Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

A new bill has been introduced in the House called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, H.R. 5087. It would prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of:

• Semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
• Semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
• Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
• Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
• And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

I would hope that the general description of the banned guns above would cover the changes gunmakers can make to go around the named and listed models. Otherwise I agree that "These can be changed faster than a prohibitionist can pass laws." The bill sounds good to me; I can hope against hope that the "tipping point" has made such a ban possible again, as it was in 1994.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-06-2018, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A new bill has been introduced in the House called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, H.R. 5087. 

The above is in its face unconstitutional in that it clearly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  It would ban stuff one has a right to own and carry.  It could achieve the unintended consequence of advancing the Standard Model.  Such a law would face a certain challenge in the courts at a time when Trump has been appointing judges to deliberately set a new balance.  It is a risky maneuver.

I would count on the descriptions far more than the model numbers. More so, I would not attempt to legislate contested values.  It is not free if part of the country attempts to impose upon another.

[David Horn]

(03-05-2018, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns are dangerous. I'd say 97% of us would agree that guns are dangerous. How many people view themselves as dangerous people and view most other people as being dangerous people? 3-5% maybe. How many assault rifles are currently in the hands of civilians? Millions. How many have been used for mass shootings? Less than 100 over several years. The most dangerous gun in America is the handgun which are owned by millions of more people. How many people buy guns to kill innocent people? I'd say less than one percent? How many buy them for individual self defense or the protection of people or hobby/activity or hunting? I'd say 99%.

The AR-15 is a lousy hunting rifle. It destroys the meat of the animal. Owning one for self protection is foolish, since most uses are either indoors, where length is a negative, or in close quarters, where the same applies. It's intended for use at 10 yards or more. So all that's left is having one for the enjoyment of shooting it, which is pretty minor in comparison to the number that have been killed with it. The same applies to most LEGAL assault rifles. The M4 carbine is good in close quarters, but it already banned in any form.

Classic-Xer Wrote:The rounds that I use mushroom on impact and release shrapnel and make a large exit hole coming out.

The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom. There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon. The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.

[David Horn]

(03-05-2018, 03:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class.  The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true.  Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose.  You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate.  All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution.  In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice.  Even Scalia balked at that.  I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.

Privately speaking or conducting business man to man/person to person or while conducting private business within a private setting that's true/correct. We're not talking about those situations, we talking about a national chain who is in retail business whose doors are open to the general public. A corporation who is operating under the legal jurisdiction of both the state and federal government and the state and federal laws that pertain to gun sales. The 18-20 year old's who Dick's has excluded are of legal age to purchase a shotgun of any kind or a long gun or rifle of any kind within the United State of America and The State of Minnesota according to the states and federal law that exist today. They also have a legal right to purchase legal guns according to the US Constitution as it stands today. I mentioned AGE. Is age discrimination mentioned and recognized in state and federal laws.  

Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40.  It doesn't apply here

Classic-Xer Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This I seriously doubt.  Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result.  Management made a business decision.  That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me.  I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons.  Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.

I'll be saying "I told you so" within a year or two.

Perhaps or perhaps not.  The NRA may finally be losing it's grip on the issue.  If so, then Dick's is making a smart move.

[David Horn]

(03-05-2018, 08:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think it's that difficult to define a gun that should be outlawed as an "assault weapon." Specific models should not be outlawed, and looks don't matter. A standard of how fast it fires, combined with whether it can use an extra magazine of ammunition, can be determined. The magazines can be outlawed too, along with bump stocks. Age limits for buying guns can be passed too. I think it's a question, therefore, of political decision, rather than difficulty in defining a "semi-automatic."

I disagree with the idea of banning model numbers.  These can be changed faster than a prohibitionist can pass laws.

And, of course, it is illegal to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The inability to reach a supermajority makes the whole thing mute.

