United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Ooh-Rah]

If that's truly the case, they deserved to be conquered and their weak bloodlines allowed to die out. An man that doesn't prize freedom and the means to protect that freedom may as well be an emasculated mongrel.

Weak men make hard times.

Responses like this are why I can never take your posts seriously; they are always so full of rhetoric I can never tell what you mean literally versus trying to make a point.

 

[Gunz]

There are IDK 300,000,000+ guns in America. So weirdos getting hold of one and killing a couple of dozen people is, sadly, inevitable. The sheer number of guns precludes confiscation. Outright banning would be strongly resisted and given the number of legit gun owners would never pass.

Having said that, some restrictions make sense.

 

[Cookie_]

Your point is valid and that may be how it ends. I just disagree that giving into "sensible gun laws" is going to help maintain your right to own a firearm in the long run. Take a look around the world.

I think it's important to clarify what a "sensible" gun law is. Is it a law that says you can no longer own 30 round magazines, or is it a law that says someone convicted of a violent/relationship crime (assault, cruelty to animals, stalking) is banned from purchasing firearms for x number of years?

One of those laws does nothing to actually attack gun violence; the other directly targets personal behaviors that are common in perpetrators of such attacks.

There are IDK 300,000,000+ guns in America. So weirdos getting hold of one and killing a couple of dozen people is, sadly, inevitable. The sheer number of guns precludes confiscation. Outright banning would be strongly resisted and given the number of legit gun owners would never pass.

Having said that, some restrictions make sense.

There was a leftist (anarcho) youtuber I watch who explained how stupid confiscation was.
His question was:

"If you took a gun off the street every minute starting today, and a child born today lived to be 100, how old would their headstone be when the last gun was recovered?"

I think the answer was 500 years old for the headstone.

 

[RackMaster]

Canada has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and you know what, shit still happens. Do you know the common denominator in all of these mass killings, guns or bows or vans? Lack of effective police response and family/friends/teachers/mental health professionals; all fail to acknowledge there's a problem and do something about it. What is happening among the vocal left in the US and Canada, is to slowly chip away at ownership; until there's nothing to own. Canada is proof. They just "froze" sales of handguns based off of an American shooting. At the same time they reduce sentences and allowed house arrest for gun related crimes because of systematic racism. Maybe if they actually did the hard work in communities significantly affected by gun crime, mostly gang related.

 

[SOSTCRNA]

I've said it before on this board and I'll say it again; the right wing answer of "any laws on guns are infringement" is going to be what causes a total ban in this country.

Mass killings can happen anywhere and with anything, like that bow attack in Norway shows.

But the severity and commonality of mass deaths by shootings are a purely American problem.

The younger generations aren't stupid. They can look at every other country that has tighter restrictions and see how fucked up we are. They can see that the GOP response of "we need to fix mental health" doesn't hold water for a party that consistently votes against access to that health care. They can see that the idea of "give teachers guns" doesn't make sense in an already stressful and underpaid profession.

I'm not saying that the DNC is right to try and reenact a ban (they aren't), but I am saying that there is only one party that actually seems to be trying to fix the issue. That's a problem.

If you don't try to fix the issue and maintain the right to bear arms, you'll lose that right.
For all the people bitching about "liberals trying to disarm us", you're going to bring it upon yourself in some weird self-fulfilling prophecy.

So give up our rights to save our rights…got it.

Now I’m for more money for police training and school security etc but I’m hard line no on giving any ground to the socialist gun grabbers.

 

[Cookie_]

So give up our rights to save our rights…got it.

Now I’m for more money for police training and school security etc but I’m hard line no on giving any ground to the socialist gun grabbers.

Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.

You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.

There are a decent number of proposals that would work against gun violence without giving up any right to arms, but how will that ever happen if the only people who care about the 2A are either unable to think of solutions or unwillingly to work with them?

