Contributors to this thread:
What will happen to hunting if....
What will happen to hunting if radical gun legislation ever takes hold in the US ? Bow hunters are a smallish group . If we lose a bunch of gun hunters due to significant firearms restrictions , do you think the voice of hunting will die down so much that the antis finally overtake us ? I know that’s not on the near horizon but it’s very possible depending on who’s in power when just the right precipitating event takes place . Could bowhunting survive without gun hunters ?
At the point hunting becomes illegal, all the critters are legal.
The antis already acknowledge that hunting is a "dying sport". That's why they primarily target niche hunting methods that can draw emotional support from lawmakers and voters. They know the general public basically supports hunting (so long as it isn't "trophy hunting").
We have more to worry about if they ever decide to put bowhunting as a method on the ballot in hard blue states, than the effect of gun laws on hunting in general.
With the way things are going in society these days, you have more to be concerned with than bowhunting if firearm ownership is repealed entirely.
"all critters are. legal" exactly.
Money that’s needed for enforcing game laws is provided by hunters. I’m a law abiding person, but there would be no way to stop it.
There will never be a national referendum on hunting but I can see certain states falling. The good news is most of all the great hunting is in states the would never hurt hunting because their economy is partially driven by the tourism, etc.
When the game departments fail and people just shoot on sight, very soon there will be no or very few game animals to shoot at.
I have lived outside the US where there were no game laws and no enforcement with heavy regulation of firearms. Fish and wildlife was exploited to extinction anywhere people could get to easily and from some areas that were amazingly difficult to get to.
Guns or bows are not necessary nor even the most efficient method to take out all the wildlife from an area.
Guns or hunting will never be heavily restricted or abolished. A Civil War will occur before that happens....liberals will never win that battle. Bowhunters need to stand with gun owners as they are the first line of defense and they have the $$$$.
Remember if it happens to them it WILL happen to you.
Franklin beat me to it... There will be a war in this country if the government ever tries to take away all firearms.
Franklin x3, and Mossyhorn, exactly what I was gonna say. There will be a major rebellion and I am glad I'm on the RIGHT side of law and order by means of the RIGHT to keep and bare arms. The left is unarmed thankfully.
The largest non-governmental army in the world, and you propose taking away their weapons??? Not likely, ever. Bowhunting is becoming a population management tool in many urban areas due to firearm restrictions, residential housing proximity to large deer populations and plain old politics. This is a new thing in the last 25 years. So that is at least one area where it has grown significantly.
Franklin X5 . If that does happen sport hunting will be the last thing on our list of things to worry about.
There is already a rebellion going on, and it ain't gun owners...
If gun hunting went away, you'll see alot more bowhunters in your favorite spot ;)
It would take many generations beyond what I care about or have any possibility of effecting for hunting rifles and shotguns to be banned in president-day rural America for hunting. As far as I'm concerned anti hunting Kalifornia and can have their Republic I think in my lifetime it will continue to demonstrate what a failure of a grand experiment it is.
The antis have a strategy....hunters just want to hunt
The antis mobilize their masses- they join and consolidate....many hunters don't participate in pro hunting orgs
Antis chip away. They initiate wolf introductions that end up taking away hunting opportunities- they have a plan.
We as hunters are still trying to get everyone involved. When Ca wenty off the deep end many hunters ridiculed CA...."It can't happen here"
Then it did happen; in Oregon, Washington even British Columbia........the antis are laughing all the way to the bank.
Bowhunting is an easy target once gather stats in accuracy of shot placement and recovery stats vs firearms. I see dozens of threads each year that crossbows suck, airbows are Satan, rifle shooters are not real hunters, etc. That is doing the work of the anti's for them. States that allow petitions with a certain threshold of signatures of register voters to put anything on the ballot are where the steam-rolling will arise. CO is likely the first state to see huge changes. Bear hunting and leg hold traps were not restricted by F&G or scientists crusading for better management of wildlife. Nope, was one non-hunter or anti-hunter at a time signing the petition outside a Starbucks or Whole Foods on a Saturday afternoon after being shown a gruesome photo. Nate can be cruel but only a few people live out in nature for even a few days each year. Science and logic have nothing to do with this sort of law-making.
First of all, if certain weapons are banned true hunters will use a different one. Ban will be on future sale not possession, but let's say it was for possession, many others to use. Secondly, if hunting was banned which won't happen but if it was then the dnr would be broke and would be abolished in which case hunting would continue without licenses or permits or limits.
Franklin is on the money! Law abiding adults are not; and never have been, the problem. Recently read an article written by Jonah Golberg with respect to the Florida school incident. Today's far left libs have no clue why the present president was elected. Hardcore, hard working blue collar America stood up and was counted. Goldberg suggested that today's protesting young people need to get quit a few more years of experience under their belts (grow into adulthood) before they attempt to change part of the Constitution that has stood over 200 years defending all the freedoms a democracy offers. PS: God bless the Electoral College...a little state can nullify Callyfornia/NewYuck dictatorship.