Scalia even demurred on banning limits, but I agree. Banning by model number is an exercise in futility.  As Eric noted, define the features that make the weapon unacceptable.  Removable magazines, fixed magazines with more than 7 or 8 rounds per loading, and a rifling twist that leaves the rounds unstable on impact are the ones that bother me the most.  556 ammo is not radically different from the 220 swift, so that seems to be in-bounds

[David Horn]

(03-05-2018, 11:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Rights are limited in that they do not give any ability to harm others, nor violate the rights of others.  

I keep asking for other limitations, to no avail.  People say the constitution can be ignored, but never ever say when.  I think I am the only one who states the limits traditionally placed on the Bill of Rights.

Guns are lethal weapons, so limitations on ownership and use are to be expected. For now, Heller makes private ownership a right, but Dredd Scott made the private ownership of people a right too. It didn't last, and I doubt Heller will last either.

[David Horn]

(03-06-2018, 07:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A new bill has been introduced in the House called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, H.R. 5087. 

The above is in its face unconstitutional in that it clearly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  It would ban stuff one has a right to own and carry.  It could achieve the unintended consequence of advancing the Standard Model.  Such a law would face a certain challenge in the courts at a time when Trump has been appointing judges to deliberately set a new balance.  It is a risky maneuver.

I would count on the descriptions far more than the model numbers. More so, I would not attempt to legislate contested values.  It is not free if part of the country attempts to impose upon another.

You both are arguing about this bill as if it has a chance to be enacted.  It's not intended to become law, at least not now.  It's a line in the sand that will be used in future political races.  To what end, only time will tell.

[pbrower2a]

(03-06-2018, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns are dangerous. I'd say 97% of us would agree that guns are dangerous. How many people view themselves as dangerous people and view most other people as being dangerous people? 3-5% maybe. How many assault rifles are currently in the hands of civilians? Millions. How many have been used for mass shootings? Less than 100 over several years. The most dangerous gun in America is the handgun which are owned by millions of more people. How many people buy guns to kill innocent people? I'd say less than one percent? How many buy them for individual self defense or the protection of people or hobby/activity or hunting? I'd say 99%.

The AR-15 is a lousy hunting rifle.  It destroys the meat of the animal.  Owning one for self protection is foolish, since most uses are either indoors, where length is a negative, or in close quarters, where the same applies.  It's intended for use at 10 yards or more.  So all that's left is having one for the enjoyment of shooting it, which is pretty minor in comparison to the number that have been killed with it.  The same applies to most LEGAL assault rifles.  The M4 carbine is good in close quarters, but it already banned in any form.

Classic-Xer Wrote:The rounds that I use mushroom on impact and release shrapnel and make a large exit hole coming out.

The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom.  There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon.  The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.

Indeed, inside a house you are better off with a dog, an animal that can turn on a dime from being a placid pet to 'the other Big Cat'. Dogs will often scare off a troublemaker just by barking. The dog whose bark you know is a strong, powerful, agile, cunning predator with sharp claws and teeth, keen senses, and great bite force. This is the worst enemy that a criminal can face, as is demonstrated by the use of K-9 unites by police forces. Dogs can disarm an offender with one bite, and any large dog (or multiple medium-sized dogs) can instill the primal fear of being killed and eaten. Small dogs can do horrible damage to an intruder, too, and even a kitten-sized (but tiger-like in behavior) Yorkshire terrier can do grievous harm to flesh. I look at a Yorkshire terrier with much more misgiving than I see with a cat of like size.... I do not want my ankles bitten.

It is very difficult to extricate oneself from a dog attack. I wish that Dr. Pettit of Cheshire, Connecticut had gotten a dog for each of the females in his household (that would be four), in which case the scum who murdered his wife and put him at risk from death and daughters would be dead if they tried to pull off the home-invasion robbery. Two Dobermans per attacker -- dead attacker.

[Eric the Green]

(03-06-2018, 07:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 12:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A new bill has been introduced in the House called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, H.R. 5087. 