 

[Cookie_]

Here, I'll give a number of examples that are being voiced by "socialists and leftists"

Solutions that focus on behavior or personal actions:

-Raise age to 21 (not a fan of this)

-Expand Lautenberg Ammendment to include crimes against romantic partners (IE the boyfriend loophole)

-Temporary prohibition on owning or possessing firearms for those charged with assault, stalking, or animal cruelty. (All of those are markers for perpetrators)

-Expand red flag laws. They need to be written so that they are temporary holds (no greater than 7 days) and do not allow for asset forfeiture.

Solutions that focus on societal changes:

-Ban firearm advertising tied to military/military imagery (cultural shift around weapons)

-Provide basic weapons training to civilians. A commonly suggeted way to do this is to use the National Guard (through AGR/technician jobs) to conduct the training.

-Expand mental health access. Medicare for all/single payer option.

-Actually invest in social services in schools. Counselors/psychiatrists are more helpful than resource officers.


Not a single one of those suggestions limits ownership, weapons availability, or taxes anything more than it already is.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.

You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.

There are a decent number of proposals that would work against gun violence without giving up any right to arms, but how will that ever happen if the only people who care about the 2A are either unable to think of solutions or unwillingly to work with them?

Rex Grossman would like an apology:

 

[SOSTCRNA]

Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.

You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.

There are a decent number of proposals that would work against gun violence without giving up any right to arms, but how will that ever happen if the only people who care about the 2A are either unable to think of solutions or unwillingly to work with them?

So abolish the police? Leave the schools exposed? Talk about a lack of nuance.

And as for my stance on gun control, there is no nuance intended. The answer is HELL NO

 

[ThunderHorse]

Right. More money for training to the police forces that are happy to do "Warrior Mindset" training with Rex Grossman but routinely seem to fail to engage shooters.
Or increasing school security which does nothing to address the actual shootings.

You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue. The liberal side of that is the whole "AR-15s explode bodies and 9mm explodes lungs!!" statement.

There are a decent number of proposals that would work against gun violence without giving up any right to arms, but how will that ever happen if the only people who care about the 2A are either unable to think of solutions or unwillingly to work with them?

Do you actually think any of these are solutions. On Lautenberg Amendment, if you're convicted of DV, you're convicted of DV. It doesn't matter if it's a boyfriend or a husband or a girlfriend, this is already covered. Saying it isn't is ballshoi.

 

[Cookie_]

So abolish the police? Leave the schools exposed? Talk about a lack of nuance.

And as for my stance on gun control, there is no nuance intended. The answer is HELL NO

Cool. I dont think I ever said abolish the police, or that school security is a bad thing.

I just highlighted how both of those options don't do shit to actually address the issue.

Explain where any of those things I posted are "gun control".

You're "hell no!!!!" Attitude is why in 50 years we're going to be in danger of actually losing our rights.

Do you actually think any of these are solutions. On Lautenberg Amendment, if you're convicted of DV, you're convicted of DV. It doesn't matter if it's a boyfriend or a husband or a girlfriend, this is already covered. Saying it isn't is ballshoi.

That's not how the text of the law works, as it only applies to:

a current / former spouse, a parent or guardian, or against a close family member with whom the victim is living or has lived in the past.

Unless you're thinking of felony convictions, in which case they do. I'm specifically talking about the wording of misdemeanor charges only applying in the above circumstances.

 

[Topkick]

You talking about "socialist gun grabbers" kinda demonstrates the overall lack of nuance people have with this issue

Losing those rights are black and white. I don't see a lack of understanding here. If we ever give up any rights, we likely don't get them back. Where does it end? I do not have enough trust in politicians to decide what's best for everyone.

I do agree with you in that I do think its possible that progressiveness, indoctrination, or whatever you wanna call it will change that nation's overall attitude and we could eventually lose this battle. Bottom line though, its not responsible gun owners shooting up schools. So, is taking measures against us really the solution to the problem? I don't see how banning a 30 round mag will change anything. Bad people don't play by rules.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

General observation.
Kids from my teenager’s generation don’t give a shit about the Second Amendment. I would not be at all surprised if even 10 years from now the freedoms we hold dear, will become simple privileges for the few.

