Constitutional carry now in effect in Oklahoma.

[lwf]

The NFA is clearly unconstitutional as is the 86 hughes amendment. tell us what other areas you want gun owners to compromise on.

I have said for years there will be a civil war over guns eventually. When it is over, the anti gun movement will no longer exist, I suspect.

Not likely. The anti-gun movement has both numbers and time on their side. I think it is far more likely that globalism will expose the younger generations to places like Europe and Australia where firearms are rare, and that stricter gun control will become steadily more popular with young people weary of gun violence on the news. Second amendment rights will die with a fizzle, not a war. The "over my dead body" holdouts like you will not be violently raided by government hit squads, you will be ignored and left to sit in your retirement homes clutching your firearms until you die of natural causes and your children will turn your weapons in to the government for cash.

 

[Serenity]

The NFA is clearly unconstitutional as is the 86 hughes amendment. tell us what other areas you want gun owners to compromise on.

I have said for years there will be a civil war over guns eventually. When it is over, the anti gun movement will no longer exist, I suspect.

Do you actually honestly believe there will be a civil war over guns or do you just like fantasizing about people being killed who don't hold the same position as yours?

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you actually honestly believe there will be a civil war over guns or do you just like fantasizing about people being killed who don't hold the same position as yours?

No I honestly believe there will be one. I believe it will be started by leftists who try to seize guns that are declared illegal in states where the Democrats are emboldened to do so

 

[TurtleDude]

Not likely. The anti-gun movement has both numbers and time on their side. I think it is far more likely that globalism will expose the younger generations to places like Europe and Australia where firearms are rare, and that stricter gun control will become steadily more popular with young people weary of gun violence on the news. Second amendment rights will die with a fizzle, not a war. The "over my dead body" holdouts like you will not be violently raided by government hit squads, you will be ignored and left to sit in your retirement homes clutching your firearms until you die of natural causes and your children will turn your weapons in to the government for cash.

View attachment 67267632

The future is unwritten

Know your Rights

(Joe Strummer)

BTW that is why I spent about 10K a year teaching kids how to shoot. Usually popular girls. I had one who said she wanted to try but didn't want to shoot an AR 15. So I brought an AR 15 figuring (correctly) she didn't know. After 60 rounds she told her father she wanted one for Christmas.

 

[Glitch]

The 86 Hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional. If the idiotic ban on automatics went away, so would bump stocks. The 86 Hughes amendment is what created that silly toy

Nobody pays attention to Trump's illegal, and imaginary ban on bumper stocks. Executive Orders have absolutely no effect on the States, so they have no effect on the sale or purchase of bumper stocks. I suspect Trump issued the illegal EO just to get the mentally-deranged leftists off his back. Either way, it has had absolutely no effect because it cannot be enforced.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Look at bump stocks. They were status quo legal for longer than 10 years, and now they are illegal. And it only took one tragic incident for a wave of anti-gun hysteria to lead to their outlawing.

That's just one thing. There have been tragic events involving civilian carry, and many other things unrelated to guns, that haven't led to bans.

 

[Aberration]

If it is a requirement before a civilian is granted a permit to conceal and carry, I think this would be a good idea.

So you want people to be required to go to this training if they conceal carry? That’s a horrible idea.

 

[Aberration]

Not likely. The anti-gun movement has both numbers and time on their side. I think it is far more likely that globalism will expose the younger generations to places like Europe and Australia where firearms are rare, and that stricter gun control will become steadily more popular with young people weary of gun violence on the news. Second amendment rights will die with a fizzle, not a war. The "over my dead body" holdouts like you will not be violently raided by government hit squads, you will be ignored and left to sit in your retirement homes clutching your firearms until you die of natural causes and your children will turn your weapons in to the government for cash.

View attachment 67267632

Gun sales are at record highs. A lot more women owning and getting training. The only people not making a killing are old companies with old ideas hanging on to an old name.

 

[jamesrage]

Good luck with that. What if we don't? Isn't it better to play nice and meet in the middle than to have the attitude of "my way or the highway?"