The above is in its face unconstitutional in that it clearly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  It would ban stuff one has a right to own and carry.  It could achieve the unintended consequence of advancing the Standard Model.  Such a law would face a certain challenge in the courts at a time when Trump has been appointing judges to deliberately set a new balance.  It is a risky maneuver.

I would count on the descriptions far more than the model numbers. More so, I would not attempt to legislate contested values.  It is not free if part of the country attempts to impose upon another.

It's a great bill, but no I'm not holding my breath that it can pass a congress even more reactionary and ignorant than the reactionary Scalia Court that ruled Heller.

It is clearly constitutional, as there are limits to any right, and a limit on types of guns people can own and carry already exists. I agree about the model numbers, as I said, but it doesn't hurt to have both the numbers and the descriptions. The bill does not have the speed standard I suggested, and I am not sure if "military style" is well-enough defined to avoid controversy (well, as if anything about this issue could avoid controversy)  

The poll brower posted said there was substantial support for a ban on assault rifles, but only a tie on a ban of semi-automatic rifles. I still don't really get the difference. The proposed bill imposes a ban on semi-automatics that can fire more than 10 rounds, or use a magazine that provides more than 10 rounds. That seems reasonable to me, and may be what they mean by "military style" or what people mean by "assault rifle." What we don't want are weapons that some nut can take to a school or office or wherever and shoot down 50 or 100 people in 2 or 3 minutes without having to stop to load ammunition, as the AR-15 can do.

Again, this is not a values question, as the same value is involved on both sides. I don't know what part of that you didn't get. I agree that the rural areas think they have more genuine uses for guns, but that only means I would compromise on regular guns, since people think that way in these times. People in rural areas don't need "assault" or "military style" weapons, any more than urban people do.

[Eric the Green]

(03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 03:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class.  The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true.  Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose.  You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate.  All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution.  In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice.  Even Scalia balked at that.  I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.

Privately speaking or conducting business man to man/person to person or while conducting private business within a private setting that's true/correct. We're not talking about those situations, we talking about a national chain who is in retail business whose doors are open to the general public. A corporation who is operating under the legal jurisdiction of both the state and federal government and the state and federal laws that pertain to gun sales. The 18-20 year old's who Dick's has excluded are of legal age to purchase a shotgun of any kind or a long gun or rifle of any kind within the United State of America and The State of Minnesota according to the states and federal law that exist today. They also have a legal right to purchase legal guns according to the US Constitution as it stands today. I mentioned AGE. Is age discrimination mentioned and recognized in state and federal laws.  

Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40.  It doesn't apply here

Classic-Xer Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This I seriously doubt.  Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result.  Management made a business decision.  That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me.  I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons.  Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.

I'll be saying "I told you so" within a year or two.

Perhaps or perhaps not.  The NRA may finally be losing it's grip on the issue.  If so, then Dick's is making a smart move.

If the poll brower posted on the Trump poll thread is correct, then Classic Xer's opinion will not prevail, and ours will, when it comes to shopping at Dick's.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-06-2018, 02:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 11:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Rights are limited in that they do not give any ability to harm others, nor violate the rights of others.  

I keep asking for other limitations, to no avail.  People say the constitution can be ignored, but never ever say when.  I think I am the only one who states the limits traditionally placed on the Bill of Rights.

Guns are lethal weapons, so limitations on ownership and use are to be expected.  For now, Heller makes private ownership a right, but Dredd Scott made the private ownership of people a right too.  It didn't last, and I doubt Heller will last either.

Again. you avoided naming a right that is limited except when harming others or denying others rights.  Those two, even I would agree with.  

