Author Topic: Sensible Gun Measures  (Read 3983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8776
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #100 on: October 05, 2017, 12:23:02 PM »
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?

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40089
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #101 on: October 05, 2017, 12:24:43 PM »
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).

Offline Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8980
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #102 on: October 05, 2017, 12:35:37 PM »
My post was to show how absurdly easy it is to get a firearm in this country.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9735
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #103 on: October 05, 2017, 12:51:21 PM »
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?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8776
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #104 on: October 05, 2017, 12:55:13 PM »
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."

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8776
    • View Profile
Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #105 on: October 05, 2017, 01:00:15 PM »
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.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8776
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #106 on: October 05, 2017, 01:03:40 PM »
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).

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40089
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #107 on: October 05, 2017, 01:13:33 PM »
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.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 39637
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #108 on: October 05, 2017, 01:18:04 PM »
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

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #109 on: October 05, 2017, 01:36:23 PM »
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.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 32450
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #110 on: October 05, 2017, 01:51:43 PM »
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)

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8776
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #111 on: October 05, 2017, 02:44:41 PM »
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.

Offline puniraptor

  • Tastemaker
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20562
  • nostalgic reason
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #112 on: October 05, 2017, 05:42:46 PM »
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.

Offline hemmy

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6625
  • RIP The After Party
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #113 on: October 05, 2017, 06:34:23 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?

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/
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

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?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 06:37:42 PM by hemmy »

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 68993
  • SP? all of that--->
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #114 on: October 05, 2017, 07:36:00 PM »

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #115 on: October 05, 2017, 07:36:51 PM »
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?

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #116 on: October 05, 2017, 10:59:57 PM »
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.

Online MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 27273
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #117 on: August 04, 2019, 11:34:26 PM »
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


Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 35965
  • "Tacky" -Kietz
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #118 on: August 04, 2019, 11:41:56 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.

Maybe this isn't impractical.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16607
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #119 on: August 05, 2019, 06:06:11 AM »
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.
:adios:

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3782
  • Posting tweets is bad message boarding
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #120 on: August 05, 2019, 10:11:44 PM »
Has a possible link between antidepressants and psychiatric drugs and the shooters been explored anywhere on this blog, the timeline seems to matchup?
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3782
  • Posting tweets is bad message boarding
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #121 on: August 05, 2019, 10:41:46 PM »
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:
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline Phil Titola

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10039
  • He took it out!
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #122 on: August 06, 2019, 06:58:32 AM »
Yes let's unnecessarily introduce race into these discussions.  Very important .

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16607
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #123 on: August 06, 2019, 07:16:21 AM »
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.
:adios:

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3782
  • Posting tweets is bad message boarding
    • View Profile
Re: Sensible Gun Measures
« Reply #124 on: August 06, 2019, 12:48:53 PM »
Can somebody debunk this psychiatric drugging up the kids theory so I can know that's not the problem please.








« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 01:06:24 PM by gatoveintisiete »
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.