goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 11, 2015, 09:42:21 AM
-
In this thread, we talk about sensible gun measures. I'll start with this very interesting article, about three bipartisan gun/ammo measures recently signed into law by President Barack Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/10/president-obama-signs-three-constructive-gun-measures/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/10/president-obama-signs-three-constructive-gun-measures/)
1. Prohibiting an administrative ban on lead ammunition
The first measure, in Section 315 of the NDAA, prohibits an administrative ban on lead ammunition. The Toxic Substances Control Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency administrator broad authority to outlaw almost any “chemical substance.”
I had no idea there was actually a movement afoot to ban ammunition using the EPA's power to regulate lead. :lol: Fortunately, our President and Congress worked together to put this silliness to rest.
2. Allowing military personnel to protect themselves
This summer, a jihadist attacked military recruiting stations in Chattanooga, Tenn. In 2009, a jihadist attacked the Fort Hood military base in Texas. He murdered 13 unarmed victims and wounded 30. The military personnel there were defenseless, so the criminal was not stopped until military police arrived. Section 526 of the NDAA takes a first step toward remedying the dangerous disarmament of our armed forces.
Ok, so we now have a law that says our soldiers can carry guns while on base. I'm surprised we need a law for that, but ok. Thank you Mr. President and Congress!
3. Sale of surplus handguns to the public
Since 1905, the federal Civilian Marksmanship Program has provided for the sale of some (non-automatic) military surplus firearms to the public. In 1996, the program was mostly privatized, but the Defense Department was required to continue to provide certain surplus arms to the program. 36 U.S. Code sect. 40728. Citizens may receive the arms only after going through the same procedures as are required for any other retail firearms purchase, including extensive paperwork and background checks. NDAA Section 1087 sets up a procedure allowing the transfer of up to 10,000 surplus handguns to the CMP. These handguns are .45-caliber model “1911” pistols (named for their year of invention). For the military, these pistols have been replaced by the 9mm Beretta. The 1911 pistols are now collectors items, being warehoused at a cost of $200,000 per year. Selling them via the CMP will reduce this expense and raise revenue.
Makes perfect sense. Why spend money to warehouse old military weapons when we can sell them to the public?
So there you have it - three sensible gun measures recently signed into law by Barack Obama.
-
That last one will never happen, FWIW.
-
So why are gun nuts like emo so afraid of obama taking their guns
-
Not afraid of them succeeding! (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frs648.pbsrc.com%2Falbums%2Fuu201%2Fmadelaine_cielo%2Femoticon%2Fwaaa.gif%7Ec200&hash=0382a5cc0ecc9fccb8ae7822be0663ba8bd4dd8c)
-
Have you seen the keeping Dax updated on pub radio thread?
-
Why are ProgLibs so into labeling?
-
The last 7 years have been like Christmas for the gun companies, they should THANK BHO.
-
The last 7 years have been like Christmas for the gun companies, they should THANK BHO.
He is the greatest gun salesman that has ever lived.
-
Mass shooters are much better salesman. I wouldn't be surprised if the nra somehow was involved in hiring mass murders so gun nuts go hog wild every few weeks
-
Should have just stuck with :lol:
-
I was trying out a daxspiricy
-
That last one will never happen, FWIW.
WTF? It already did turbo.
-
Don't forget that Barack is the largest retailer of heavy weaponry in the world, only missing out on a handful of deals because a particular country or two prefer Russian weapons.
-
Where do I get signed up for one those model 1911 pistols? Those are generally great guns
-
That last one will never happen, FWIW.
WTF? It already did turbo.
Let me know when a single gun makes it to the public. It will be years.
-
https://twitter.com/Calebkeeter/status/914872808110510080
Why does this dude equate the need for gun control laws with a belief in 2nd Amendment rights? I always thought that people who gave this viewpoint were trying to hijack the issue. How many people out there think that any gun law violates the second amendment?
That being said I'm glad he's changed his mind without having to lose his life. There's this though...
https://twitter.com/brianscully/status/914905771313307648
-
And people attack him for his change of position. Beat the man while he's down. rough ridin' Twitter trolls.
-
I guess forced castration of white men per Lena Dunham.
Actress Lena Dunham took to social media Monday to respond to Sunday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which 59 people lost their lives, writing on Twitter that there was “no way not to politicize” the tragic event.
“No way not to politicize this tragedy,” the showrunner and star of HBO’s Girls wrote in a tweet. “It’s about gender & race as well as access to guns. Considering it random is comforting & dangerous.”
-
there are no sensible measures.
AMERICAtm has determined that being able to protect against some future fantasy scenario is more important than protecting against being shot to death in real life in the present.
AMERICAtm has weighed the freedom to worship guns against the freedom to not be shot to death in public and chosen.
-
The NRA is a terrorist organization and greedy pols are happy to play along
https://www.axios.com/trump-wont-pivot-to-gun-control-probably-2492197581.html
Bannon warns: “end of everything” if Trump supports gun controls
Jonathan Swan, Mike Allen, Sara Fischer, Axios, Alayna Treene, Axios, Axios, Kim Hart, Sara Fischer, Jonathan Swan, Drew Altman, Kaiser Family Foundation and Kia Kokalitcheva
President Trump may say he's a defender of gun ownership rights, but with all the gun control pressure he'll be under after Las Vegas, how do we know he'll resist it — especially after the debt limit deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and his flirtation with a deal on DACA?
Bottom line: Trump's allies, both inside and out of the White House, are mostly sure he'll resist because he owes too much to the NRA and its supporters — but even some of them aren't 100 percent sure.
What they're saying: Since the Las Vegas shooting, we've spoken or texted with more than 20 sources inside and out of the White House — all people who've worked close enough to Trump to have something useful to say about his likely next moves. Most say they can't imagine him doing a Chuck-and-Nancy deal on gun control.
They say that while he bathed in the glowing media coverage after his surprise debt ceiling deal with the Democrats; he'll be very reluctant to do anything like that on guns:
He feels closer to the NRA than just about any outside group.
He believes his un-nuanced support for the Second Amendment was crucial to his election victory.
He's been instinctively allergic to Democrats who argue for gun control in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings.
Besides, as former Trump adviser Roger Stone told me: "Base would go insane and he knows it."
I asked Steve Bannon whether he could imagine Trump pivoting to the left on guns after the Las Vegas massacre. "Impossible: will be the end of everything," Bannon texted. When asked whether Trump's base would react worse to this than they would if he supported an immigration amnesty bill, Bannon replied: "as hard as it is to believe actually worse."
Why sources close to Trump think it's unlikely he'll pivot — in any substantial way — to gun control:
The NRA relationship: "POTUS (correctly) believes he doesn't owe anything to most traditional Republican outside groups, because they didn't lift a finger to help him in the election," said a Trump administration source. "NRA is very much the exception. They stayed loyal through it all and kept spending." We're told Trump feels a personal connection to the NRA and is close to the NRA's top lobbyist, Chris Cox.
People he talks to haven't heard old views surfacing: "In the past Donald was very pro-gun control on automatic rifles, but I doubt he's going to make an issue out of it this time and pick a fight with the NRA," said a New York-based conservative operative who has advised Trump. "Perhaps down the road."
His base might leave him: As Steve Bannon and other conservatives close to Trump argue, gun owners are even more passionate about their issue than immigration hardliners. And, as a senior GOP aide pointed out, DACA has at least has a chance of passage. "Most agree something needs to be done," the source said. "Can't say the same for gun control — at least in Congress."
His sons: A number of sources close to Trump cited the strong pro-Second Amendment views of his sons Don Jr. and Eric. Don Jr. made much of his passions for shooting and hunting on the campaign and is closely affiliated with the NRA.
Yes, but: Almost everybody we spoke to hesitated when predicting Trump's next move on guns. Some mentioned his taste for bipartisan deal-making, and one source who has worked closely with Trump thought a deal with the Democrats on guns wasn't out of the question — especially as an emotional reaction to the carnage.
"On top of the immense political pressure, the visuals Trump will see, hundreds of severely injured young people, could provoke him to act," this source said. "The rational route to take would be to let the investigation play out to see if any new laws could've prevented this. I'm 100 percent Second Amendment but … people who had their brains blown out is enough to make anyone with a heart consider anything to prevent this."
One possible path: Trump could make a modest concession to gun control advocates by opposing a controversial bill, backed by the NRA, to relax restrictions on the purchasing of gun silencers. Politico reported, citing GOP sources, that the bill "won't be reaching the House floor anytime soon after a horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas."