There is no limit saying the constitution can be voided at whim.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-06-2018, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns are dangerous. I'd say 97% of us would agree that guns are dangerous. How many people view themselves as dangerous people and view most other people as being dangerous people? 3-5% maybe. How many assault rifles are currently in the hands of civilians? Millions. How many have been used for mass shootings? Less than 100 over several years. The most dangerous gun in America is the handgun which are owned by millions of more people. How many people buy guns to kill innocent people? I'd say less than one percent? How many buy them for individual self defense or the protection of people or hobby/activity or hunting? I'd say 99%.

The AR-15 is a lousy hunting rifle.  It destroys the meat of the animal.  Owning one for self protection is foolish, since most uses are either indoors, where length is a negative, or in close quarters, where the same applies.  It's intended for use at 10 yards or more.  So all that's left is having one for the enjoyment of shooting it, which is pretty minor in comparison to the number that have been killed with it.  The same applies to most LEGAL assault rifles.  The M4 carbine is good in close quarters, but it already banned in any form.

Classic-Xer Wrote:The rounds that I use mushroom on impact and release shrapnel and make a large exit hole coming out.

The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom.  There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon.  The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.

A watermelon has a thick/hard shell like exterior surface for a round to penetrate and exit through. A watermelon is a bad example to use but fun or scary to watch the effects of one being hit by a round. Mammals don't have a shell like exterior covering their entire body with the exception of the skull or head area.

The AR-15 would be an OK hunting rifle for open field or sparsely wooded and sparely covered areas.  It's light weight, it's very accurate, it doesn't have a lot of kick and it shoots relatively flat as far as it's trajectory. It's not ideal for the area where I hunt deer. The round is legal size .223 for hunting deer or antelope on open plains. I'm looking at purchasing one for hunting coyotes and other larger varmints and to have one around/available for me to use for self defense.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-06-2018, 07:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 03:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class.  The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true.  Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose.  You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate.  All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution.  In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice.  Even Scalia balked at that.  I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.

Privately speaking or conducting business man to man/person to person or while conducting private business within a private setting that's true/correct. We're not talking about those situations, we talking about a national chain who is in retail business whose doors are open to the general public. A corporation who is operating under the legal jurisdiction of both the state and federal government and the state and federal laws that pertain to gun sales. The 18-20 year old's who Dick's has excluded are of legal age to purchase a shotgun of any kind or a long gun or rifle of any kind within the United State of America and The State of Minnesota according to the states and federal law that exist today. They also have a legal right to purchase legal guns according to the US Constitution as it stands today. I mentioned AGE. Is age discrimination mentioned and recognized in state and federal laws.  

Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40.  It doesn't apply here

Classic-Xer Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This I seriously doubt.  Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result.  Management made a business decision.  That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me.  I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons.  Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.

I'll be saying "I told you so" within a year or two.

Perhaps or perhaps not.  The NRA may finally be losing it's grip on the issue.  If so, then Dick's is making a smart move.

If the poll brower posted on the Trump poll thread is correct, then Classic Xer's opinion will not prevail, and ours will, when it comes to shopping at Dick's.

It's not a Trump issue or blue issue (Trump is a blue issue), it's a second amendment/Constitutional right issue and an American issue in general. I don't expect much response because it's early and only small things like individual refusals, small scale preparation type things like gathering information for large scale lawsuits are going on at this point. I'm sure business is pretty slow at Dick's considering we are in a seasonal/monthly transition from winter activity to spring/summer/fall activity. Which may have had something to do with Dick's decision announce now as a ploy to bump up sales. How many fishermen are gun owners or second amendment supporters? I am both a fisherman and a hunter and an avid second amendment rights believer and supporter. How many people know people like me than know people like you? Think about it, blues hang with blue. I hang out and get along with everyone to the right of you from the more American minded blues like Bob to the least liberal minded American Reds like the Devil's Advocate.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40.  It doesn't apply here

You are wrong again. Age discrimination applies to all ages. It definitely applies here and most likely will be used with the civil lawsuits Dick's will be facing.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-06-2018, 03:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns are dangerous. I'd say 97% of us would agree that guns are dangerous. How many people view themselves as dangerous people and view most other people as being dangerous people? 3-5% maybe. How many assault rifles are currently in the hands of civilians? Millions. How many have been used for mass shootings? Less than 100 over several years. The most dangerous gun in America is the handgun which are owned by millions of more people. How many people buy guns to kill innocent people? I'd say less than one percent? How many buy them for individual self defense or the protection of people or hobby/activity or hunting? I'd say 99%.