Hunting could go the way of some European countries to where only the wealthy can afford the land, and gun privileges.
As far as hunting and gun rights being intertwined I don't see it that way. I know way more gun owners than I do hunters. Granted gun hunters are gun owners, but not necessarily the other way around. Hunting is not a constitutional right and is more likely to go down by organized efforts than actual gun ownership. Right now I think most of the anti-hunting orgs are mostly crazies and are seen that way by the average person, but someday someone is going to come in cool and collected with a plan and it's going to be hard to fight them...
If semi-autos are banned, people will hunt with something else. I think most big game hunters use bolt guns anyways as it is. Small game and waterfowl hunters use semi-autos quite a bit (I do), but pump guns and over/unders would take over eventually. I can't imagine how big of a problem whitetail deer populations would become if hunting stopped.
We need to all send our message to these entities.
I emailed REI and asked them if they stood against gun ownership and/or hunting.
They emailed back and said to see their statement on the website. I did. Pretty vague.
So, I emailed back and told them to cancel my membership, and I'd be shopping with local grass roots business instead. I gave two reasons: 1) Big business using its position to influence politics is counterintuitive to a free society; and, 2) They wouldn't clearly state their position toward gun ownership and hunting/fishing.
Bitching on this blog post is useless, if we don't speak up and make choices ourselves.
The NRA does not represent hunters. It represents manufacturers. ARs and other mass killing guns have no place in hunting and no place in society. As a bow hunter, rifle hunter, shot gun hunter and muzzle loader hunter, I fully support sensible gun control. I hope the protests today help move these thoughtless politicians out of the NRAs pocket. The idea that sensible gun control will lead to the end of hunting is absurd.
"Sensible" gun laws. Sounds good right? Well by my definition of "sensible" we already have sensible gun laws. The whole problem is who gets to define "sensible"?
And Robin Hood poached the Kings deer, right.. No hunting will be like stricter gun laws, won't stop those who want.
"You are uneducated. The NRA stands for the 2nd Amendment. Has nothing to do with hunting. Did you get an undergrad degree ?"
You are clearly the uneducated one here. LMAO! Do some fact checking bud.
Banning hunting has nothing to do with gun laws. PETA isn't trying to control gun laws. The internet is a huge weapon that is used by others in their attacks on hunting. Posting pictures of deer running around with arrows sticking out on Facebook is the dumbest thing I've ever saw, and sharing the pictures always gets in the wrong hands!!
Years ago, we were allowed to kill geese on the golf course around a huge resort with archery equipment. It was strictly limited and enforced. Well, after someone seen a goose running around with an arrow stuck in it, we can no longer kill geese around the golf course. Goat hunting in some units are limited to week days only, and away from highways, because years ago, someone was foolish to shoot a goat with people looking on. No spring bear seasons in Colorado was stopped by groups, leg hold traps are not allowed, coyote calling contests are being closely monitored and rallies held to stop them. Lion hunting in banned in California, grizzly hunting in British Columbia. And yet you think it could never happen here? Keep posting pictures of dead animals with the words "Send naked pictures" on it on Facebook, keep posting pictures of animals running around with arrows in them, keep showing video of guys making bad shots on game and not finding it. All we're doing is adding another nail to our coffin...
I have three degrees, actually, from top tier universities.
Did you not read the conjunctive "and/or" in my statement? In no way was my post drawing a necessarily correlation between gun rights and hunting.
Don't mince my words, never said that.
I have three degrees, actually, from top tier universities.
Did you not read the conjunctive "and/or" in my statement? In no way was my post drawing a necessarily correlation between gun rights and hunting.
In this day and age to not know what the NRA is, who it is made up of, and what they are at least trying to accomplish takes a willful ignorance.
As an aside, if not a member you might think about joining. 2nd Amendment rights are under assault right now.
Agreed, Backpack Hunter.
I emailed my state reps and senators, along with the Whitehouse.
There's plenty of sensible folks out there that just need to speak up. That was the overarching motif to my original post here.
Spend as much time sending your thoughts out to those in power as you do picking fights on Bowsite, guys.
Do a google search on how much money the NRA gives to politicians vs what every other special interest does. They have no one in their "pockets".
NRA is for everyone that owns a gun. they are all for hunting and have represented the hunter when needed. but at the moment the have a large fight. and the NRA is not a company choosing there own battles. they are a million people Supporters fighting for are rights. if they cave the government will only push for more that why they stand strong against the gov. when needed. there is no other group that fights for you and freedom as the NRA does. I sure do not see DU, pope and young, Bowhunters of where ever? are any other organization in the capitals fighting for you. In IL the gov. is trying to pass a bill as we speak to make it illegal for anyone under 21 to Owen a automatic rifle. and if passed to turn them in in 90 days are become a felon this does not imply 223 or ar-15 it says autos ALL. like 10/22. marline tube feed 22s. squirrel hunting guns. so yes the NRA are supporting hunters also. your tricky Gov. try's to add in hidden agendas that the NRA will not fall for. so join today to defend your heritage and keep hunting .