Trump could get out in front of it, get a slap from the NRA on an issue that's not nearly so radioactive as gun ownership, and move on without considering more substantial gun control actions.
-
NRA scares the crap out of me.
-
(https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/1357cbCOMIC-news-nra-solution-to-north-korea.jpg)
-
How long before I'm going to have to purchase 5 firearms? I'd like to have a couple hand guns, a long distance rifle, a shotgun, and a medium range rifle before all hell breaks loose.
Tia.
-
I think licenses to own guns would be sensible.
-
i honestly cannot believe you don't already need a license to own a gun. you need a license to motherfucking fish for crying out loud
-
i honestly cannot believe you don't already need a license to own a gun. you need a license to motherfucking fish for crying out loud
show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to fish
-
The 2a really is a monumental blunder by the framers
-
i honestly cannot believe you don't already need a license to own a gun. you need a license to motherfucking fish for crying out loud
show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to fish
1st amendment MF'r
(https://www.stickercollective.com.au/media/catalog/product/6/9/6985LS-Fishing-Is-My-Religion-90-x-90-1.jpg)
-
i honestly cannot believe you don't already need a license to own a gun. you need a license to motherfucking fish for crying out loud
show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to fish
I think Kansas recently passed an amendment giving the right to hunt. Seems contradictory that they still sell licenses.
-
Need permit to gather to protest in many cities. I mean wtf! It's the first amendment!
-
Have to register to vote. I mean come on!
-
I'm not sure if those other rights say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED or not, though.
-
eh, "well regulated" leaves open a lot of possibilities. I think we're good requiring licensing, fees, etc.
-
also the gun show/private sale loopholes are stupid. obv toss that crap.
-
Let's say you buy 8+ legal guns in a month...could that person maybe get asked why? Seems reasonable. If I buy too much cold medicine I get a knock on the door.
-
still not enough people being shot against their will to outweigh the enjoyment gun nuts get from owning guns. gonna have to kill a lot more people before the math changes.
-
I've never shot a gun, but the people who cry about the NRA are hilarious.
-
still not enough people being shot against their will to outweigh the enjoyment gun nuts get from owning guns. gonna have to kill a lot more people before the math changes.
vegas may have been an inside job, paid for by Big people against people being shot against their will
-
I've never shot a gun, but the people who cry about the NRA are hilarious.
I have shot a gun, care to elaborate your point?
-
He really likes the NRA
-
still not enough people being shot against their will to outweigh the enjoyment gun nuts get from owning guns. gonna have to kill a lot more people before the math changes.
vegas may have been an inside job, paid for by Big people against people being shot against their will
sometimes they try to sneak suicides into the "annual deaths due to gun violence" totals, mocat.
-
there will surely be at least an attempt to put together a ban on bump-fire stocks. Is this a sensible gun measure? will anyone go to bat for them?
probably can pass a ban for these reasons:
-nobody knows these exist and will be freaked out when they find out they do.
-cheap low volume product, very little financial impact on the gun industry and their lobby.
-product that effectively bypasses the non-controversial restrictions on full auto weapons.
-won't actually make any difference, but will still be celebrated as action taken in response to this attack.
-
eff 'em. Ban 'em.
-
It seems like such a layup, but I still give it a 5% chance of happening.
-
Guys, guns are fantastically simple machines that have been around for centuries. No amount of legislation is going to make them vanish or uninvent them. Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the households in this country have a gun inside. About any idiot with free time can craft one.
You can pass the most draconian gun laws in the world, and that's not going to make guns disappear, uninvent them, or stop maniacs from doing maniacal things. In fact, the places with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates.
The guns this guy used were already illegal, just like murder is already illegal. What do want to do, make them super-illegal?
Half of you nitwits lose your civil rights 4th amendment crap over police detaining people for 5 minutes to check for warrants and citizenship, and start uncontrollably blurting "racism" and "profiling". Yet you want crap on the 2nd amendment and have people to pay what is essentially a poll tax and pass a rigorous background check (administered by who?) to buy a gun that tens of millions of people already own. We have guns laws, lots of them, the ignorance exhibited on that topic is insane.
If you to solve this problem you need to start thinking outside of the box. Because legislation has proven it won't stop criminals from doing criminal things.
-
I guess forced castration of white men per Lena Dunham.
Actress Lena Dunham took to social media Monday to respond to Sunday’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, in which 59 people lost their lives, writing on Twitter that there was “no way not to politicize” the tragic event.
“No way not to politicize this tragedy,” the showrunner and star of HBO’s Girls wrote in a tweet. “It’s about gender & race as well as access to guns. Considering it random is comforting & dangerous.”
HRC employee, rough ridin' idiot
-
One idea that I don't think gets enough play is requiring people to purchase gun insurance. Money goes into victims' fund for those affected by gun violence/mass shootings.
-
Guys, guns are fantastically simple machines that have been around for centuries. No amount of legislation is going to make them vanish or uninvent them. Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the households in this country have a gun inside. About any idiot with free time can craft one.
You can pass the most draconian gun laws in the world, and that's not going to make guns disappear, uninvent them, or stop maniacs from doing maniacal things. In fact, the places with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates.
The guns this guy used were already illegal, just like murder is already illegal. What do want to do, make them super-illegal?
Half of you nitwits lose your civil rights 4th amendment crap over police detaining people for 5 minutes to check for warrants and citizenship, and start uncontrollably blurting "racism" and "profiling". Yet you want crap on the 2nd amendment and have people to pay what is essentially a poll tax and pass a rigorous background check (administered by who?) to buy a gun that tens of millions of people already own. We have guns laws, lots of them, the ignorance exhibited on that topic is insane.
If you to solve this problem you need to start thinking outside of the box. Because legislation has proven it won't stop criminals from doing criminal things.
No sensible measure includes banning all guns or taking away your guns. It's also not sensible to say nothing can be done.
-
Why not ration bullets. Must write a hundred word essay on why you need them and number needed. This way, guys like that Pat fella would need to lie to get them. That would force mandatory jail time for being untruthful and he wouldn't get the amount of ammo he needs to complete his suicide with friends mission.
PROBLEM SOLVED. SAFETY FIRST... FREEDOM LATER GATER.
-
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/chuck-todd-unearths-video-of-don-jr-advertising-gun-silencers-that-help-get-little-kids-into-the-game/amp/
-
This is the unhinged b.s. we have to put up with. This guy is simply inflaming gun zealots. Notice he doesn't give a single example of a liberal or anyone else who has advocated for repealing the second amendment.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/04/gun-control-debate-pointless-liberals-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/
The Gun Control Debate Is Pointless Until Liberals Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment
Liberals are using the Las Vegas atrocity to encourage federal gun control, but their real problem is with the Second Amendment.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
It didn’t take long. Long before all the facts about the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas were known or even all the missing were accounted for, liberals were riding their familiar gun control hobby horses. Within hours of the atrocity, articles were being posted online from the usual suspects, like Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, trotting out familiar themes. They want laws requiring more background checks, age limits on purchases, preventing people with a record of mental illness or domestic violence from being sold weapons, so-called “smart gun” measures that can trace guns and ammunition more easily, and even suggested banning handguns.
As is the case with most of the mass shootings that have shocked Americans in recent decades, none of these measures would have prevented the slaughter in Las Vegas. Initial reports say that shooter Stephen Paddock passed background checks when he purchased weapons. That makes sense since the police have initially said he didn’t have a record of prior offenses.
Even if every one of the left’s favorite pet ideas about guns were enacted, the only likely outcome would be to make it far more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns. And in those places, like Chicago and New York City, where draconian gun laws are already on the books, that is exactly what has happened, as the process to obtain and legally use a gun is so onerous that most ordinary citizens don’t even try. Needless to say, these measures do nothing to prevent gun violence by those who obtain weapons illegally.
Yet what’s interesting about the inevitable recycling of this debate is that liberals aren’t speaking up for the one measure that might actually change the country in a manner they’d like: repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
What Happens If We Repeal the Second Amendment
Nothing could possibly stop all gun crimes. But if we were living in a country where it was illegal for private citizens to possess most weapons, there’s little doubt that firearms would become a scarce commodity. Forget background checks, mental health restrictions, smart guns, and every other measure designed to make those who wish to legally purchase firearms difficult. Just make it a crime to sell or own them. Use existing registration laws to round up the guns that are already legally owned. Restrict legal possession to law enforcement agencies.