The AR-15 is a lousy hunting rifle.  It destroys the meat of the animal.  Owning one for self protection is foolish, since most uses are either indoors, where length is a negative, or in close quarters, where the same applies.  It's intended for use at 10 yards or more.  So all that's left is having one for the enjoyment of shooting it, which is pretty minor in comparison to the number that have been killed with it.  The same applies to most LEGAL assault rifles.  The M4 carbine is good in close quarters, but it already banned in any form.

Classic-Xer Wrote:The rounds that I use mushroom on impact and release shrapnel and make a large exit hole coming out.

The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom.  There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon.  The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.

Indeed, inside a house you are better off with a dog, an animal that can turn on a dime from being a placid pet to 'the other Big Cat'. Dogs will often scare off a troublemaker just by barking. The dog whose bark you know is a strong, powerful, agile, cunning predator with sharp claws and teeth, keen senses, and great bite force. This is the worst enemy that a criminal can face, as is demonstrated by the use of K-9 unites by police forces. Dogs can disarm an offender with one bite, and any large dog (or multiple medium-sized dogs) can instill the primal fear of being killed and eaten. Small dogs can do horrible damage to an intruder, too, and even a kitten-sized (but tiger-like in behavior) Yorkshire terrier can do grievous harm to flesh. I look at a Yorkshire terrier with much more misgiving than I see with a cat of like size.... I do not want my ankles bitten.

It is very difficult to extricate oneself from a dog attack. I wish that Dr. Pettit of Cheshire, Connecticut had gotten a dog for each of the females in his household (that would be four), in which case the scum who murdered his wife and put him at risk from death and daughters would be dead if they tried to pull off the home-invasion robbery. Two Dobermans per attacker -- dead attacker.

Once the dog is neutralized, the dog is useless as far as your defense. What are you going to do when the dog is unable to defend you, surrender and hope for the best. Can you trust criminals with your well being, your life or the respect of your wife's or daughters or little children's bodies?

A dog is a good warning alarm, a good deterrent for an unarmed criminal and a bit of a challenge for an armed criminal. My dog wasn't trained to kill or attack and fight with armed humans like police dogs or security dogs or military dogs are trained to do on a regular basis. My dog fair very well with an armed intruder and most likely would end severely wounded or dead.

[pbrower2a]

The dog is more likely to 'neutralize' an offender. It is less likely to miss with its fangs and claws -- and dog bites are quite painful. The usual criminal is interested in an easy theft or rape, and a painful dog attack is a good reason to get out of the situation.

Large dogs do not have to be trained to inflict severe pain on a threat to its loved ones. Good behavior that you usually see in a dog is a veneer for an animal still capable of breeding with wolves. Its good behavior is contingent upon others'[ good behavior. Going where the dog belongs but the intruder doesn't turns a strange dog into a brutal predator. Besides, the first indicator that the dog is in striking range is a knockdown or a bad bite. The knockdown is a literal fall, which could be as dangerous as a dog bite.

[Eric the Green]

(03-06-2018, 11:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 03:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 02:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns are dangerous. I'd say 97% of us would agree that guns are dangerous. How many people view themselves as dangerous people and view most other people as being dangerous people? 3-5% maybe. How many assault rifles are currently in the hands of civilians? Millions. How many have been used for mass shootings? Less than 100 over several years. The most dangerous gun in America is the handgun which are owned by millions of more people. How many people buy guns to kill innocent people? I'd say less than one percent? How many buy them for individual self defense or the protection of people or hobby/activity or hunting? I'd say 99%.