If you own a gun or believe in the Constitution and are not a member of the NRA, you are part of the problem. PERIOD.
The day they "ban hunting" will be one of the greatest days of my life! No more seasons, or draws, or any of that BS to worry about. Just a heads up: I will be sheep hunting somewhere in MT that day... ;^)
Just keep in mind after they ban hunting. The moment you come out to your truck, two guys in green tuxedo's that work for the socialist government will put the jewelry on you and give you a tour of the crowbar hotel. Support the NRA, they are the only force we have on political ground. You can march till your feet hurt and scream till your blue in the face but everything gets done with a pen (after the right amount of money hits the right hands).
The NRA has received 56,000,000 dollars from gun manufacturers in recent years. Who do you think their representing you or the gun manufacturers.
Nothing like circling the wagons and shooting inward. We are our own worst enemy. All this worry about people taking our rights away, yet we choose to fight amongst ourselves.
My "movement" this morning had a far more defined purpose than this amorphous "movement" yesterday. That was an opportunity for everyone on the left who has a beef with the government to vent and have a big party with like-minded cupcakes. BLM, PETA, gays and trans, man-haters, vegetarians, illegal immigrants, #me too feminazis, snowflake low-information kids all marching to demand the government do SOMETHING to make them happy, just not sure what.
The NRA has a singular purpose. It is to represent everyone who resents having constitutional rights trampled upon, and it's the only organization dedicated to that cause.
Will Tell, you must have failed fifth grade math. The NRA has over 5 million individual members. Those individual members contribute well over $200,000,000 every year, not counting benefactor-donors. Who does the NRA represent, again?
I, for one, am damned glad the gun manufacturers are kicking in their share. But it's not enough.
Here is some interesting facts about the NRA. It was founded 1871. The NRA lobbied for gun control until 1970. The NRA backed the first federal gun laws after the Prohibition Era. It's leader KarlT. Frederick stated " I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses. In 1963 the NRA backed the banning of mail order sales.
It all changed in 1971 when federal agents shot and paralyzed NRA member Kenyon Ballew during a gun raid. On May 21, 1977 known as the Revolt in Cincinnati members stormed the annual meeting and demanded changes. The new Executive Vice Pres. Harmon Carter spelled out a new approach " No compromise, No gun legislation."
Here we are 41 years later. Math wasn't one of my problems but English gave me some trouble.lol
Will Tell, history is interesting, but the history of organizations has little relevance today. Lets not forget that the Democratic party was all about preserving slavery and the Klan was the "deep state" citizen army of the Democratic party. You don't see the Dems standing up and cheering that?
Never believed in the general purpose of carrying a weapon.....??? Wow.... Good luck to you sir, and hope you never find yourself in a position where you have to depend on someone else to protect you or your loved ones in a bad situation...
It never ends and only gets worse. The more civilized a society becomes, the more they think human nature doesn't apply to their culture. I watched an interview with Benjamin Natanyahu several weeks ago. He was asked why he stays in America so much. His answer was "Freedom".
Whether you believe we are in no jeopardy if we veer from the course that the founding fathers laid out for us or, fail to recognize the danger in doing so due to it being "outgrown", reality doesn't change. That reality is we wouldn't be what we are today without our Bill of Rights. And, our Bill of Rights wouldn't be here if not for people who understood that government has no accountability to a population that has no bargaining ability. That sounds stupid to some people I'm sure. But, people who think human nature doesn't apply in that situation doesn't deserve reference.
I get really frustrated hearing people talk about how evil the NRA is. I get even more irritated when people who should know better act as if the NRA is acting on behalf of anyone except the people who compose this country. The 2nd amendment is the one right that every politician steers clear of for good reason. Because to alter it would ensure this country's demise. We might title ourselves the same but, we wouldn't be.
I'm certain the arrogance that allows people to only look at what they can see, versus what the cause of it becomes, is the foundation for bad results. And, any human that can't see giving one inch will be detrimental for the future of America, simply doesn't deserve the freedoms they have. If only they could live with their choices. But, they won't. It's our kids and grand kids that will.
I grew up in a waterfowl family. when I first started hunting ducks it was with a single shoot after a couple of years I got to start using dads model 12 pump gun, for my sixteenth birthday I got my first auto shotgun Browning a-5 sweet sixteen :) was I a proud gun owner. not sure but I think I sleep with it that night. IL. is now under attack to ban auto weapons for anyone under 21, will you be proud to tell your son or daughter they can not have on because you didn't believe in the cause are the NRA. NO one else is fighting the gov. but the NRA but they can not do it alone. as a hunter weather you believe in ccw are not need to look deeper in what the gov. making new laws tries to pass your only hope to keep hunting as we know it is to help support and be a member for your future hunting gun writes.