What is this "meet in the middle" you are talking about? I ask because a compromise implies both sides are giving up something in order to get something in return.What are anti-2nd amendment trash giving up in exchange for 2nd amendment advocates giving up chunks of their rights? Do anti-2nd amendment trash promise the 2nd amendment advocates that they get to keep single shot firearms in exchange for us giving up semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban? Or maybe anti-2nd amendment trash are allowed to ban ten to thirty round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban while 2nd amendment advocates get to keep three to seven round low capacity magazines? Is it that 2nd amendment advocates take mandatory classes and pay fees for something the Constitution already allows them to have and do in the first place without government permission?


I don't think you understand what a compromise is. Because me giving up more of what the constitution already gives me the right to do while anti-2nd amendment trash give up nothing is not a compromise. Its like telling religious freedom supporters that a banning Islam and Catholicism while they still get to practice actual Christianity and Judaism is a compromise or telling an abortion supporter that an elective abortion ban while still allowing abortions to save the life of the mother is a compromise or telling 4th amendment rights supporters that allowing cops to wire tap your electronic devices and put video cameras in your home without a warrant while they still need a warrant to cavity search you is a compromise.

Conservatives don't have the cards to go all in anymore. They will continue to regret digging in their heels when their children and grand children start voting.

Strange you say that because in 2007 Americans owned 270 million firearms And in 2017 Americans owned 393 million firearms. Most likely due to anti-2nd amendment trash screaming for bans on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban.

 

[blarg]

Constitutional carry no in effect in Oklahoma despite the efforts of Moms Against the 2nd Amendment(moms demand action) and a anti-2nd amendment trash politician to try to thwart it. Hopefully more states follow suite.

NRA-ILA | Constitutional Carry OK in Oklahoma
Effort to stop Oklahoma gun law fails, for now | KTUL
Judge denies request for injunction to halt Oklahoma's permitless carry law

so if lots more people die from being shot in oklahoma restrictions on gun ownership good?

if less people die form being shot making it easier to have a gun good?

 

[TurtleDude]

so if lots more people die from being shot in oklahoma restrictions on gun ownership good?

if less people die form being shot making it easier to have a gun good?

for 30 years, anti gun advocates complained that liberalizing CCW permits in the 30+ states who adopted SHALL ISSUE systems, would LEAD TO BLOOD IN THE STREETS. Hasn't happened yet

 

[VanceMack]

And I can think of no better way to trigger liberals to incrementally whittle away our right to bear arms than by allowing civilians with zero training to carry them.

The recent push to ‘allow’ (think about that for a second-we are arguing about ‘allowing’ citizens to exercise Constitutionally protected rights) Constitutional carry is more a blowback to the already existing attempts to FURTHER restrict rights. Gun owners have given...and given...and given. It was never enough. Never going to be enough. You can not appease the anti gun left because they don’t want a peaceful common ground with law abiding citizen gun owners. They want an end to private ownership of firearms. They will deny that. They will claim they only want ‘sensible’ laws. ‘Sensible’ restrictions. One bite at a time. One restriction. One change. One loss. Just a little more....you barely noticed that one. And another...see? You are getting used to it now.

Gun owners fought back. Said no more. I agree that we don’t want or need a return to everyone carrying openly OR concealed. But people should have the right to do whatever they are Constitutionally authorized to do. More appropriately said...we should expect that the federal and state governments stay within the confines established for them by the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lwf]

So you want people to be required to go to this training if they conceal carry? That’s a horrible idea.

It is a horrible idea to require firearms training before allowing someone to carry a concealed firearm? Wouldn't this help prevent accidents?

 

[lwf]

What is this "meet in the middle" you are talking about? I ask because a compromise implies both sides are giving up something in order to get something in return.What are anti-2nd amendment trash giving up in exchange for 2nd amendment advocates giving up chunks of their rights? Do anti-2nd amendment trash promise the 2nd amendment advocates that they get to keep single shot firearms in exchange for us giving up semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban? Or maybe anti-2nd amendment trash are allowed to ban ten to thirty round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban while 2nd amendment advocates get to keep three to seven round low capacity magazines? Is it that 2nd amendment advocates take mandatory classes and pay fees for something the Constitution already allows them to have and do in the first place without government permission?