If that’s too harsh for you, just copy Australia and require anyone who owns a gun to obtain a federal license and demand that they have a “genuine reason” for wanting one, thus giving bureaucrats, the police and judges the right to deny a gun to those who whose story doesn’t pass muster according to some subjective standard.
That would create a black market for firearms that would supply criminals with all the guns they’d need. But it would also mean that guns would become scarce and expensive. Since there are already hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States, it might take some time for the Feds to make a dent in the number of guns out there. But along with a massive buyback program, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were given the vast resources that liberals tell us should never be expended on rounding up illegal immigrants, I don’t doubt that the supply of guns would dry up. The end of legal firearms wouldn’t necessarily prevent another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora, Colorado, but a country in which arms were no longer plentiful might be one with fewer such incidents.
Why Won’t Gun Control Advocates State The Truth?
If pressed for honesty, most liberals would admit that’s exactly the kind of country they would like to live in. Why then don’t they call for changes in the laws to make the U.S. more like Australia, where studies say mass shootings and homicides have been reduced?
The answer is obvious. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution. Even when they were using tragic incidents to demand more gun control, liberal politicians like former President Obama would keep telling us that they believed in the Second Amendment and didn’t want to take away guns from honest citizens. Yet every time they made such statements or began new efforts to pass more gun laws, gun purchases soared since many Americans believed they were lying about not wanting to let them keep their guns.
Their skepticism is rooted in the knowledge that all of the so-called “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence or mass shootings. That is why members of the National Rifle Association, a group that is routinely demonized by the left, thinks even an anodyne measure like more background checks at gun shows is just the thin edge of the wedge of a Second Amendment repeal.
So this time, instead of rehearsing the same tired arguments about ideas that wouldn’t change anything, perhaps the left can tell us what they really want and let the country have an honest debate.
Gun Advocates Must Acknowledge The Price Of Liberty
The choice is clear.
If we are to remain a nation where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, we’re going to have to live with the possibility, maybe even the probability, that legally-obtained weapons will sometimes be used for a bad purpose by insane or evil people. If we want to be a country where gun violence is reduced drastically, then we will also have to be one where ownership of legal weapons is restricted to a privileged few rather than a right all citizens enjoy.
Those who support the Second Amendment must be honest about the price of the liberty they cherish. But those who wish to deprive us of that right must also be honest about what they want. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders believed giving the monopoly on firearms to the state was a prescription for tyranny. Is that a risk most of us wish to run?
Many Americans do wish to relegate the Second Amendment to the trash heap of history. Perhaps many would like to trade some of their liberty for fewer worries about gun violence. But if liberals want to talk about gun control, rather than more disingenuous nonsense about background checks, that’s the argument they should be forced to make.
Anything short of that is a waste of our time. Until the left directly addresses their desire to change the Constitution and end gun rights altogether, their rhetoric about gun violence should be ignored
-
One idea that I don't think gets enough play is requiring people to purchase gun insurance. Money goes into victims' fund for those affected by gun violence/mass shootings.
This is basically the same idea as licensing and won't do anything to deter mass homicide. I'm not opposed to the victim fund. The biggest concern is that you create some kind of database to monitor people, which is kind of police-state-y.
-
This is the unhinged b.s. we have to put up with. This guy is simply inflaming gun zealots. Notice he doesn't give a single example of a liberal or anyone else who has advocated for repealing the second amendment.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/04/gun-control-debate-pointless-liberals-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/
The Gun Control Debate Is Pointless Until Liberals Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment
Liberals are using the Las Vegas atrocity to encourage federal gun control, but their real problem is with the Second Amendment.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
It didn’t take long. Long before all the facts about the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas were known or even all the missing were accounted for, liberals were riding their familiar gun control hobby horses. Within hours of the atrocity, articles were being posted online from the usual suspects, like Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, trotting out familiar themes. They want laws requiring more background checks, age limits on purchases, preventing people with a record of mental illness or domestic violence from being sold weapons, so-called “smart gun” measures that can trace guns and ammunition more easily, and even suggested banning handguns.
As is the case with most of the mass shootings that have shocked Americans in recent decades, none of these measures would have prevented the slaughter in Las Vegas. Initial reports say that shooter Stephen Paddock passed background checks when he purchased weapons. That makes sense since the police have initially said he didn’t have a record of prior offenses.
Even if every one of the left’s favorite pet ideas about guns were enacted, the only likely outcome would be to make it far more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns. And in those places, like Chicago and New York City, where draconian gun laws are already on the books, that is exactly what has happened, as the process to obtain and legally use a gun is so onerous that most ordinary citizens don’t even try. Needless to say, these measures do nothing to prevent gun violence by those who obtain weapons illegally.
Yet what’s interesting about the inevitable recycling of this debate is that liberals aren’t speaking up for the one measure that might actually change the country in a manner they’d like: repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
What Happens If We Repeal the Second Amendment
Nothing could possibly stop all gun crimes. But if we were living in a country where it was illegal for private citizens to possess most weapons, there’s little doubt that firearms would become a scarce commodity. Forget background checks, mental health restrictions, smart guns, and every other measure designed to make those who wish to legally purchase firearms difficult. Just make it a crime to sell or own them. Use existing registration laws to round up the guns that are already legally owned. Restrict legal possession to law enforcement agencies.
If that’s too harsh for you, just copy Australia and require anyone who owns a gun to obtain a federal license and demand that they have a “genuine reason” for wanting one, thus giving bureaucrats, the police and judges the right to deny a gun to those who whose story doesn’t pass muster according to some subjective standard.
That would create a black market for firearms that would supply criminals with all the guns they’d need. But it would also mean that guns would become scarce and expensive. Since there are already hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States, it might take some time for the Feds to make a dent in the number of guns out there. But along with a massive buyback program, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were given the vast resources that liberals tell us should never be expended on rounding up illegal immigrants, I don’t doubt that the supply of guns would dry up. The end of legal firearms wouldn’t necessarily prevent another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora, Colorado, but a country in which arms were no longer plentiful might be one with fewer such incidents.
Why Won’t Gun Control Advocates State The Truth?
If pressed for honesty, most liberals would admit that’s exactly the kind of country they would like to live in. Why then don’t they call for changes in the laws to make the U.S. more like Australia, where studies say mass shootings and homicides have been reduced?
The answer is obvious. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution. Even when they were using tragic incidents to demand more gun control, liberal politicians like former President Obama would keep telling us that they believed in the Second Amendment and didn’t want to take away guns from honest citizens. Yet every time they made such statements or began new efforts to pass more gun laws, gun purchases soared since many Americans believed they were lying about not wanting to let them keep their guns.
Their skepticism is rooted in the knowledge that all of the so-called “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence or mass shootings. That is why members of the National Rifle Association, a group that is routinely demonized by the left, thinks even an anodyne measure like more background checks at gun shows is just the thin edge of the wedge of a Second Amendment repeal.
So this time, instead of rehearsing the same tired arguments about ideas that wouldn’t change anything, perhaps the left can tell us what they really want and let the country have an honest debate.
Gun Advocates Must Acknowledge The Price Of Liberty
The choice is clear.
If we are to remain a nation where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, we’re going to have to live with the possibility, maybe even the probability, that legally-obtained weapons will sometimes be used for a bad purpose by insane or evil people. If we want to be a country where gun violence is reduced drastically, then we will also have to be one where ownership of legal weapons is restricted to a privileged few rather than a right all citizens enjoy.
Those who support the Second Amendment must be honest about the price of the liberty they cherish. But those who wish to deprive us of that right must also be honest about what they want. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders believed giving the monopoly on firearms to the state was a prescription for tyranny. Is that a risk most of us wish to run?
Many Americans do wish to relegate the Second Amendment to the trash heap of history. Perhaps many would like to trade some of their liberty for fewer worries about gun violence. But if liberals want to talk about gun control, rather than more disingenuous nonsense about background checks, that’s the argument they should be forced to make.
Anything short of that is a waste of our time. Until the left directly addresses their desire to change the Constitution and end gun rights altogether, their rhetoric about gun violence should be ignored
It's the exact same arguments you make ad nauseum regarding race/gender/gay issues.
-
MIR, I can tell you're losing whatever bit of Kansan is left in your blood. True Kansans don't believe in gun laws. Think about that, why don't ya.
-
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.
-
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.
Could we hold off until this happens in Kansas. Mighty interested on how many shoot back.
-
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.