I also here you about the money the NRA takes in. but it is being used for are writes. and yes some does go to line politicians pockets. I am ok with this if its what it takes to keep my and my kids hunting with are favorite guns. it how America works like it or not.
The NRA needs our support now more than ever. I would urge every gun owner to support their cause by joining and sending in continued yearly donations. Good posts by Jaquomo and other supporters.
Everyone talks tough, but if they outlaw guns/hunting any rebellion would be snuffed out pretty quickly. You wouldn’t stand a chance if they decided to make an example out of you.
Laws don't stop individuals or groups that want to do "us" harm...no matter how "sensible" the laws supposedly are.
Emotion aside, I haven't heard any reasonable voice call for a complete ban on all guns. There is a reality that we need to consider. Millennials and Gen-Xers will make up the majority of folks eligible to vote in 2018 and, if they keep their momentum, they could significantly change the political make-up. There are certainly some steps that can be taken that could help reduce mass murders but not prevent people from having hunting and self-protection weapons and it would be in our best interest as gun owners to look at what can be done rather than digging in our heels.
To find the answer we haft to fine the truth to what went wrong and most will not admit it . the guns they are wanting to ban have been around to public for over 50 years or more the m1 30 carbine 30 round mag 1940s wwII.. the ruger mini 14 in the 1960s colt ar 1960s . I had the m1 in my house in the 60s and shooting it when I was 13 .but there was never nothing like this in the 60s and 70s and 80s so what changed to cause this? the guns are the same and laws are more stricter now then then. so if you can answer this question you are in the direction to what it takes to help. what is the difference between now and then.? movie , video games, how people raise there children, ????? then how are we going to change this.
What are those steps, Phil? The rational voices are demanding an end to gun hunting until age 21 (no long gun ownership until 21), an end to self protection (outlawing CCW), banning 6 million semi-automatic long guns (which illegally kill fewer than 150 people a year), banning home self defense (requiring all guns to be disabled and locked in safes at home) and violating the constitution and due process (gun confiscation based upon a call from a friend or relative), registering all firearms owned by law abiding citizens for future confiscation at the whims of politicians, requiring gun owners to become part of a "well regulated militia".
I haven't heard one of the "rational voices" calling for hardening the prosecution for felons who break gun laws or attempt to buy guns through the NICS. No mandatory inclusion of documented mental health problems into the NICS. Every single proposal by Everytown (the organizer and sponsor of Saturday's party who paid for everyone's transportation) puts the burden on law abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop criminal acts.
But from their perspective, and in the minds of the young folks they and the media are indoctrinating, every gun owner is a potential mass murderer or school shooter and they won't stop until private gun ownership is so restricted as to be effectively outlawed.
Have you actually talked with any young people or are you going by media reports? I know many that don't see every gun owner as a potential mass murderer. If I knew what would put an end to the mass murders and would protect our right to own and carry guns I wouldn' t be here, I'd be on a nice quiet place somewhere off the grid.
The trouble I see is that one side is digging in completely and the other side is getting more and more support. Some of the things that can be done include working to include mental health issues in background checks. That is a much larger issue to resolve than it seems but starting to work on that may be a good start.
The issue of 21 could be mitigated by letting them carry a gun while hunting or target shooting as long as they have a hunting license. Basically handle it the same way as 12 - 18 year olds are handled today. They cannot legally buy a gun but they can hunt.
I don't disagree with enforcing existing laws but that argument isn't going to carry water with the millennials. There needs to be some type of new discussions that are approached seriously, not a rehash of old talking points.
Forget about the slippery slope concept that many espouse. I'm very confident that if we - law-abiding gun owners - don't make a good faith effort to work to reduce gun violence by trying to work with the mainstream (not the fringe) then the other side won't stop at just wanting to ban assault weapons. They will rear up against what they see as knuckle draggers and push and push and push. And their numbers will be greater than ours. We need to be proactive in finding solutions rather than being defensive.
Most 12 to 18 year olds live at home. How does a 19 year old who lives on her own acquire a rifle and keep the rifle? That's the problem. She cannot buy one, cannot possess it. Does she steal a gun and hide it in a hollow tree trunk? Nobody is proposing a "hunting exemption" in any of these idiotic laws.
Slippery slope...like what's happening in East Coast cities and states, and in California? Of course there's a slippery slope when those on the side of gun bans are in control of the message and lying to promulgate it. Hitler promised to stop Germany's expansion at Anschluss. Then six days later, off they went. Bloomberg is not promising to stop with ANY "reasonable" laws. Any "common sense" laws passed will embolden them to go after more and more.
I have a 27 year old daughter who grew up around guns, shot them a lot, but is now a big city fashion chick. Virtually all of her friends have no idea about how guns work, don't care about hunting or hunters, don't believe in private gun ownership at all, and thanks to social media and 24/7 alarmist news media they believe there are mass shootings by nuts with ARs happening every day.