I don't think you understand what a compromise is. Because me giving up more of what the constitution already gives me the right to do while anti-2nd amendment trash give up nothing is not a compromise. Its like telling religious freedom supporters that a banning Islam and Catholicism while they still get to practice actual Christianity and Judaism is a compromise or telling an abortion supporter that an elective abortion ban while still allowing abortions to save the life of the mother is a compromise or telling 4th amendment rights supporters that allowing cops to wire tap your electronic devices and put video cameras in your home without a warrant while they still need a warrant to cavity search you is a compromise.



Strange you say that because in 2007 Americans owned 270 million firearms And in 2017 Americans owned 393 million firearms. Most likely due to anti-2nd amendment trash screaming for bans on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban.

Gun ownership by household is steadily declining. There may be an increase in firearm sales due to gun owners purchasing multiple firearms out of a fear of an assault weapons ban, but there are fewer Americans choosing to exercise their second amendment rights than there used to be. This is the problem. No matter how many guns you own, you can still only vote once in any election. Your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms requires the consent of your anti-gun neighbors no matter how much you wish it didn't. If you want to keep this right, you had better reassure them that you are responsible, and support only responsible people carrying firearms. No permit carry is not the way to do this.

 

[TurtleDude]

Gun ownership by household is steadily declining. There may be an increase in firearm sales due to gun owners purchasing multiple firearms out of a fear of an assault weapons ban, but there are fewer Americans choosing to exercise their second amendment rights than there used to be. This is the problem. No matter how many guns you own, you can still only vote once in any election. Your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms requires the consent of your anti-gun neighbors no matter how much you wish it didn't. If you want to keep this right, you had better reassure them that you are responsible, and support only responsible people carrying firearms. No permit carry is not the way to do this.

View attachment 67267756

there was much more support for handgun bans in the 60s, than now

 

[jamesrage]

Gun ownership by household is steadily declining.

All that proves is that gun owners are getting smart and not telling what arms they do or don't have.

There may be an increase in firearm sales due to gun owners purchasing multiple firearms out of a fear of an assault weapons ban, but there are fewer Americans choosing to exercise their second amendment rights than there used to be. This is the problem. No matter how many guns you own, you can still only vote once in any election.

Statistics say the percentage of households have stayed relatively the same.Not decreasing.
• Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2018 | Statista

Your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms requires the consent of your anti-gun neighbors no matter how much you wish it didn't. If you want to keep this right, you had better reassure them that you are responsible, and support only responsible people carrying firearms.

Anti-2nd amendment trash don't give a rats ass how responsible gun owners are or aren't.

No permit carry is not the way to do this.

Yeah man how dare states reaffirm what the constitution already gives you the right to do.

View attachment 67267756

Anti-2nd amendment trash claimed the same crap during the 1990s.That Clinton ban that caused democrats to get their asses handed to them in the house and senate.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Yikes. I'm pro second amendment, but carrying a firearm in public without training of any kind is just asking for trouble. I foresee this as ultimately doing more harm to 2nd amendment rights in OK than good. The 2nd amendment is only as strong as it's dumbest adherent.

I am tired of showing people with conceal carry permits how to load their gun or take it off safety. They went trough the training and passed and then 5 years later they decide to actually shoot their gun and have no idea how it even works. The training is a joke at best.

 

[jamesrage]

so if lots more people die from being shot in oklahoma restrictions on gun ownership good?

if less people die form being shot making it easier to have a gun good?

1.Anti-2nd amendment trash have been making doom and gloom predictions and how its going to be the wild west because of states reaffirming our 2nd amendment rights. So far this doom and gloom and wild west nonsense hasn't happened.

2. Our constitutional rights are not determined by how many people abuse them. If it did then certain religions can be banned. So could certain media outlets deemed dangerous.

 

[VanceMack]

It is a horrible idea to require firearms training before allowing someone to carry a concealed firearm? Wouldn't this help prevent accidents?

