United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Brill]

Cruz pointed to 2013 as an example.

"There were 54,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy a firearm. Do you know how many of those the Obama administration prosecuted? Forty-four. Forty-four out of 54,000 were prosecuted," he said.

Ted Cruz: President Obama is 'not telling the truth' about guns - CNNPolitics.com

 

[DA SWO]

Cruz pointed to 2013 as an example.

"There were 54,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy a firearm. Do you know how many of those the Obama administration prosecuted? Forty-four. Forty-four out of 54,000 were prosecuted," he said.

Ted Cruz: President Obama is 'not telling the truth' about guns - CNNPolitics.com

The others may have been working for BATFE

 

[Marauder06]

Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

"I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."

 

[JBS]

All these felons would have a lot more luck getting guns if they'd just hang out near the Mexican border and wait for the ATF to give them over.

 

[Marine0311]

Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

"I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."

I can go with background checks but not much beyond that. Rules, regs, polices and new laws are not the complete answer. Enforcing current laws are, at the least, a start.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

"Hypothetical"


2A set aside, lets say we didn't have a right to keep and bear arms. Or that in the forming of a more perfect government, we amended the 2A. Lets say there was no conspiracy or fears of a political agenda to take Mr & Mrs Americans guns away.

What would be acceptable regulatory restrictions on gun ownership or possession?

To give an example, I am more concerned with firearm safety and training than background checks or age limits. I don't care if someone committed a crime in the past, if they paid their debt to society and are now amongst society again, its a bit of a moot point to me. However, I've had more loaded guns pointed at me by untrained and unsafe gun owners than by any criminal. How there are not more negligent shooting of people at shooting ranges, is really beyond me. LEO's, Mil, and Civi's all combined, I've seen some of the most unsafe and idiotic behavior from people who would pass just about any background check the government could give them.

Now I realize mental health is a big issue, but i think its an issue for all aspects of society and shouldn't be focused solely on buying a gun. As crazy people shouldn't even be allowed in society, driving cars, owning animals or even having children. We have seen the results in people abusing animals, children, killing them by drowning them in bathtubs and shit.

So what would a responsible society that was not divided on fear or political agendas, do to have a safe and responsible process for firearm ownership?

Mandatory background checks?
Mandatory mental health screening's?
Mandatory safety training?
Mandatory age limit's?
Special Licenses?
Restrictions on types?

This is just a hypothetical question, I've stated my thoughts many times in this thread, that until the 2A is amended, I believe all gun control measures are unconstitutional. IMO, as the U.S. constitution reads, the government has no ability to restrict my right to keep and bear an M2 machine gun, much less my AR15's, etc.

I just want to read peoples personal opinions outside of the standing argument and politics.

 

[pardus]

Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

"I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."

Further restrictions on gun ownership would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.

We should be willing to at least consider other forms of gun control, such as prohibitions on military-grade assault rifles,

The author of that article is not only ignorant to what the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is/was set up for, or a fool for thinking law abiding citizens wouldn't be adversely affected, but has clearly forgotten the oath he swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

He's perplexed? Maybe because he's never followed the subject and seen that every time an inch is give/taken by the gun grabbers, they simply use that as a stepping stone to the next level of gun control, with the ultimate aim of removing private gun ownership.

 

[DA SWO]

Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

"I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."

Maybe because we see existing laws not being enforced?
Why no liberal knee jerk reaction to DoJ's lack of prosecutions?
How many felons are prevented by NICS from getting a gun vs how many prosecutions of said felons?
Why have laws if you don't enforce them, something akin to don't give an order that can not be enforced?

 

[Brill]

Veterans should lead push for more secure gun laws

"I have always been perplexed by the knee-jerk opposition of some veterans to any mention of gun control..."

I'd be for "deputizing" gun dealers with arrest authority when a felon illegally tries to buy a firearm. Get the word out: pop positive on a BC, spend the night in jail or violate parole and return to prison. Enforce laws on the books before making more.

Which branch of government is responsible for enforcing laws?

 

[Brill]

@Diamondback 2/2 , in Soviet Russia, guns take you away.

Seriously, I think you're missing the point of the 2nd Amendment, which is to make the government AFRAID of the people.

When government fears the people, there is liberty...(Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@Diamondback 2/2 , in Soviet Russia, guns take you away.

Seriously, I think you're missing the point of the 2nd Amendment, which is to make the government AFRAID of the people.

When government fears the people, there is liberty...(Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

I'm fully aware of the intended purpose of the 2A, hints the hypothetical question, vs a statement of what we should do moving forward. I am against all restrictions of ownership and possession, because of the 2A, its meaning, the reasoning behind it, and the fact that the no where in the document is there any authority for the three branches of government to circumvent the rights guaranteed under the bill of rights.

Presenting the hypothetical question, was an effort to gauge opinions on what they think is acceptable regulation in modern society, if the 2A did not exist. I.e. What would good sound regulation look like "if" the 2A or political agenda was not part of the discussion. Another example is saying "I'm for background checks, but not training requirements" the 2A as it reads, doesn't require a background check, so being we're already violating the 2A, let have a hypothetical debate on what "better, smarter, common sense restrictions" look like.

 

[compforce]

I'm fully aware of the intended purpose of the 2A, hints the hypothetical question, vs a statement of what we should do moving forward. I am against all restrictions of ownership and possession, because of the 2A, its meaning, the reasoning behind it, and the fact that the no where in the document is there any authority for the three branches of government to circumvent the rights guaranteed under the bill of rights.