Could we hold off until this happens in Kansas. Mighty interested on how many shoot back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/shooting-at-plant-hesston-kansas.html
-
MIR, I can tell you're losing whatever bit of Kansan is left in your blood. True Kansans don't believe in gun laws. Think about that, why don't ya.
WTF?
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.
Could we hold off until this happens in Kansas. Mighty interested on how many shoot back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/shooting-at-plant-hesston-kansas.html
Lawrence on Saturday night
-
Not sure how practical it is, but I'm getting the impression that the key to implementing sensible gun measures is for everyone in america to suffer some personal loss from gun violence.
-
One idea that I don't think gets enough play is requiring people to purchase gun insurance. Money goes into victims' fund for those affected by gun violence/mass shootings.
This is basically the same idea as licensing and won't do anything to deter mass homicide. I'm not opposed to the victim fund. The biggest concern is that you create some kind of database to monitor people, which is kind of police-state-y.
If you want to really make a dent in gun related deaths, you shouldn't focus exclusively on mass homicides. And I'm curious why licensing for guns is more police statey than literally every other license that the vast majority of Americans don't seem bothered by.
Relatedly, it's funny that so many people who are paranoid about ending up on a national registry also have no problem with open carry in very public places. If the government wanted to track you, they are already doing it.
-
One idea that I don't think gets enough play is requiring people to purchase gun insurance. Money goes into victims' fund for those affected by gun violence/mass shootings.
This is basically the same idea as licensing and won't do anything to deter mass homicide. I'm not opposed to the victim fund. The biggest concern is that you create some kind of database to monitor people, which is kind of police-state-y.
If you want to really make a dent in gun related deaths, you shouldn't focus exclusively on mass homicides. And I'm curious why licensing for guns is more police statey than literally every other license that the vast majority of Americans don't seem bothered by.
Relatedly, it's funny that so many people who are paranoid about ending up on a national registry also have no problem with open carry in very public places. If the government wanted to track you, they are already doing it.
Have you seen the responses to voter ID laws????
-
One idea that I don't think gets enough play is requiring people to purchase gun insurance. Money goes into victims' fund for those affected by gun violence/mass shootings.
This is basically the same idea as licensing and won't do anything to deter mass homicide. I'm not opposed to the victim fund. The biggest concern is that you create some kind of database to monitor people, which is kind of police-state-y.
If you want to really make a dent in gun related deaths, you shouldn't focus exclusively on mass homicides. And I'm curious why licensing for guns is more police statey than literally every other license that the vast majority of Americans don't seem bothered by.
Relatedly, it's funny that so many people who are paranoid about ending up on a national registry also have no problem with open carry in very public places. If the government wanted to track you, they are already doing it.
Have you seen the responses to voter ID laws????
:ROFL: you would equate the two
-
You have to be on a registry to vote, you dipshit.
-
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.
Could we hold off until this happens in Kansas. Mighty interested on how many shoot back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/shooting-at-plant-hesston-kansas.html
Lawrence on Saturday night
Lawrence wasn't a random shooting though, was it? Thought it was the result of an altercation? Obviously still terrible and senseless, but a different type
-
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.
Could we hold off until this happens in Kansas. Mighty interested on how many shoot back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/shooting-at-plant-hesston-kansas.html
Lawrence on Saturday night
Lawrence wasn't a random shooting though, was it? Thought it was the result of an altercation? Obviously still terrible and senseless, but a different type
It was a mass shooting. His incredibly moronic point was these things don't happen in Kansas because real Kansans are strapped and are all apparently willing and accurate shooters with nerves of steel.
-
It was a mass shooting.
Pun not intended.
-
You have to be on a registry to vote, you dipshit.
T-Y for proving my point
-
Guys, guns are fantastically simple machines that have been around for centuries. No amount of legislation is going to make them vanish or uninvent them. Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the households in this country have a gun inside. About any idiot with free time can craft one.
You can pass the most draconian gun laws in the world, and that's not going to make guns disappear, uninvent them, or stop maniacs from doing maniacal things. In fact, the places with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates.
The guns this guy used were already illegal, just like murder is already illegal. What do want to do, make them super-illegal?
Half of you nitwits lose your civil rights 4th amendment crap over police detaining people for 5 minutes to check for warrants and citizenship, and start uncontrollably blurting "racism" and "profiling". Yet you want crap on the 2nd amendment and have people to pay what is essentially a poll tax and pass a rigorous background check (administered by who?) to buy a gun that tens of millions of people already own. We have guns laws, lots of them, the ignorance exhibited on that topic is insane.
If you to solve this problem you need to start thinking outside of the box. Because legislation has proven it won't stop criminals from doing criminal things.
except for the thinking outside the box part, everything else is totally untrue, a lie, arguable, or bullshit
-
This is the unhinged b.s. we have to put up with. This guy is simply inflaming gun zealots. Notice he doesn't give a single example of a liberal or anyone else who has advocated for repealing the second amendment.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/04/gun-control-debate-pointless-liberals-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/
The Gun Control Debate Is Pointless Until Liberals Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment
Liberals are using the Las Vegas atrocity to encourage federal gun control, but their real problem is with the Second Amendment.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
It didn’t take long. Long before all the facts about the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas were known or even all the missing were accounted for, liberals were riding their familiar gun control hobby horses. Within hours of the atrocity, articles were being posted online from the usual suspects, like Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, trotting out familiar themes. They want laws requiring more background checks, age limits on purchases, preventing people with a record of mental illness or domestic violence from being sold weapons, so-called “smart gun” measures that can trace guns and ammunition more easily, and even suggested banning handguns.
As is the case with most of the mass shootings that have shocked Americans in recent decades, none of these measures would have prevented the slaughter in Las Vegas. Initial reports say that shooter Stephen Paddock passed background checks when he purchased weapons. That makes sense since the police have initially said he didn’t have a record of prior offenses.
Even if every one of the left’s favorite pet ideas about guns were enacted, the only likely outcome would be to make it far more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns. And in those places, like Chicago and New York City, where draconian gun laws are already on the books, that is exactly what has happened, as the process to obtain and legally use a gun is so onerous that most ordinary citizens don’t even try. Needless to say, these measures do nothing to prevent gun violence by those who obtain weapons illegally.
Yet what’s interesting about the inevitable recycling of this debate is that liberals aren’t speaking up for the one measure that might actually change the country in a manner they’d like: repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
What Happens If We Repeal the Second Amendment
Nothing could possibly stop all gun crimes. But if we were living in a country where it was illegal for private citizens to possess most weapons, there’s little doubt that firearms would become a scarce commodity. Forget background checks, mental health restrictions, smart guns, and every other measure designed to make those who wish to legally purchase firearms difficult. Just make it a crime to sell or own them. Use existing registration laws to round up the guns that are already legally owned. Restrict legal possession to law enforcement agencies.
If that’s too harsh for you, just copy Australia and require anyone who owns a gun to obtain a federal license and demand that they have a “genuine reason” for wanting one, thus giving bureaucrats, the police and judges the right to deny a gun to those who whose story doesn’t pass muster according to some subjective standard.
That would create a black market for firearms that would supply criminals with all the guns they’d need. But it would also mean that guns would become scarce and expensive. Since there are already hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States, it might take some time for the Feds to make a dent in the number of guns out there. But along with a massive buyback program, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were given the vast resources that liberals tell us should never be expended on rounding up illegal immigrants, I don’t doubt that the supply of guns would dry up. The end of legal firearms wouldn’t necessarily prevent another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora, Colorado, but a country in which arms were no longer plentiful might be one with fewer such incidents.
Why Won’t Gun Control Advocates State The Truth?
If pressed for honesty, most liberals would admit that’s exactly the kind of country they would like to live in. Why then don’t they call for changes in the laws to make the U.S. more like Australia, where studies say mass shootings and homicides have been reduced?
The answer is obvious. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution. Even when they were using tragic incidents to demand more gun control, liberal politicians like former President Obama would keep telling us that they believed in the Second Amendment and didn’t want to take away guns from honest citizens. Yet every time they made such statements or began new efforts to pass more gun laws, gun purchases soared since many Americans believed they were lying about not wanting to let them keep their guns.
Their skepticism is rooted in the knowledge that all of the so-called “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence or mass shootings. That is why members of the National Rifle Association, a group that is routinely demonized by the left, thinks even an anodyne measure like more background checks at gun shows is just the thin edge of the wedge of a Second Amendment repeal.
So this time, instead of rehearsing the same tired arguments about ideas that wouldn’t change anything, perhaps the left can tell us what they really want and let the country have an honest debate.