Maybe we need to take a hard look at what has changed in society since you and I were young, when everyone had access to firearms and nobody shot up schools, churches, etc.. But if course that will never happen because today we live in a society dreamed of by progressives in the 60s. Now we're reaping what they sowed.
Look at medications. It's staggering the number of kids on meds these days and nobody knows how it effects them as they age.
One final comment then I'll leave this thread - take the number of friends your daughter has and multiply it exponentially and you'll get the number we are up against. If they see us as obstinate and unable to work to find solutions they will crush us. We need to make some good-faith effort to find answers without relying on all the old rhetoric and logic. The millennials aren't tools, aren't brainwashed and can be a powerful force if they get involved.
I'm, maybe, the minority. I dont believe firearms will be banned. Ever. Will some call for it, yep. May a certain looking weapon in the news get more restricted in terms of accessibility, yep, I could see that. May we all need to do background checks, finger printing, take a class etc, yep, I could see that (and I'm ok with that).
But the idea that the huge majority of guns we all use for hunting, target or even home protection (most being pistol's or SG's for that I'd bet) would be banned. I dont believe it.
I dont believe I have my head in the sand either. Some change may be coming to firearms licensing laws, but the vast majority of firearms available will stay available to us and legal, if not all of them, so long as "we" keep our noses clean.
Phil, in a perfect world I would tend to agree with you. But lets say we give them everything they want - now.. Ban possession of semi-auto rifles and require their surrender to the government, universal gun registration, background checks that go all the way back to elementary school, ban rifle possession until age 21, require handguns in the home to be locked in a safe at all times, allow firearm confiscation from someone who gets in an argument with their sister-in-law, ban concealed carry nationwide, etc, etc... Basically Bloomberg/Everytown' s wish list.
Then when the next school shooting happens, what will they demand?
I disagree that millennials aren't brainwashed tools. The huge majority get all their "news" and information from social media echo chambers. They're indoctrinated by left-leaning teachers and influenced by Hollywood and music industry leftists. They are absolutely brainwashed.
I'm back for a minute. I don't think we should give them everything they want. I think we should a good faith effort to work with them to find solutions, knowing that neither side will get everything they want.
You need to get to know more than one millennial. Sure there are some like you mentions. Of course there are some old farts like you mentioned. As a group you're selling them short.
And Will, I agree that there is no way all guns will be outlawed.
The problem I see Will is, say AR type guns get banned. Then when the future school shootings happen with semi-auto and/or pump shotguns, they will want to ban those. Then pistols, etc., etc., etc. It's the same old slippery slope deal. Background checks, don't we already have these? And even with a more thorough check, is it going to stop the guy who passes the check but snaps and goes on a rampage? The Las Vegas guy was clean wasn't he? And how dumb is a compromise when that compromise won't be effective anyways?
Phil, I get what you're saying, but not sure who "they" or "them" are? Michael Bloomberg? Gabby Giffords? The little communist Emma Gonzalez? That's the problem - there is not a unfied group with consistent goals. And not one of them can be trusted.
What I do know his that the day we allow an incoherent mob of semi-literate, phone-addicted, Tide Pod eaters to determine national policy is the day our Republic has fallen.
I hear you 12yds. My observation, is that if "we" go to the table with "them", AR's wont get banned. (And to be honest, I say that as someone (uh oh) who would be fine if they did for civilian use) There's thousands and thousands of them out there. It's almost impossible to pull those from circulation. But, you may be able to get current laws working and consider very reasonable options like background checks etc nationally, at gun shows etc and now ADULT heads can produce some meaningful and positive progress on this issue.
The venom of the dialogue is such that no one wants to talk, and instead, seem to only seek further polarization.
Solutions to human created problems requires human change. Not "guard rails" to try and make human nature change. It never has nor will it ever. No amount of trying to come up with band aid solutions is going to stop mass murder. It's been going on since mankind graced the earth. Suggesting we can out think that is being naive Phil.
Solutions to the problems that cause mass murder can't be legislated, stopped, post pone'd, or alleviated due to the human element. A solution that would be the most effective deterrent is one that see's free people understand that certain disturbed people will always exploit the freedoms we love and, the best defense to those willing to do that is to be prepared for those individuals.
Freedom doesn't come free. That saying has more meanings then to rally support for our military patriots of the past. It also means if we want the freedom the constitution gives us, we must be willing to live with the results of being free. Therefore, the answer to solving problems caused by freedoms, isn't to take away those freedoms is it? If we intended for our future to have what has made this country different from all others, the same granted rights, how can we insist that our country must deviate from the documentation that made this great place?
You and me both know we are on political opposites. I can respect that. What I won't do is take the advice that compromise is something we need to do when it will do nothing to prevent the NEXT school shooting. Compromise on what then? I'm not being mean but, you brought it up so give some compromises that addresses these problems and I'm all ears.