The AR-15 is a lousy hunting rifle.  It destroys the meat of the animal.  Owning one for self protection is foolish, since most uses are either indoors, where length is a negative, or in close quarters, where the same applies.  It's intended for use at 10 yards or more.  So all that's left is having one for the enjoyment of shooting it, which is pretty minor in comparison to the number that have been killed with it.  The same applies to most LEGAL assault rifles.  The M4 carbine is good in close quarters, but it already banned in any form.

Classic-Xer Wrote:The rounds that I use mushroom on impact and release shrapnel and make a large exit hole coming out.

The rounds from an AR-15 don't mushroom.  There is a video (I looked but couldn't find it) that shows the results of one round fired at a watermelon.  The entry hole is small; the entire back side of the watermelon is missing.

Indeed, inside a house you are better off with a dog, an animal that can turn on a dime from being a placid pet to 'the other Big Cat'. Dogs will often scare off a troublemaker just by barking. The dog whose bark you know is a strong, powerful, agile, cunning predator with sharp claws and teeth, keen senses, and great bite force. This is the worst enemy that a criminal can face, as is demonstrated by the use of K-9 unites by police forces. Dogs can disarm an offender with one bite, and any large dog (or multiple medium-sized dogs) can instill the primal fear of being killed and eaten. Small dogs can do horrible damage to an intruder, too, and even a kitten-sized (but tiger-like in behavior) Yorkshire terrier can do grievous harm to flesh. I look at a Yorkshire terrier with much more misgiving than I see with a cat of like size.... I do not want my ankles bitten.

It is very difficult to extricate oneself from a dog attack. I wish that Dr. Pettit of Cheshire, Connecticut had gotten a dog for each of the females in his household (that would be four), in which case the scum who murdered his wife and put him at risk from death and daughters would be dead if they tried to pull off the home-invasion robbery. Two Dobermans per attacker -- dead attacker.

Once the dog is neutralized, the dog is useless as far as your defense. What are you going to do when the dog is unable to defend you, surrender and hope for the best. Can you trust criminals with your well being, your life or the respect of your wife's or daughters or little children's bodies?

A dog is a good warning alarm, a good deterrent for an unarmed criminal and a bit of a challenge for an armed criminal. My dog wasn't trained to kill or attack and fight with armed humans like police dogs or security dogs or military dogs are trained to do on a regular basis. My dog fair very well with an armed intruder and most likely would end severely wounded or dead.

I don't quite understand the red mentality. You are not a rural resident, but you like to hunt and kill deer. Rural gun advocates argue that it takes too long to call 9-11 if you are attacked, so you need your own gun for protection. But there's a couple of things to say about that argument; at least a couple. 

Besides there being other self-protection methods such as dogs, locks and so on, rural areas are sparsely populated, and have less change, and so there's more community feeling (like at the grange), and less crime. In a rural area criminals are less likely to show up. In fact, the northern red states frequently have slightly lower murder rates than average, which means that their much higher level of gun violence almost entirely accounts for all their murders. There would be a lot less murders in northern red states and red counties if there were fewer guns there. And suicides too of course. But the gun culture in these red areas condemns them to more violence than need be.

And why do folks like Classic Xer and other gun advocates (who predominantly live in red states and counties; the red/blue divide is quite stark on this issue in terms of which states have gun control and which don't) constantly assume that they live in a world where a criminal might attack you at any moment? Why do red Americans have this view of the world? The attitude Classic Xer is voicing here is that you have to assume the worst about humanity at all times; you might get attacked by an armed criminal at any moment, so only an AR-15 or other military-style assault weapon will protect you in this violent world. It goes without saying that this attitude also influences the reality it helps to create.