Gun Advocates Must Acknowledge The Price Of Liberty
The choice is clear.
If we are to remain a nation where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, we’re going to have to live with the possibility, maybe even the probability, that legally-obtained weapons will sometimes be used for a bad purpose by insane or evil people. If we want to be a country where gun violence is reduced drastically, then we will also have to be one where ownership of legal weapons is restricted to a privileged few rather than a right all citizens enjoy.
Those who support the Second Amendment must be honest about the price of the liberty they cherish. But those who wish to deprive us of that right must also be honest about what they want. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders believed giving the monopoly on firearms to the state was a prescription for tyranny. Is that a risk most of us wish to run?
Many Americans do wish to relegate the Second Amendment to the trash heap of history. Perhaps many would like to trade some of their liberty for fewer worries about gun violence. But if liberals want to talk about gun control, rather than more disingenuous nonsense about background checks, that’s the argument they should be forced to make.
Anything short of that is a waste of our time. Until the left directly addresses their desire to change the Constitution and end gun rights altogether, their rhetoric about gun violence should be ignored
Took 15 seconds to find an answer to your question. Michael Moore.
-
I've never shot a gun, but the people who cry about the NRA are hilarious.
I have shot a gun, care to elaborate your point?
People think they are just shutting down bills left and right by buying politicians, which just isn't true. The only power the NRA has is that they have a crap load of members. Many people make the NRA out to be some shadowy figure manipulating everything behind the scenes.
-
I've never shot a gun, but the people who cry about the NRA are hilarious.
I have shot a gun, care to elaborate your point?
People think they are just shutting down bills left and right by buying politicians, which just isn't true. The only power the NRA has is that they have a crap load of members. Many people make the NRA out to be some shadowy figure manipulating everything behind the scenes.
NRA is an instrument of the megabillions dollar gun industry. the people are just frosting, they don't care about the people, and they aren't of the people.
-
This is the unhinged b.s. we have to put up with. This guy is simply inflaming gun zealots. Notice he doesn't give a single example of a liberal or anyone else who has advocated for repealing the second amendment.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/04/gun-control-debate-pointless-liberals-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/
The Gun Control Debate Is Pointless Until Liberals Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment
Liberals are using the Las Vegas atrocity to encourage federal gun control, but their real problem is with the Second Amendment.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
It didn’t take long. Long before all the facts about the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas were known or even all the missing were accounted for, liberals were riding their familiar gun control hobby horses. Within hours of the atrocity, articles were being posted online from the usual suspects, like Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, trotting out familiar themes. They want laws requiring more background checks, age limits on purchases, preventing people with a record of mental illness or domestic violence from being sold weapons, so-called “smart gun” measures that can trace guns and ammunition more easily, and even suggested banning handguns.
As is the case with most of the mass shootings that have shocked Americans in recent decades, none of these measures would have prevented the slaughter in Las Vegas. Initial reports say that shooter Stephen Paddock passed background checks when he purchased weapons. That makes sense since the police have initially said he didn’t have a record of prior offenses.
Even if every one of the left’s favorite pet ideas about guns were enacted, the only likely outcome would be to make it far more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns. And in those places, like Chicago and New York City, where draconian gun laws are already on the books, that is exactly what has happened, as the process to obtain and legally use a gun is so onerous that most ordinary citizens don’t even try. Needless to say, these measures do nothing to prevent gun violence by those who obtain weapons illegally.
Yet what’s interesting about the inevitable recycling of this debate is that liberals aren’t speaking up for the one measure that might actually change the country in a manner they’d like: repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
What Happens If We Repeal the Second Amendment
Nothing could possibly stop all gun crimes. But if we were living in a country where it was illegal for private citizens to possess most weapons, there’s little doubt that firearms would become a scarce commodity. Forget background checks, mental health restrictions, smart guns, and every other measure designed to make those who wish to legally purchase firearms difficult. Just make it a crime to sell or own them. Use existing registration laws to round up the guns that are already legally owned. Restrict legal possession to law enforcement agencies.
If that’s too harsh for you, just copy Australia and require anyone who owns a gun to obtain a federal license and demand that they have a “genuine reason” for wanting one, thus giving bureaucrats, the police and judges the right to deny a gun to those who whose story doesn’t pass muster according to some subjective standard.
That would create a black market for firearms that would supply criminals with all the guns they’d need. But it would also mean that guns would become scarce and expensive. Since there are already hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States, it might take some time for the Feds to make a dent in the number of guns out there. But along with a massive buyback program, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were given the vast resources that liberals tell us should never be expended on rounding up illegal immigrants, I don’t doubt that the supply of guns would dry up. The end of legal firearms wouldn’t necessarily prevent another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora, Colorado, but a country in which arms were no longer plentiful might be one with fewer such incidents.
Why Won’t Gun Control Advocates State The Truth?
If pressed for honesty, most liberals would admit that’s exactly the kind of country they would like to live in. Why then don’t they call for changes in the laws to make the U.S. more like Australia, where studies say mass shootings and homicides have been reduced?
The answer is obvious. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution. Even when they were using tragic incidents to demand more gun control, liberal politicians like former President Obama would keep telling us that they believed in the Second Amendment and didn’t want to take away guns from honest citizens. Yet every time they made such statements or began new efforts to pass more gun laws, gun purchases soared since many Americans believed they were lying about not wanting to let them keep their guns.
Their skepticism is rooted in the knowledge that all of the so-called “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence or mass shootings. That is why members of the National Rifle Association, a group that is routinely demonized by the left, thinks even an anodyne measure like more background checks at gun shows is just the thin edge of the wedge of a Second Amendment repeal.
So this time, instead of rehearsing the same tired arguments about ideas that wouldn’t change anything, perhaps the left can tell us what they really want and let the country have an honest debate.
Gun Advocates Must Acknowledge The Price Of Liberty
The choice is clear.
If we are to remain a nation where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, we’re going to have to live with the possibility, maybe even the probability, that legally-obtained weapons will sometimes be used for a bad purpose by insane or evil people. If we want to be a country where gun violence is reduced drastically, then we will also have to be one where ownership of legal weapons is restricted to a privileged few rather than a right all citizens enjoy.
Those who support the Second Amendment must be honest about the price of the liberty they cherish. But those who wish to deprive us of that right must also be honest about what they want. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders believed giving the monopoly on firearms to the state was a prescription for tyranny. Is that a risk most of us wish to run?
Many Americans do wish to relegate the Second Amendment to the trash heap of history. Perhaps many would like to trade some of their liberty for fewer worries about gun violence. But if liberals want to talk about gun control, rather than more disingenuous nonsense about background checks, that’s the argument they should be forced to make.
Anything short of that is a waste of our time. Until the left directly addresses their desire to change the Constitution and end gun rights altogether, their rhetoric about gun violence should be ignored
Took 15 seconds to find an answer to your question. Michael Moore.
Oh, cool he's well on his way to policy making. Michael Moore believing that is evidence that all liberals do?
-
I've never shot a gun, but the people who cry about the NRA are hilarious.
I have shot a gun, care to elaborate your point?
People think they are just shutting down bills left and right by buying politicians, which just isn't true. The only power the NRA has is that they have a crap load of members. Many people make the NRA out to be some shadowy figure manipulating everything behind the scenes.
There's nothing shadowy about the NRA, they operate their war on the majority of American's right in the open. Are you serious about them not buying politicians?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/nra-national-rifle-association-money-influence/
For starters, the dollars and cents disparities are nothing short of staggering. The NRA and its allies in the firearms industries, along with the even more militant Gun Owners of America, have together poured nearly $81 million into House, Senate, and presidential races since the 2000 election cycle, according to federal disclosures and a Center for Responsive Politics analysis done for the Center for Public Integrity.
The bulk of the cash—more than $46 million—has come in the form of independent expenditures made since court decisions in 2010 (especially the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision) essentially redefined electoral politics. Those decisions allowed individuals, corporations, associations, and unions to make unlimited “independent” expenditures aimed at electing or defeating candidates in federal elections, so long as the expenditures were not “coordinated” with a candidate’s actual campaign.
“Members of Congress pay attention to these numbers, and they know that in the last election cycle the NRA spent $18.6 million on various campaigns,” says Lee Drutman, who has studied the role of gun money in politics for the Sunlight Foundation. “They know what the NRA is capable of doing and the kinds of ads they’re capable of running, and especially if you’re someone facing a close election, you don’t want hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of dollars in advertising to go against you.”