The problem with compromise of freedoms when you are looking to address the problem of mass shootings, doesn't address the real issues. No one wants to place blame on the guy who openly stated he was going to be the next school shooter. No one wants to say the FBI and local sheriff department screwed up too many times to count. What gun laws and further restrictions would have prevented this Phil?
Keep voting with PETA and against the NRA. Many here are and claim to be for hunting.
What planet do some of you live on? If you go to a gun show and buy from a vendor, you must complete a back ground check. I keep hearing that stupid claim and, it is being made by ignorant people. If you buy a gun online, it must be shipped to a FFL dealer where a back ground check must be completed before you gain possession of that firearm. What is wrong with the whole Armalite situation is a lot if misinformation is being used as the gospel.
You are so right about the misinformation. "If you go to a gun show and buy from a vendor, you must complete a background check. I keep hearing that stupid claim and, it is being made by ignorant people".
I'm not sure which claim you think is stupid - the one where you have to have a background check or the one where you don't.
But, at least as of January 2016, you don't need a background check for gun show sales in your home state of WV or in Ohio or Indiana or Virginia or in most other states. Some states like PA require only handgun purchasers to have a background check but not that many do. Here's a map showing what states requirements are as of January 2016. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
WV, we aren't as unlike as you think but you aren't understanding what I'm saying.
"You and me both know we are on political opposites. I can respect that. What I won't do is take the advice that compromise is something we need to do when it will do nothing to prevent the NEXT school shooting. Compromise on what then? I'm not being mean but, you brought it up so give some compromises that addresses these problems and I'm all ears. "
I don't disagree that we have no way to know what will prevent the next school shooting. But I am sure that if we don't sit down and at least show some interest in listening and working to some reasonable solutions to curb mass killings then "those folks" will get stronger after the next one and the one after that and on and on..... Reasonable solutions could include many things, not just banning ARs. We can work with others to look at solutions, discuss them and find ones that most agree should be tried. Start with background checks. Look at mental health. Put together a group to study the effects of medications both as youngsters during developmental years as well as teens and adults.
Millennials will have about the same number of voters as baby boomers but their numbers are growing and ours are shrinking. Plus they are picking up others that see an entire group of gun owners that appear unwilling to do anything help end the killings. If we don't at least make an effort to find solutions we will probably face an overpowering number of folks intent on forcing changes and we will not have the numbers to stop anything.
Phil...Federal law says if you buy from a vendor/dealer at a Gun Show you are subject to a background check, no matter the State. Read your own article. Exactly what WV Mountaineer said. Don't confuse the facts here. The supposed "loophole" (which really isn't a loophole) is for INDIVIDUAL sales only. What uneducated people don't realize is that 90% of sales at gun shows are from dealers that do the background check! This type of misinformation coming from a "hunter" makes me want to puke.
If you buy from someone with an ffl they must do a background check. Where did you get the 90% number?
I edited this to add another comment because it seems we are moving away from the original topic. I do not know how many guns bought at gun shows are used in crimes but I bet the number is small. Offering to resolve this issue will have minimal impact on us gun owners but would demonstrate a willingness to take some steps that many folks would welcome. And, like I said before, those many will outnumber us in the near future.
90% is my own number from the hundreds of gun shows I've been to AND ran. Less than 10% of sellers at any show I've ever been to or ran didn't have an FFL. Granted this only encompasses a couple States, but a couple of the shows are huge.
Phil, I'm not going to debate with you about gun show back ground checks. I know the law concerning it. It's that simple.
As far as doing something to appease the millennial generation: How about mailing them a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to start. Same with Gen X. I know a bunch of 'em and I have found that exposure to real life gets the averages back in check. But, more importantly, an appreciation of American History becomes ever more important when they realize that they must fight to keep what others have given them.
I understand what you are saying. I just do not agree with giving one more inch of freedom to people who "think" they are too far cultured for basic human premises. It has no foundation. And, doesn't belong in a real discussion of how to best prepare for these situations. No offense to you personally. But, compromise does not fit my Bill of Rights. And, the last time I checked, mine was the same Bill of Rights as everyone else's.
Kota, it's been 15 years since I've been to a gun show that allowed attendants to even carry a gun into the show. At least. Maybe longer. And those were smaller shows in the Roanoke area of VA. Today's shows gets you patted down or run through a metal detector at the entrance door. So, my guess is 100% of gun sales AT the gun show come with a back ground check. I'm sure some sales go down in the parking lots and such but, I've never witnessed it personally. And, if i did, I'd congratulate the people involved for being in AMERICA.
One more tid bit of advice to the compromising folks among us. Believe what you want about how effective banning the armalite rifle would be for resolving these issues. That's your right to do so. But, don't spread lies to support your opinion. Get this one right. Gun purchases from gun dealers of any size or volume, requires a back ground check. So, quit saying we need back ground checks. We have them. You owe it to future Americans to at least have those facts right before you talk of how to fix this problem. .