Other developed nations don't have this attitude, and are quite willing to ban or control guns. Is this a heritage of the 2nd Amendment? Or our wild west history? Our capitalist dog-eat-dog (no pun intended) economy, and our individualist hatred of socialism and dependency on government and taxes? Or is this a "classic Xer" attitude of that generation? Or is it American show business? Or all of the above? And when will we start to put this attitude to bed, instead of red Americans doubling and tripling down on it in the face of contrary movements since the sixties and in blue states today?

[Eric the Green]

(03-06-2018, 10:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 07:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 02:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 03:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class.  The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true.  Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose.  You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate.  All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution.  In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice.  Even Scalia balked at that.  I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.

Privately speaking or conducting business man to man/person to person or while conducting private business within a private setting that's true/correct. We're not talking about those situations, we talking about a national chain who is in retail business whose doors are open to the general public. A corporation who is operating under the legal jurisdiction of both the state and federal government and the state and federal laws that pertain to gun sales. The 18-20 year old's who Dick's has excluded are of legal age to purchase a shotgun of any kind or a long gun or rifle of any kind within the United State of America and The State of Minnesota according to the states and federal law that exist today. They also have a legal right to purchase legal guns according to the US Constitution as it stands today. I mentioned AGE. Is age discrimination mentioned and recognized in state and federal laws.  

Age discrimination only applies to those of us over 40.  It doesn't apply here

Classic-Xer Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This I seriously doubt.  Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result.  Management made a business decision.  That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me.  I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons.  Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.

I'll be saying "I told you so" within a year or two.

Perhaps or perhaps not.  The NRA may finally be losing it's grip on the issue.  If so, then Dick's is making a smart move.

If the poll brower posted on the Trump poll thread is correct, then Classic Xer's opinion will not prevail, and ours will, when it comes to shopping at Dick's.

It's not a Trump issue or blue issue (Trump is a blue issue), it's a second amendment/Constitutional right issue and an American issue in general. I don't expect much response because it's early and only small things like individual refusals, small scale preparation type things like gathering information for large scale lawsuits are going on at this point. I'm sure business is pretty slow at Dick's considering we are in a seasonal/monthly transition from winter activity to spring/summer/fall activity. Which may have had something to do with Dick's decision announce now as a ploy to bump up sales. How many fishermen are gun owners or second amendment supporters? I am both a fisherman and a hunter and an avid second amendment rights believer and supporter. How many people know people like me than know people like you? Think about it, blues hang with blue. I hang out and get along with everyone to the right of you from the more American minded blues like Bob to the least liberal minded American Reds like the Devil's Advocate.

The poll happened to be posted on the Trump approval poll page by pbrower, but it stands on its own and is not directly related to polls showing approval or not approval of Trump.

It is largely a red/blue divide issue, but there are individual exceptions to be sure. Police tend to vote Republican, but are strong gun control supporters. Some leftist radicals are gun supporters because they oppose or don't trust the government (just like right-wing radicals). Bob is a strict constitutionalist, like Scalia was. 

Your attitude is parochial and provincial, because you call people who think like you "American minded" or the real "Americans," even when polls show the majority of Americans are on the blue side on this or other questions.

[pbrower2a]

Much polling on issues (including firearm availability), if not Presidential approval:

a poll on issues if not on the President
 
March 6, 2018 - U.S. Voters Oppose Steel, Aluminum Tariffs, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Oppose Armed Teachers, Back Armed Security 6-1


PDF format
Additional Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detail

American voters oppose 50 - 31 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and disagree 64 - 28 percent with President Donald Trump's claim that a trade war would be good for the U.S. and easily won, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

Every listed party, gender, education, age and racial group oppose steel and aluminum tariffs, except Republicans, who support tariffs by a lackluster 58 - 20 percent and white voters with no college degree, who are divided with 42 percent supporting tariffs and 40 percent opposed, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

American voters oppose these tariffs 59 - 29 percent, if these tariffs raise the cost of goods they buy. The tariffs will be good for American jobs, 26 percent say, while 36 percent say tariffs will be bad for jobs and 24 percent say the tariffs will have no impact on jobs.