In the decade before Citizens United, from the 2000 election cycle to 2010, much of the money was donated directly to campaigns. During that period, pro-gun interests so thoroughly dominated electoral spending as to render gun control forces all but irrelevant, having directly donated fully 28 times the amount of their opponents in House and Senate races, $7 million on the pro-gun side compared to $245,000 on the gun control side. Of the total expended by gun rights interests, fully $3.9 million was delivered by the NRA. Since the Citizens United decision, gun control interests have gained new financial muscle, thanks largely to independent expenditures totaling at least $11.6 million by activist New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and groups tied to Bloomberg—nothing to sneeze at, but still just a fraction of that $46 million in post-2010 gun rights money.
“The issue is not so much how much the NRA gives any senator or member of the House, it’s how they can make their lives miserable.”
Among the 46 senators who voted to prevent any expansion of background checks, 43 have received help—either direct campaign contributions or independent expenditures—from pro-gun interests since 2000; in aggregate about $8.5 million. NRA expenditures ranged anywhere from a $95 contribution in one race to more than $2.6 million spent on the 2010 election of Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). A total of 38 of those senators have gotten $15,000 or more in overall NRA help since 2000. Among the leaders: Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), $1.2 million; Rob Portman (R-Ohio), $1.35 million; Richard Burr (R-N.C.), $852,000: John Thune (R-S.D.), $717,000; and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), $355,000. In several races, gun rights groups spent independent money both for one candidate and against his opponent (see chart). Forty-one of the 46 who voted with gun rights groups against expanded background checks were Republican.
Five Democrats also voted against the background check amendment, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did so to preserve his right under the Senate’s arcane rules to bring the measure up again. Reid, who has a B rating from the NRA, has benefited from $30,200 from gun rights groups since 2000, including $18,400 from the NRA. The other four Democrats who bucked their party and voted with the NRA, have benefited from a mere $30,830 in total funding from gun rights groups since 2000. Max Baucus of Montana (NRA A+) was the beneficiary of $28,830 while Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor (NRA C-) got $2,000. Mark Begich of Alaska (NRA A) and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (NRA A) have received no money from gun rights groups.
As for the 54 senators who voted in favor of expanding background checks, at least 18 of them have also benefited from gun rights group help since 2000. By far the largest chunk—$1.7 million—benefited a single NRA “defector,” Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), the coauthor of the background check amendment. The money those 54 have received since 2000 from gun control groups totals just $608,827
-
You have to be on a registry to vote, you dipshit.
T-Y for proving my point
Your point was that the government gives more obstacles to voting than they do gun ownership? We agree :cheers:
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-sheriff-says-stephen-paddock-had-to-have-help-at-some-point/
Man this opens up a whole new jar of pickled horse turds.
Who? There is some conspiracy. Is anyone safe going to a concert? This guy recently went to Ogden Utah. Is he part of a militant Mormon militia? Did he shoot JFK?
https://michaelsavage.com/2017/10/04/audio-survivor-tells-savage-she-heard-multiple-shooters/
Wow!
-
Interesting read
http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html (http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html)
-
Interesting read
http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html (http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html)
I read that yesterday. Very interesting take.
-
I question how closely they looked at it, because there is good evidence that successful suicide rates (the biggest cause of gun deaths) drop when there are fewer guns in circulation. This just dismisses "oh well can't do anything about suicides so that's out."
-
I like this podcast and found this two part episode really interesting: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/guns/
-
That is an interesting read without much conclusion....other countries shootings are low so we can conclude that gun control helps...young people kill young people......no conclusion....
-
it says BIG DATA says dont worry about mass shootings, just normal ones
-
Any sensible person agrees with that. Just hard to keep people's attention so gun control advocates get louder after crap like this. Gun control may not stop a mass shooting of 50 people, but if it prevented just 1 regular shooting death a day, I'd call that a pretty significant win and worth fighting for.
-
The more I think about it the more I think the Feds should just start out by imposing a new tax on firearms with the proceeds going into a victims' fund for mass shootings. Should indirectly curtail sales and even if not something good comes out of it. Best of all, no "they're taking our guns" or "shall not be infringed" talk.
-
https://michaelsavage.com/2017/10/04/audio-survivor-tells-savage-she-heard-multiple-shooters/
Wow!
Why don't you contain this b.s. to the conspiracy theory thread? I literally stopped listening to this, five seconds in after the dude dropped the anti-Semitic slur. So this one mystery woman out of 21,000 at this concert was the only one who heard two shooters? I'm willing to bet that bigot Savage planted the call.
It's quite lucrative for scum like Savage and Jones to feed off of non-critical thinking dipshits.
-
This thread has devolved into a libtard meme on gun control.
'grats KSU, yoi win again.
-
This thread has devolved into a libtard meme on gun control.
'grats KSU, yoi win again.
Asked you for sensible measures and you gave nothing. Shocking.
-
Interesting read
http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html (http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html)
I read that yesterday. Very interesting take.
I read that article a couple days ago. It's not very surprising, or satisfying. I don't have any reason to question the numbers. But there's just something very unsatisfying about the "you know, statistically speaking...." sort of argument in the wake of horrific murders. I don't like that argument regarding terrorism, either. For me it comes down to whether we can take meaningful action to stop it.
I don't particularly like guns and don't own any, but I completely understand why they are so popular. They are an integral part of American culture since before our founding. Americans, because of our heritage and history, have always been more resistant than other cultures to oppression and obedience to a powerful government. For millions of people, owning guns is synonymous with freedom and self-reliance.
I don't think the NRA is the sinister boogeyman that MIR and other liberals hyperventilate about, Koch-style. The reason the NRA is so powerful is their millions of members. It isn't the NRA that stopped Democrats from passing any new gun control measures when they had complete, filibuster-proof control of the federal government less than ten years ago (remember that?). And it isn't the NRA that is currently causing red state Senate Democrats like Manchin (WV), McCasklll (MO), and Heitkamp (ND) to keep mum on new gun control measures. They understand that a huge number of Americans in a majority of states don't want knee jerk restrictions on a core Constitutional right. The Dems need at least a few such red state Dems to avoid being completely irrelevant. The NRA simply helps mobilize and give effect to the preferences of those millions of people, like unions (which liberals love). Unlike most unions, membership in the NRA is voluntary.
I'm good with heavily regulating automatic weapons (we already do). I'm good with banning certain gun accessories designed to provide automatic or other war zone functionality (I think we already do that, too?). I'm good with requiring dealers to perform background checks (we already do). I'd be good with looking at possibly expanding the scope of those background checks.
Non-starters for me: a national firearm registry (I don't think it would be accurate, and I think putting every gun owner on a list is a step too close to government confiscation and oppression), requiring gun owners to be treated like dealers and perform background checks every time they want to sell or gift a gun in a private sale (too burdensome with too little benefit), or allowing people to be unilaterally put on "no buy" lists, for mental health or other reasons, without due process of law.
-
Agree with your very last point. I think it would discourage people with mental health issues from getting help
-
The "take our guns" talking point is just mystifying to me. If you believe in a reality where the American government comes and confiscates everyone's guns, why would having a national registry of dozens of millions (100 million+ maybe?) of people make that significantly easier?
-
Well gun nuts are nuts, it's right there in the name
-
The "take our guns" talking point is just mystifying to me. If you believe in a reality where the American government comes and confiscates everyone's guns, why would having a national registry of dozens of millions (100 million+ maybe?) of people make that significantly easier?
You don't think knowing who owns guns would make it easier to confiscate them down the road?
-
Registering to vote as a Democrat makes it easier for the trump brownshirts to round up dissenters and agitators!
-
There is no legitimate reason for legal law abiding gun owners to fear a national registry, the only way your guns would be taken away is if they aren't registered.
-
The "take our guns" talking point is just mystifying to me. If you believe in a reality where the American government comes and confiscates everyone's guns, why would having a national registry of dozens of millions (100 million+ maybe?) of people make that significantly easier?
You don't think knowing who owns guns would make it easier to confiscate them down the road?
Well first of all, they've already got that, which is the NRA membership list. So I think a tyrannical government would start there if they wanted to do this efficiently.
Second, either way you're basically talking guerilla warfare in one of the biggest countries on Earth (obviously we're assuming the seizure is not voluntary otherwise the registry point is moot). I cannot imagine a government trying to attempt that.