Good night Gentlemen and God Bless this Country
You're right WV, the number is probably closer to 100% than 90%. This fallacy that there is some big "loophole" at Gun Shows across the country is just more liberal rhetoric. Phil...How can we "resolve this issue", when there's no issue? Education on the existing gun laws is probably the answer, but the people screaming don't want to be educated on laws that already exist..
Phil: "If we agree to ban semiautomatic rifles, require background checks for all gun sales, and raise the age for long gun ownership to 21, what will you let us keep?"
Michael Bloomberg: "We will let you keep one bolt action rifle and one single shot shotgun locked in a vault at the police station, where they may be checked out once per month for no more than three days. That presumes the ATF has approved you to own a gun, and you pay the $1000 annual license fee and $500 for the storage fee".
Jaquomo, That's a viewpoint from the other extreme and it doesn't seem to be shared by the significant majority of Americans.
WV, I believed the percent to be higher than 10 but if I'm wrong and it's 0 what is the issue with requiring background checks on all sales? According to you it won't make any difference in what happens today. That's the question anyone on the other side would ask and I don't see a good response. There is no loss of freedom.
Il. has back ground checks for ffl dealers to do. and person to person sales are trades also must do one. if a gun leaves your possession you better have the background verification # from the state police department and a signed bill of sale for 7 years. but this is not helping Chicago at all. I can not buy a handgun in any other state and bring it to IL. it has to be shipped to a ffl dealer in IL. and registered to me. still not helping Chicago. we have to have foid cards (firearm owners identification card) just like a drivers license you must have one to buy a gun it takes three month to get one and the state police do the background check. most places ask to see it when buying ammo also. still not helping Chicago. Now for the latest shooting one the government drop the ball the military gave him a dishonorable discharge and new he was mentaly in stable but forgot to do the paper work. the kid in Florida. all kinds of people reported him and new he was going to do this but law enforcement and fbi drop the ball. and both where legal in the system to own guns . now the government drops the ball and we the people get punished with more laws that will not work but and make the good person into a outlaw. we have the laws there just not used.
Sure, Phil, and that was exactly my point. Bloomberg is the defacto leader and financier of the "other side". No negotiation is going to happen without his approval because he holds the purse strings for the phony "grassroots" movement.
You mention compromising with "them". Who is "them"? We do know that mainstream law-abiding gun owners across America won't tolerate a Chicago-style system that treats them like criminals, and that's what "they" want, at minimum.
Here in CO "they" passed laws requiring all private sales to go through the NICS (and we pay for it..), no matter the relationship. Now we have a whole new class of criminals because people don't do it if they are selling to a close friend or relative, and save the $35. Some of my good friends and relatives, fine upstanding professionals and family folks, are now criminals because of this. If the buyer has mental health issues NICS is irrelevant anyway. Meanwhile, no "real" criminals bother with NICS.
That is where we're headed if "they" get their way, and it's only a start. "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" has never been truer than with gun controllers.
Phil is apparently typing my thoughts. And it's points like he's made, that to me are why coming to the table and listening, at least showing willingness to talk rationally and discuss the issues at hand would really help. If both sides push away, simple physics show that the other will also. Think of the SHOCK in a "Marcher" from last weekend if a "pro" gun person walked up and said: "Hi, I'm ______(insert name here). I'm a responsible gun owner. I see that guns and gun laws have you really concerned. I'm ALSO concerned about gun crimes. I'd like to learn about your concerns - would you be open to hearing my ideas as well?"
That's obviously on the very local level. But it works - Ive done it. People dont start the conversation defensively when you come in open and curious. Will you change their minds? Maybe not, and maybe yes. At worst, you will give them a greater understanding of the situation overall.
If that same approach was modeled nationally, it would change the discussion.
It cant get any worse, so I'm not sure why it's not worth a try.
Totally unrelated, but WV, man... I am confident that our political tendencies are different, but I really enjoy your posts through out the forum. You always make me think, and make me do some extra reading or further investigate my beliefs. I appreciate that! Thank you!
Will, maybe you can answer the question Phil can't. Who is the "they" that you propose coming to the table to negotiate with?
You are delusional if you think there will ever be any sort of “ give and take “ scenario concerning gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts. I hear all this crap about what we gun guys should do ...give up certain arms, high cap mags, universal checks , etc but all I hear is crickets when it comes to the other side giving a bit . How about national reciprocity concerning concealed carry ? That topic alone would get many guys I know to compromising. The hearing protection act is another . But the reality is , one side wants to strip you of the VAST MAJORITY of your arms and put draconian restrictions on the rest . They are trying to do it one piece at a time . I think I’ve got a better plan : I’ll control my guns while you do a better job of controlling your kids .
Phil, to build a house, one must first pour a foundation for that house. Because without it, there would be no house built. This scenario applies to the gun situation. The only way to eventually ban guns is to get an idea of who owns and buys them. That’s what increased gun laws create.