American voters disapprove 54 - 34 percent of the way President Trump is handling trade. Only Republicans and white voters with no college degree approve.

That National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has too much influence over politicians, 60 percent of American voters say, while 7 percent say it has too little influence and 26 percent say it has the right amount of influence.

Republicans in Congress are afraid of the NRA, voters say 54 - 42 percent.

Democrats in Congress are afraid of the NRA, voters say 49 - 45 percent.

President Trump is not afraid of the NRA, voters say 65 - 31 percent.

"Tariff, smariff, say voters who see punishing other countries on imports will do more harm at home," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Who's afraid of the NRA? 535 Senators and Congress people. "Who's not afraid of the NRA? The man with the most to lose to one of Washington's most powerful lobbies, President Donald Trump."

American voters oppose 58 - 40 percent allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns on school grounds.

But voters support 82 - 14 percent having armed security officers in schools.

American voters say 81 - 14 percent it's a "good thing" that some private companies now require people to be 21 years old or older to purchase a gun. Support is 65 percent or higher among every listed group. If a company says it will no longer sell assault weapons, 33 percent of voters are more likely to shop there, as 12 percent are less likely and 53 percent say this will have no effect.

If Congress does not pass stricter gun laws, 57 percent of voters say Republicans would be more responsible, as 18 percent say Democrats would be more responsible.

Support for gun control remains strong as American voters support 63 - 32 percent stricter gun laws in the U.S., compared to 66 - 31 percent in a February 20 Quinnipiac University National Poll.

Voter opinions on other gun issues are:

• Support 61 - 35 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
  
• A 48 - 48 percent split on a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic rifles;
  
• Support 63 - 34 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds;
  
• Support 78 - 20 percent requiring individuals to be 21 years old or older to buy a gun;
  
• Support 89 - 8 percent allowing police or family members to petition a judge to remove guns from a person who may be at risk of violent behavior;
  
• Support 91 - 6 percent banning possession of a gun by an individual with a restraining order against them for stalking or domestic, sexual or repeat violence.
  

"The outcry on guns continues and voters say it's on you, Republicans, to make the change," Malloy said.

From March 3 - 5, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,122 voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Live interviewers call landlines and cell phones.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts nationwide public opinion surveys, and statewide polls in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and Colorado as a public service and for research.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-det...aseID=2525

Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.

(We may have reached a tipping point on the reform of gun laws to keep people who have no legitimate purpose in buying or holding them from buying or holding them. The NRA may be going more extreme, but it is losing the rest of America).

[David Horn]

(03-06-2018, 07:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-06-2018, 02:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-05-2018, 11:36 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Rights are limited in that they do not give any ability to harm others, nor violate the rights of others.  

I keep asking for other limitations, to no avail.  People say the constitution can be ignored, but never ever say when.  I think I am the only one who states the limits traditionally placed on the Bill of Rights.

Guns are lethal weapons, so limitations on ownership and use are to be expected.  For now, Heller makes private ownership a right, but Dredd Scott made the private ownership of people a right too.  It didn't last, and I doubt Heller will last either.

Again. you avoided naming a right that is limited except when harming others or denying others rights.  Those two, even I would agree with.  

There is no limit saying the constitution can be voided at whim.

I'll give three off the top of my head:

• Apparently, it's OK with the SCOTUS for law enforcement to seize property without due process, forcing people never charged with any crime or later found not guilty to sue for recovery.  I vehemently disagree with this policy, and even more with the support it's received through the courts.  Nonetheless, it's permissible. 
  
• A less controversial example is the permissible limits governments can place on assembly based not on actual harm but only the potential for it. 
  
• It's also illegal to consume peyote, even though some native American religions consider it a sacrament.
  

I'm sure there are others.