-
The "take our guns" talking point is just mystifying to me. If you believe in a reality where the American government comes and confiscates everyone's guns, why would having a national registry of dozens of millions (100 million+ maybe?) of people make that significantly easier?
You don't think knowing who owns guns would make it easier to confiscate them down the road?
Why would the government want to confiscate your guns if you are holding and using them as prescribed by the legal standard? Do you spend your time hiding your spouse, car, and kids? All of those things are registered.
-
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but the FBI should know every time a gun seller requests a background check on someone. Pretty useful if they want a short list of gun owners.
-
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but the FBI should know every time a gun seller requests a background check on someone. Pretty useful if they want a short list of gun owners.
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, background checks for gun purchases are not saved.
I don't think national confiscation of guns is likely, but I also don't think it is a deranged fantasy a few decades down the road. I do agree, however, that if we actually get to the point where the government is forcefully confiscating guns, that means we've got much bigger problems.
-
If you have a CCL they don't even do the FB I check. The last pistol I bought took 15 minutes curb to curb (airport smack lingo) for the entire transaction. It took longer for them to round someone up to walk it to the door for me than to fill out paperwork and pay.
-
Interesting read
http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html (http://amp.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/syndicated-columnists/article177035411.html)
I read that yesterday. Very interesting take.
I mean, this quote was pretty dumb:
Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.
Wouldn't most proposed restrictions make it more difficult for many people to not have guns on hand?
-
If you have a CCL they don't even do the FB I check. The last pistol I bought took 15 minutes curb to curb (airport smack lingo) for the entire transaction. It took longer for them to round someone up to walk it to the door for me than to fill out paperwork and pay.
Well that's kind of moot for my argument since they've got your info already from the CCL.
-
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but the FBI should know every time a gun seller requests a background check on someone. Pretty useful if they want a short list of gun owners.
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, background checks for gun purchases are not saved.
Maybe that is what they say, but why would you trust the government on that if you think they might want to take your guns away?
-
Non-starters for me: a national firearm registry (I don't think it would be accurate, and I think putting every gun owner on a list is a step too close to government confiscation and oppression), requiring gun owners to be treated like dealers and perform background checks every time they want to sell or gift a gun in a private sale
Private sellers wouldn't necessarily be doing background checks as part of a registry. They'd just be registering the sale (kind of like with private sellers of cars).
-
My post was to show how absurdly easy it is to get a firearm in this country.
-
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong but the FBI should know every time a gun seller requests a background check on someone. Pretty useful if they want a short list of gun owners.
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, background checks for gun purchases are not saved.
Maybe that is what they say, but why would you trust the government on that if you think they might want to take your guns away?
Fair point. Fair also that an NRA list would identify many. At least those things are supposed to be private. But I agree if our gov became so tyrannical as to confiscate guns it wouldn't be hard to identify owners, registry or not. What would the registry do to reduce gun crime?
-
Having a national registry doesn't do anything on its own. People just act like mandatory licensing for gun owners or other national measures are a nonstarter because gun owners don't want to "be on a list."
-
If I had my way, guns would be regulated like cars. You own title to it, every transaction (including private) is taxed, you can own one but you cannot use it (including target shooting) until you are licensed, which takes training and passing of a basic exam, and you have to carry insurance so that if anyone gets hurt with your gun, they can be compensated.
-
People keep waiting for the Feds to act, but a blue state should absolutely try putting these kinds of measures in place (and inevitably fight it in court).
-
If I had my way, guns would be regulated like cars. You own title to it, every transaction (including private) is taxed, you can own one but you cannot use it (including target shooting) until you are licensed, which takes training and passing of a basic exam, and you have to carry insurance so that if anyone gets hurt with your gun, they can be compensated.
I think licensing should be a requirement for ownership. But I'd be fine if it came later.
-
The "take our guns" talking point is just mystifying to me. If you believe in a reality where the American government comes and confiscates everyone's guns, why would having a national registry of dozens of millions (100 million+ maybe?) of people make that significantly easier?
You don't think knowing who owns guns would make it easier to confiscate them down the road?
You think they don't? c'mon
-
People keep waiting for the Feds to act, but a blue state should absolutely try putting these kinds of measures in place (and inevitably fight it in court).
Stole the words right out of my mouth and typed them out on this blog for me to read and then quote and write this horrible sentence.
-
People keep waiting for the Feds to act, but a blue state should absolutely try putting these kinds of measures in place (and inevitably fight it in court).
Stole the words right out of my mouth and typed them out on this blog for me to read and then quote and write this horrible sentence.
It's v surprising that CT hasn't at least attempted something (to my knowledge)
-
If I had my way, guns would be regulated like cars. You own title to it, every transaction (including private) is taxed, you can own one but you cannot use it (including target shooting) until you are licensed, which takes training and passing of a basic exam, and you have to carry insurance so that if anyone gets hurt with your gun, they can be compensated.
I think licensing should be a requirement for ownership. But I'd be fine if it came later.
The only reason I'd still leave ownership more open is to avoid overstepping the 2nd Amendment too much since it would basically mean requiring government approval to own a firearm.
-
lol, the NRA is proposing the bump stock ban. they get to look like they care and take credit for action. they would never do this if Obama was in office as they could not be seen to give even an inch.
this should extend to other trigger activating devices meant to replicate auto-fire. cranks, binarys, etc.
-
This is the unhinged b.s. we have to put up with. This guy is simply inflaming gun zealots. Notice he doesn't give a single example of a liberal or anyone else who has advocated for repealing the second amendment.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/04/gun-control-debate-pointless-liberals-admit-want-repeal-second-amendment/
The Gun Control Debate Is Pointless Until Liberals Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment
Liberals are using the Las Vegas atrocity to encourage federal gun control, but their real problem is with the Second Amendment.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
It didn’t take long. Long before all the facts about the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas were known or even all the missing were accounted for, liberals were riding their familiar gun control hobby horses. Within hours of the atrocity, articles were being posted online from the usual suspects, like Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, trotting out familiar themes. They want laws requiring more background checks, age limits on purchases, preventing people with a record of mental illness or domestic violence from being sold weapons, so-called “smart gun” measures that can trace guns and ammunition more easily, and even suggested banning handguns.
As is the case with most of the mass shootings that have shocked Americans in recent decades, none of these measures would have prevented the slaughter in Las Vegas. Initial reports say that shooter Stephen Paddock passed background checks when he purchased weapons. That makes sense since the police have initially said he didn’t have a record of prior offenses.
Even if every one of the left’s favorite pet ideas about guns were enacted, the only likely outcome would be to make it far more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns. And in those places, like Chicago and New York City, where draconian gun laws are already on the books, that is exactly what has happened, as the process to obtain and legally use a gun is so onerous that most ordinary citizens don’t even try. Needless to say, these measures do nothing to prevent gun violence by those who obtain weapons illegally.
Yet what’s interesting about the inevitable recycling of this debate is that liberals aren’t speaking up for the one measure that might actually change the country in a manner they’d like: repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
What Happens If We Repeal the Second Amendment
Nothing could possibly stop all gun crimes. But if we were living in a country where it was illegal for private citizens to possess most weapons, there’s little doubt that firearms would become a scarce commodity. Forget background checks, mental health restrictions, smart guns, and every other measure designed to make those who wish to legally purchase firearms difficult. Just make it a crime to sell or own them. Use existing registration laws to round up the guns that are already legally owned. Restrict legal possession to law enforcement agencies.
If that’s too harsh for you, just copy Australia and require anyone who owns a gun to obtain a federal license and demand that they have a “genuine reason” for wanting one, thus giving bureaucrats, the police and judges the right to deny a gun to those who whose story doesn’t pass muster according to some subjective standard.
That would create a black market for firearms that would supply criminals with all the guns they’d need. But it would also mean that guns would become scarce and expensive. Since there are already hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States, it might take some time for the Feds to make a dent in the number of guns out there. But along with a massive buyback program, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were given the vast resources that liberals tell us should never be expended on rounding up illegal immigrants, I don’t doubt that the supply of guns would dry up. The end of legal firearms wouldn’t necessarily prevent another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora, Colorado, but a country in which arms were no longer plentiful might be one with fewer such incidents.
Why Won’t Gun Control Advocates State The Truth?
If pressed for honesty, most liberals would admit that’s exactly the kind of country they would like to live in. Why then don’t they call for changes in the laws to make the U.S. more like Australia, where studies say mass shootings and homicides have been reduced?
