into a "DJT will destroy democracy debate" with someone from left, I always like to play devils advocate..... "ok, what's your stance on guns. Then riddle me this....If DJT had 'destroyed democracy' how do you suppose patriots would have ever retaken it back from DJT.....without guns"

There is a reason the first thing "freedom fighters" from around the globe always ask for is be armed by outsiders. They know that there is virtually no way for a revolution to succeed against an entrenched power without a great deal of guns.

That being said, i think we can all say that if we applied common sense to a decision to arm all the people that are currently armed, we could find a lot of them that we would almost universally give a thumbs down to.

so how do we vet and/or limit the people that common sense says shouldn't have firearms in a temporary or even permanent fashion.

We have some laws in place but clearly they aren't accomplishing everything we want/need.

I was in the army at 18. I had a sidearm and M16 in my hands on a regular basis, BUT I never had them in my hands when I might be prone to make a typical 18 yr old irrational decision out of anger, jealousy, etc. I would be ok with further age limits on firearms beyond what we have now.

When i buy firearms, I lock them up. I have two that are readily accessible for home defense but those are visible to me and my wife daily and we would notice if they were gone. I'm an advocate for the gun owner being a responsible party when bad things happen with their firearms. While parents aren't entirely to blame for their children's actions, they should bear substantial liability if a child in their house commits a crime with their weapon. Perhaps not the same murder charges, but something with some jailtime.

I think there is a level of common sense that we could apply to rapid acquisition of firearms or large volume of acquisition. I would be ok with a 5 day (or so) waiting period. If you are buying based on typical good motivations then you could tolerate 5 days. If you are buying out of an emotional place, perhaps you should be waiting anyway. I would also be ok with a SHORT LIVED database that recorded a persons gun purchases and retained that record for 2 yrs or so. But this is a registration that needs to be "vanishing". Meaning the government should not be able to go back and print out a list of all the firearms i ever purchased over 10-15 yrs. If we saw that someone acquired 15 or so guns in a year then perhaps it is worth an announced visit from ATF. And collecting data for this requirement should apply to anyone (professional or private) that sells more than 2 guns per year.

what is absolutely not ok are the Dem efforts outlaw any style of weapon, or to skirt the 2nd amendment by making owning a gun so "tax heavy" that typical buyers will be priced out of the market.
Click to expand...
Well said. The challenge is that the firepower of the state has far outpaced the firepower of you, me, and joe from down the road. Armed drones, cruise missiles, etc. The armed populace has served as a certain deterrent to countries thinking about taking a bite. But, surely not as much as the most financially backed military in the world by a large chunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top