Not sure if your experience but I have more hands on experience firing and training and live fire shooting than most law enforcement. My kids have all been trained by me. But there is no school or what you could call documentable formal training. So what exactly are you asking for training wise? I can tell you that the required class training for current CC holders is a joke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jamesrage]

No. It’s all firearm-related deaths.

In other words you included irrelevant statistics to fraudulently boost the number of people actually die of violent deaths in order to give the false impression of how died from firearm homicides.

All the homicide rates above indicate is that a person in Alaska is about twice as likely, 106/51, to die of firearm homicide than a person in Illinois.

All a firearm homicide rate is used for is to make a place that has way more actual homicides which is usually ran by liberals seem way safer than a place with less actual homicides.You are not more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you in Illinois. Anyone claiming you are more likely to die from a firearm homicide in Alaska than you are in Illinois is either a liar or a brain dead idiot.

Speaking for the US, states that enact stronger gun law result in lower overall suicide rate, including lower suicide by firearm.

If someone should so choose for lack of access to a firearm, they may do so. It just happens less often with stronger gun law.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Those laws didn't ban ropes or prevent people from duying of drug overdoses or jumping from a building.PLus those studies never explain how those laws stop people from committing suicide.

 

[blarg]

1.Anti-2nd amendment trash have been making doom and gloom predictions and how its going to be the wild west because of states reaffirming our 2nd amendment rights. So far this doom and gloom and wild west nonsense hasn't happened.

2. Our constitutional rights are not determined by how many people abuse them. If it did then certain religions can be banned. So could certain media outlets deemed dangerous.

any one in a well regulated militia? letting any one have a gun regardless of ther sanity, criminal history, training , and any negligence, when it comes to securing ther weapons sems stupidly insane how can you even relgiate your milita well with that?

seems to be nothing in the constitution talking about restions on what type of arms you can have or on the state knowing what you have either

dont think you can legally murder for your religion or call for specific peoples death though it seems legal to call for the death penalty for people who offend your religion

 

[TurtleDude]

any one in a well regulated militia? letting any one have a gun regardless of ther sanity, criminal history, training , and any negligence, when it comes to securing ther weapons sems stupidly insane how can you even relgiate your milita well with that?

seems to be nothing in the constitution talking about restions on what type of arms you can have or on the state knowing what you have either

dont think you can legally murder for your religion or call for specific peoples death though it seems legal to call for the death penalty for people who offend your religion

a well regulated militia meant one in working order. It has zero relevance to do with the fact that the federal government had no power to interfere with the arms private citizens could keep and or bear

 

[blarg]

a well regulated militia meant one in working order. It has zero relevance to do with the fact that the federal government had no power to interfere with the arms private citizens could keep and or bear

the nature and know how of who is in your milita as well as knowledge of its assets seem very relevant to its working order

it has everything to do with the 2nd amendment since the militia is why the right to bear arms is not infringed

and the states ave an interest in lowering the amount of how many people get shot as well

 

[Glitch]

the nature and know how of who is in your milita as well as knowledge of its assets seem very relevant to its working order

it has everything to do with the 2nd amendment since the militia is why the right to bear arms is not infringed

and the states ave an interest in lowering the amount of how many people get shot as well

Incorrect. The militia has absolutely nothing to do with our individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment exists because the anti-Federalists feared the Federalists would restrict firearm ownership and prevent States from forming their own militia. Or use selective firearm ownership to create a political federal militia. Therefore, the anti-Federalists created the Second Amendment in order to prevent the Federalists from imposing any kind of restriction against firearms and preventing States from creating their own militias. The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with membership in any militia.

 

[blarg]

Incorrect. The militia has absolutely nothing to do with our individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment exists because the anti-Federalists feared the Federalists would restrict firearm ownership and prevent States from forming their own militia. Or use selective firearm ownership to create a political federal militia. Therefore, the anti-Federalists created the Second Amendment in order to prevent the Federalists from imposing any kind of restriction against firearms and preventing States from creating their own militias. The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with membership in any militia.

not seeing it

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

no regulations on weapons seems like they are bad for regulating the mitias we don't have as well as are security