As far as back ground checks on individual gun sales between citizens, it’s just a front for anti guns foundation. And, more importantly, it does nothing to prevent further mass shootings.
Feel good ideas have no room in legislation because it’s open to the political moment. Human nature will tear its ugly head once again.
What’s so disgusting about the last school shooting is this guy should have never accomplished this. No way. The public did its part in reporting him. The law failed though. On national to local levels. From its handling of his confession to do it, to not aggressively ingaging the shooter. Tell me again how any rational person could suggest another law would have stopped this.
Freedom will always be exploited. It doesn’t require loss to understand that. It requires a reality check. Understanding that one principle is key. That and be prepared. That’s the only compromise that would have resulted in a different outcome.
WV, I held on the slippery slope theory for a long time. Now we're past that. I can assure you that if we hold to your line of thinking we will eventually lose everything. It will happen because there will be more shootings and, even though anything that is proposed may not even stop them, the proponents of some type of gun control are growing with each tragedy. I truly believe that if we continue to not participate in discussions about steps to take to minimize the chance of another shooting that it will reach a point where it won't matter what you or I think, we will be the minority that loses everything. It may well happen even if we participate in discussions but it will happen faster if we don't.
If we engage in discussions and, God forbid, there is another shooting at least we can point to the fact that we are trying to work to prevent them.
In the long run it doesn't matter what you or I consider freedoms, we will be outnumbered.
Jaquomo, who do you think the "they" is? It's everyone that is looking for a reasonable solution to decrease gun violence and mass murders. It could be the family of a kid from Florida that was killed or it could be the family of a concert goer in Las Vegas that was killed. It isn't a group or an organization, it's people. The way to reach them is to offer to meet with folks in a town hall setting, to find some other way to open communications using media whether social, print or TV.
There is no one organization that organized the "they" to march last weekend, it was a grass roots effort that took off. Grass roots efforts can gain tremendous momentum especially if coupled with tragedies. If we want to protect what we have we need to find a way to reach them at any level with a consistent message.
The "they" is Michael Bloomberg, the leaders of the Giffords nonprofit, and the leaders of the Brady Campaign. They are the leaders in formulating the national anti-gun agenda. Their teams are right in the middle of crafting the proposed laws introduced at state and federal level. Bloomberg alone contributed $65 million to anti-gun candidates in 2016.
According to the New York Times, Bloomberg contributed over $1 million to help organize and produce the so-called "grassroots" events last week, and Everytown adult volunteers handled most of the logistics of the biggest events. Permits, stages, PA systems, sign printing, etc.. There was no consistent message on any of the homemade, misspelled signs. Directly behind the speakers at the events was a big backdrop featuring "Everytown for Gun Safety" in large font.
Everytown and the other big activist organizations have a consistent message: make gun ownership so difficult and onerous that If they can't get to confiscation and outright bans, that it will be virtually impossible to own them. Chicago, USA. That's the goal. They aren't willing to compromise.
Our consistent message should be simple: enforce existing laws, lock up criminals caught with guns or caught trying to buy guns, follow up on huge red flags (See: Florida, Parkland) , and leave law abiding citizens alone.
Phil, I disagree.
God Bless men
Jaquomo, Don't give too much credit to Bloomberg. He started Everytown For Gun Safety back in 2014 but the recent march and the expanding activities are getting funding from a lot of areas. Even Jared Kushner's brother donated $50k. Here's what we're up against - https://heavy.com/news/2018/03/who-is-funding-paying-for-march-for-our-lives/
I don't know what the answers are but I'm sure these folks aren't going to go away just because we tell them they need to be educated on existing gun laws. Although that may be a good place to start a discussion.
Phil, in these discussions you desire what exactly is there to discuss ?? They want your guns . You’ve got multiple political entities calling for bans and even confiscations and now we have a recently retired SCJ calling for the REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment. They aren’t offering you anything in return . Never have . You are merely negotiating a surrender . They want a bunch of guns gone , register the rest then slowly pick at those . They don’t even lie about it anymore . There idea of giving you a fair deal is to graciously leave you single shot .22’s if you are lucky .
Here's the problem with what the antis want. It WILL NOT WORK ! I've been investigated out the wazoo because I own a suppressor. That wouldn't keep me from going postal would it ? So, when we give in and support "sensible restrictions ", it's just a matter of time until the antis say that we need more "sensible restrictions" because the ones we gave into have not made enough difference. It's boiling the frog. Have you noticed that they never point to the cities like Detroit and Chicago, (where they have the most restrictive gun laws) and say, "See there, how peaceful these cities are ?" That's because they are slaughterhouses. The end game is, and always has been, total gun confiscation. With the exception of bodyguards for the elite of course. But you and I will be defenseless. And if you think we are not headed to a third world country, you better wake up, because the signs are all around you every damn day.
“What will happen to hunting if radical gun legislation ever takes hold in the US ?”