Responses like this are why I can never take your posts seriously; they are always so full of rhetoric I can never tell what you mean literally versus trying to make a point.

Just trying to keep the demoralization in check. Especially when someone opines that we're gonna be serfs in 10 years.

Hard pass, eh.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Any ot you all ever thought fuck it? Let them write whatever laws they do.... I just ain't gonna follow them? Yes it's dumb, yes it's bullshit. Guess what? Titties are nice, as well as other things...

The outrage!

 

[Topkick]

You're "hell no!!!!" Attitude is why in 50 years we're going to be in danger of actually losing our rights.

I personally don't think most virtue signaling politicians are worried about your safety. Its all about who controls the narrative in order to stay in power. For example, bashing responsible gunowners as right wing crazies when they are not the people committing the crimes. The NRA has ensured the right controls the narrative, but that seems to be changing due to piss poor leadership from within. That's another discussion.

 

[Jaknight]

My question is what is it gonna take to make the gun control crowd feel safe enough that they stop going after guns? If we give them what they want bans on “assault” rifles, universal background checks, red flag laws and mag limits. What happens if even after, that some idiot goes crazy and shoots people this time with handguns or a rifle. Are the Gun Grabbing crowd gonna blame something else other than guns or are they going to demand more restrictions? My bet is on the latter

 

[Topkick]

My question is what is it gonna take to make the gun control crowd feel safe enough that they stop going after guns? If we give them what they want bans on “assault” rifles, universal background checks, red flag laws and mag limits. What happens if even after, that some idiot goes crazy and shoots people this time with handguns or a rifle. Are the Gun Grabbing crowd gonna blame something else other than guns or are they going to demand more restrictions? My bet is on the latter

Despite the current "we're not trying to take your guns" rhetoric, I think many people truly would like to disarm the populace. But you have to ease into that, right? Columbine took place in 1999 during Clinton's Armalite Rifle ban. The shooters were able to get the guns & ammo they used, regardless of the restrictions placed on the population. No new gun laws will stop this from happening. Too many guns out there and bad people don't play by the rules.

 

[Gunz]

393,347,000 estimated guns in civilian ownership in the US, according to Wikipedia. Any serious gun-banner looking at that number is going to realize the futility of any hard-line control effort like confiscation, banning or outlawing. They are reduced to nibbling away at specifics, like pistol grips, high-cap mags etc.

 

[Devildoc]

My issues with red flag: prior to these laws, if someone is deemed dangerous and/or incompetent, the state appoints an attorney, and the state bears the cost. Under red flag, if I am right, they do neither. So someone says Devildoc is a danger, they come and take my guns. Now I have to hire an attorney and I pay all court costs to prove that I am not a danger. Oh, and I might not get my guns back.

There's a legal debate that they are unconstitutional (eliminates due process), of which I agree.

I absolutely agree that we need to open up mental health resources and push resources back into the schools and communities.

Raising the age to 21? Fine. Then do the same for voting, smoking, and joining the military.

 

[Topkick]

My issues with red flag: prior to these laws, if someone is deemed dangerous and/or incompetent, the state appoints an attorney, and the state bears the cost. Under red flag, if I am right, they do neither. So someone says Devildoc is a danger, they come and take my guns. Now I have to hire an attorney and I pay all court costs to prove that I am not a danger. Oh, and I might not get my guns back.

There's a legal debate that they are unconstitutional (eliminates due process), of which I agree.

I absolutely agree that we need to open up mental health resources and push resources back into the schools and communities.

Raising the age to 21? Fine. Then do the same for voting, smoking, and joining the military.

I think the Red flag law will be used as a weapon against undeserving people in some cases.