The answer is obvious. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution. Even when they were using tragic incidents to demand more gun control, liberal politicians like former President Obama would keep telling us that they believed in the Second Amendment and didn’t want to take away guns from honest citizens. Yet every time they made such statements or began new efforts to pass more gun laws, gun purchases soared since many Americans believed they were lying about not wanting to let them keep their guns.
Their skepticism is rooted in the knowledge that all of the so-called “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence or mass shootings. That is why members of the National Rifle Association, a group that is routinely demonized by the left, thinks even an anodyne measure like more background checks at gun shows is just the thin edge of the wedge of a Second Amendment repeal.
So this time, instead of rehearsing the same tired arguments about ideas that wouldn’t change anything, perhaps the left can tell us what they really want and let the country have an honest debate.
Gun Advocates Must Acknowledge The Price Of Liberty
The choice is clear.
If we are to remain a nation where the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, we’re going to have to live with the possibility, maybe even the probability, that legally-obtained weapons will sometimes be used for a bad purpose by insane or evil people. If we want to be a country where gun violence is reduced drastically, then we will also have to be one where ownership of legal weapons is restricted to a privileged few rather than a right all citizens enjoy.
Those who support the Second Amendment must be honest about the price of the liberty they cherish. But those who wish to deprive us of that right must also be honest about what they want. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders believed giving the monopoly on firearms to the state was a prescription for tyranny. Is that a risk most of us wish to run?
Many Americans do wish to relegate the Second Amendment to the trash heap of history. Perhaps many would like to trade some of their liberty for fewer worries about gun violence. But if liberals want to talk about gun control, rather than more disingenuous nonsense about background checks, that’s the argument they should be forced to make.
Anything short of that is a waste of our time. Until the left directly addresses their desire to change the Constitution and end gun rights altogether, their rhetoric about gun violence should be ignored
Took 15 seconds to find an answer to your question. Michael Moore.
Oh, cool he's well on his way to policy making. Michael Moore believing that is evidence that all liberals do?
You said he doesn't give you a single example, so I gave you one. Here are some more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them
I've never shot a gun, but the people who cry about the NRA are hilarious.
I have shot a gun, care to elaborate your point?
People think they are just shutting down bills left and right by buying politicians, which just isn't true. The only power the NRA has is that they have a crap load of members. Many people make the NRA out to be some shadowy figure manipulating everything behind the scenes.
There's nothing shadowy about the NRA, they operate their war on the majority of American's right in the open. Are you serious about them not buying politicians?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/nra-national-rifle-association-money-influence/
For starters, the dollars and cents disparities are nothing short of staggering. The NRA and its allies in the firearms industries, along with the even more militant Gun Owners of America, have together poured nearly $81 million into House, Senate, and presidential races since the 2000 election cycle, according to federal disclosures and a Center for Responsive Politics analysis done for the Center for Public Integrity.
The bulk of the cash—more than $46 million—has come in the form of independent expenditures made since court decisions in 2010 (especially the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision) essentially redefined electoral politics. Those decisions allowed individuals, corporations, associations, and unions to make unlimited “independent” expenditures aimed at electing or defeating candidates in federal elections, so long as the expenditures were not “coordinated” with a candidate’s actual campaign.
“Members of Congress pay attention to these numbers, and they know that in the last election cycle the NRA spent $18.6 million on various campaigns,” says Lee Drutman, who has studied the role of gun money in politics for the Sunlight Foundation. “They know what the NRA is capable of doing and the kinds of ads they’re capable of running, and especially if you’re someone facing a close election, you don’t want hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of dollars in advertising to go against you.”
In the decade before Citizens United, from the 2000 election cycle to 2010, much of the money was donated directly to campaigns. During that period, pro-gun interests so thoroughly dominated electoral spending as to render gun control forces all but irrelevant, having directly donated fully 28 times the amount of their opponents in House and Senate races, $7 million on the pro-gun side compared to $245,000 on the gun control side. Of the total expended by gun rights interests, fully $3.9 million was delivered by the NRA. Since the Citizens United decision, gun control interests have gained new financial muscle, thanks largely to independent expenditures totaling at least $11.6 million by activist New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and groups tied to Bloomberg—nothing to sneeze at, but still just a fraction of that $46 million in post-2010 gun rights money.
“The issue is not so much how much the NRA gives any senator or member of the House, it’s how they can make their lives miserable.”
Among the 46 senators who voted to prevent any expansion of background checks, 43 have received help—either direct campaign contributions or independent expenditures—from pro-gun interests since 2000; in aggregate about $8.5 million. NRA expenditures ranged anywhere from a $95 contribution in one race to more than $2.6 million spent on the 2010 election of Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). A total of 38 of those senators have gotten $15,000 or more in overall NRA help since 2000. Among the leaders: Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), $1.2 million; Rob Portman (R-Ohio), $1.35 million; Richard Burr (R-N.C.), $852,000: John Thune (R-S.D.), $717,000; and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), $355,000. In several races, gun rights groups spent independent money both for one candidate and against his opponent (see chart). Forty-one of the 46 who voted with gun rights groups against expanded background checks were Republican.
Five Democrats also voted against the background check amendment, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did so to preserve his right under the Senate’s arcane rules to bring the measure up again. Reid, who has a B rating from the NRA, has benefited from $30,200 from gun rights groups since 2000, including $18,400 from the NRA. The other four Democrats who bucked their party and voted with the NRA, have benefited from a mere $30,830 in total funding from gun rights groups since 2000. Max Baucus of Montana (NRA A+) was the beneficiary of $28,830 while Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor (NRA C-) got $2,000. Mark Begich of Alaska (NRA A) and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (NRA A) have received no money from gun rights groups.
As for the 54 senators who voted in favor of expanding background checks, at least 18 of them have also benefited from gun rights group help since 2000. By far the largest chunk—$1.7 million—benefited a single NRA “defector,” Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), the coauthor of the background check amendment. The money those 54 have received since 2000 from gun control groups totals just $608,827
I'm aware the NRA donates plenty of money to campaigns. What I was getting at was that some people make it out like all of a sudden a bunch of people would now change their mind on gun control without them. Do you think the pro-abortion crowd only thinks that because planned parenthood donates to campaigns?
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171006/740bc9836e9df54b63e4afb8b1a1e82e.png)
-
You said he doesn't give you a single example, so I gave you one. Here are some more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them
I'm aware the NRA donates plenty of money to campaigns. What I was getting at was that some people make it out like all of a sudden a bunch of people would now change their mind on gun control without them. Do you think the pro-abortion crowd only thinks that because planned parenthood donates to campaigns?
Didn't give any because these isolated examples don't give much weight to the flimsy premise that all liberals want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Your second point makes no sense. Lawmakers aren't following the will of their constituents because they're being paid off. And yes, NRA's rhetoric absolutely influences people, are you arguing otherwise?
-
hemmy is attempting to argue that the NRA's influence is overstated literally at the same time they are publicly telling lawmakers they give money to that it's okay to support a ban on bump stops.
-
I remembered this incredibly stupid bullshit about the NRA lacking influence and I wanted to remember the rough ridin' idiot who said as much. Hemmy was that rough ridin' idiot. Seriously, maybe the dumber argument in the history of gE. I feel like someone else made a similar argument, about the NRA's money. I think I remember who it was, someone who still posts here, a lot, but I don't wasn't to be reckless. I'm going to rough ridin' find it. rough ridin' dipshit. #MassacreMitch
https://twitter.com/JRehling/status/1158146056720277506
-
Not sure how practical it is, but I'm getting the impression that the key to implementing sensible gun measures is for everyone in america to suffer some personal loss from gun violence.
Maybe this isn't impractical.
-
One sensible gun measure would be if Mitch would allow anything passed by the house on the subject to at least come up for a vote. Really the NRA only needs to buy one person to have an outsized influence.
-
Has a possible link between antidepressants and psychiatric drugs and the shooters been explored anywhere on this blog, the timeline seems to matchup?
-
just saw a stat that white males while outnumbering black and hispanic males also take the drugs at a rate 3 times that of blacks and hispanics, this disparity is probably economic. White dudes are also committing mass gun violence at a high clip. Coincidence? :surprised:
-
Yes let's unnecessarily introduce race into these discussions. Very important .
-
It certainly might be, given that almost all of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been white dudes or jihadis. Worth considering. I mean the link of anti-depressant drugs and mass shooters is tenuous in the most optimistic case, given the small samples involved, but the race part seems more likely to be a real factor.
-
Can somebody debunk this psychiatric drugging up the kids theory so I can know that's not the problem please.