Presenting the hypothetical question, was an effort to gauge opinions on what they think is acceptable regulation in modern society, if the 2A did not exist. I.e. What would good sound regulation look like "if" the 2A or political agenda was not part of the discussion. Another example is saying "I'm for background checks, but not training requirements" the 2A as it reads, doesn't require a background check, so being we're already violating the 2A, let have a hypothetical debate on what "better, smarter, common sense restrictions" look like.

I think you have to take a step back and ask what problem we're trying to solve. Are we trying to reduce the number of guns? Are we trying to reduce the number of mass shootings? Are we trying to reduce the overall number of deaths? Etc. Until you actually define the problem that you are trying to solve, you can't possibly suggest a solution.

5 step problem solving formula (some of you may remember this from PLDC):
1) Identify the problem
2) Identify potential solutions for the problem
3) Evaluate the potential solutions to identify the "best solution"
4) implement the "best solution"
5) evaluate the outcome

Just throwing out random solutions that may or may not actually be valid would be a complete exercise in randomness and would result in a random outcome.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I think you have to take a step back and ask what problem we're trying to solve. Are we trying to reduce the number of guns? Are we trying to reduce the number of mass shootings? Are we trying to reduce the overall number of deaths? Etc. Until you actually define the problem that you are trying to solve, you can't possibly suggest a solution.

5 step problem solving formula (some of you may remember this from PLDC):
1) Identify the problem
2) Identify potential solutions for the problem
3) Evaluate the potential solutions to identify the "best solution"
4) implement the "best solution"
5) evaluate the outcome

Just throwing out random solutions that may or may not actually be valid would be a complete exercise in randomness and would result in a random outcome.

Well said, I think the obvious issue currently is reducing firearm related deaths. To define it in detail, I would imagine it would be more so reducing firearm related murders, manslaughter and accidental death. However, the extremes would be some fat lady on CNN screaming any gun related death is too many, down with the NRA, arrest the cops, lock up the deer hunters, etc.

So with that, I guess my idea falls directly on it face. lol

 

[AWP]

About the only way you could curb gun violence today is if you went about 70 years back in time and confiscated every gun in America.

 

[Brill]

About the only way you could curb gun violence today is if you went about 70 years back in time and confiscated every gun in America.

Only possible via the quantum deep web...damn, I've said too much already.

 

[Marine0311]

"Hypothetical"


2A set aside, lets say we didn't have a right to keep and bear arms. Or that in the forming of a more perfect government, we amended the 2A. Lets say there was no conspiracy or fears of a political agenda to take Mr & Mrs Americans guns away.

What would be acceptable regulatory restrictions on gun ownership or possession?

To give an example, I am more concerned with firearm safety and training than background checks or age limits. I don't care if someone committed a crime in the past, if they paid their debt to society and are now amongst society again, its a bit of a moot point to me. However, I've had more loaded guns pointed at me by untrained and unsafe gun owners than by any criminal. How there are not more negligent shooting of people at shooting ranges, is really beyond me. LEO's, Mil, and Civi's all combined, I've seen some of the most unsafe and idiotic behavior from people who would pass just about any background check the government could give them.

Now I realize mental health is a big issue, but i think its an issue for all aspects of society and shouldn't be focused solely on buying a gun. As crazy people shouldn't even be allowed in society, driving cars, owning animals or even having children. We have seen the results in people abusing animals, children, killing them by drowning them in bathtubs and shit.

So what would a responsible society that was not divided on fear or political agendas, do to have a safe and responsible process for firearm ownership?

Mandatory background checks?
Mandatory mental health screening's?
Mandatory safety training?
Mandatory age limit's?
Special Licenses?
Restrictions on types?

This is just a hypothetical question, I've stated my thoughts many times in this thread, that until the 2A is amended, I believe all gun control measures are unconstitutional. IMO, as the U.S. constitution reads, the government has no ability to restrict my right to keep and bear an M2 machine gun, much less my AR15's, etc.

I just want to read peoples personal opinions outside of the standing argument and politics.

I can go with mandatory background checks and taking safety classes. Which seems to be done to a degree already. I am not sure beyond that.

 

[RackMaster]

@Diamondback 2/2 without the 2A, you get Canadian gun laws and we are screwed by the fear mongering left whenever they come in power.

 

[Brill]

I'm surprised that CNN is "exposing" the truth vis a vis the "loophole".

How the Iron Pipeline funnels guns into cities with tough gun laws

 

[Bypass]

So the POTUS screwed up my ability to get new NFA items on my trust. That prevents gun violence how? Since so many SBRs today and cans are being used to commit violent acts.

I can no longer buy, sell, and trade firearms without a license. This has been a hobby of mine for years. Thanks.

 

[Brill]

This country has lost it's fricken mind. Below is a story of a detective who lost his job because he was seen holding (not campaigning but holding (he picked a sign up for his mother) a political sign off duty. Imagine the anarchy by this statement, uttered by an attorney:

But Goldstein explains:

"The Constitution always requires ... that you actually be exercising the right, not that the government's motive was bad. ... If you aren't exercising your constitutional rights, we haven't violated your constitutional rights."

Goldstein contends that Heffernan might have had a legitimate lawsuit under state civil service or civil rights laws, but not under the Constitution.

An Employee Mistakenly Steps Into Politics; Can The Government Retaliate?