Author Topic: Sensible Gun Measures  (Read 4005 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #50 on: October 04, 2017, 01:32:16 PM »
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


Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #51 on: October 04, 2017, 01:35:21 PM »
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.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2017, 01:37:02 PM »
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.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Katpappy

  • I got my eye on you
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8684
  • Party on gE
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2017, 01:40:09 PM »
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.
Hot time in Kat town tonight.

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35992
  • "Tacky" -Kietz
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2017, 01:42:27 PM »
I'm good with whatever the majority of the people who've lost loved ones in random shootings want done.

Offline Katpappy

  • I got my eye on you
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8684
  • Party on gE
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2017, 02:17:10 PM »
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.
Hot time in Kat town tonight.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29432
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2017, 02:23:33 PM »
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

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2017, 02:29:08 PM »
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

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35992
  • "Tacky" -Kietz
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #58 on: October 04, 2017, 02:32:12 PM »
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.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8834
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #59 on: October 04, 2017, 02:43:25 PM »
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.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #60 on: October 04, 2017, 02:54:14 PM »
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????

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #61 on: October 04, 2017, 03:08:28 PM »
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

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #62 on: October 04, 2017, 03:09:41 PM »
You have to be on a registry to vote, you dipshit.

Online 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16627
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2017, 03:24:08 PM »
Quote from: MakeItRain
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
:adios:

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #64 on: October 04, 2017, 04:03:47 PM »
Quote from: MakeItRain
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.

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35992
  • "Tacky" -Kietz
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #65 on: October 04, 2017, 04:12:15 PM »
It was a mass shooting.

Pun not intended.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #66 on: October 04, 2017, 04:40:29 PM »
You have to be on a registry to vote, you dipshit.

T-Y for proving my point
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20563
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #67 on: October 04, 2017, 05:30:51 PM »
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

Online hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6630
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #68 on: October 04, 2017, 06:20:38 PM »
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.

Online hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6630
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #69 on: October 04, 2017, 06:26:06 PM »
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.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20563
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #70 on: October 04, 2017, 07:15:11 PM »
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.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #71 on: October 04, 2017, 08:01:47 PM »
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?

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #72 on: October 04, 2017, 08:18:02 PM »
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/
Quote
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

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27330
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2017, 08:21:09 PM »
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:

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #74 on: October 05, 2017, 01:12:48 AM »
 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!
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 01:27:10 AM by renocat »