It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[TLK Valentine]

Aaaaaaand now you're off topic once again. First, we were talking about what you believe to be Russia's influence over an election, and now you bring up a case where someone claims to be raped. Squirm much?

You truly don't see two cases of people being manipulated? You should pay attention.

 

[LostMarbels]

My attitude:

• Every gun owner should be required to get a license and go through firearms training.
• Every gun should have a registered/titled, even the ancient heirlooms. If you sell a gun, there should be a title exchange

In agreement with this.

• Gun title checks should be done yearly.

I don't want legislation to be so restrictive that they themselves become a ban. I really wouldn't want this to turn into a gun DMV that you have to take a day off of work to register your gun like your vehicle. I feel that if you have a firearm registered to you then you are responsible for that gun. But to have to reregister every year is a bit excessive. What is this going to cost, $20 a gun? Yearly? Does a 9mm cost $15 but a 30/30 $60? This can easily get to a point that they can purposely make it so that they can take your guns for not being able to pay their way overpriced registration fees.

All stolen guns need to be reported,

Agreed.

any lapse should result in a fine

This is another loophole that could be made so excessive that it could be used to deter or ban weapons.

• Accessories to increase firing rate of weapons should be outlawed

I do not know what this will help. There are people that can fire 6 shots out of a revolver, reload, and put 6 more shots on multiple targets in less than 2 seconds. I have watched a man shot a Barret .50 from the shoulder 5 times in under 3 seconds with a grouping about the size of a fist. I have seen people shot 3 skeets out of the air in under a second with a 12 gauge.

Speed shooting is a sport. There are thousands upon thousands of fast shooters out there with Jerry Miculek as the fastest in the world. His daughter is absolutely ridiculous with a shotty. But this isn't like some niche. Just like most people that have nice cars. Most gun owners like to see how fast they can go and still hit paper.

And yes. Not everyone is some super shot or even a fast shooter. But it is a big enough part of shooting that I do not think bump stocks present a big issue. Besides, you cant outlaw someone's finger and hip. That's how you do it. It's not accurate at all.

Also, I believe full auto should remain legal.

• Specific types of ammunition should be outlawed (I would even support an added tax for ammunition)

I think gun owners should have the ammo needed to keep up with any threat that may present itself. Also by banning ammo, you essentially ban the weapon. So this is another loophole that could be made so excessive that it could be used to deter or ban weapons.

• People convicted of violent crimes, domestic violence, and people with mental health issues should be restricted.

The term "mental health issues" needs to be better defined.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't want legislation to be so restrictive that they themselves become a ban.

Indeed -- what is this, abortion?

I really wouldn't want this to turn into a gun DMV that you have to take a day off of work to register your gun like your vehicle.

If one day's inconvenience helps prevent (oh, who are we kidding -- postpone) the next bloodbath, I think gun owners can suck it up and deal with it.

I feel that if you have a firearm registered to you then you are responsible for that gun. But to have to reregister every year is a bit excessive. What is this going to cost, $20 a gun? Yearly? Does a 9mm cost $15 but a 30/30 $60? This can easily get to a point that they can purposely make it so that they can take your guns for not being able to pay their way overpriced registration fees.

It could get to that point -- which is why the judiciary would see to it that it does not.

My earlier comment linking this to abortion was in jest, but the point is that if the courts can strike down legislation which is just a thinly disguised ban for that legal right, it can do so for this one as well.

This is another loophole that could be made so excessive that it could be used to deter or ban weapons.

It would be the responsibility of the judiciary to see to it that doesn't happen. Those "activist judges" would be doing some good...

I do not know what this will help. There are people that can fire 6 shots out of a revolver, reload, and put 6 more shots on multiple targets in less than 2 seconds. I have watched a man shot a Barret .50 from the shoulder 5 times in under 3 seconds with a grouping about the size of a fist. I have seen people shot 3 skeets out of the air in under a second with a 12 gauge.

True -- at least if any of those people go on a rampage, we'll know it was strictly the result of their own talent, provided by years of training. Doesn't seem right that anyone whose cheese has slipped off his cracker can achieve the same results with a $100 bump stock from gunbroker.com and 15 minutes with a phillips screwdriver, does it?

And yes. Not everyone is some super shot or even a fast shooter. But it is a big enough part of shooting that I do not think bump stocks present a big issue. Besides, you cant outlaw someone's finger and hip. That's how you do it. It's not accurate at all.

Also, I believe full auto should remain legal.

Agree to disagree on that one.

I think gun owners should have the ammo needed to keep up with any threat that may present itself. Also by banning ammo, you essentially ban the weapon. So this is another loophole that could be made so excessive that it could be used to deter or ban weapons.

Not all ammo, just certain types of ammo... as for "any threat that may present itself," if a bullet is colloquially known as a "cop killer," then one can only guess what the perceived threat is...

(Yes, I know that the "cop killer" bullet is mostly mythical -- someone should really work on marketing them better)

The term "mental health issues" needs to be better defined.

If I were in charge, I would limit it to people who have been prescribed certain medications (I'll leave it to the mental health experts to come up with the list, and let the legislators quibble over it), simply because "armed" and "off their meds" never ends well...

 

[LostMarbels]

Indeed -- what is this, abortion?



If one day's inconvenience helps prevent (oh, who are we kidding -- postpone) the next bloodbath, I think gun owners can suck it up and deal with it.



It could get to that point -- which is why the judiciary would see to it that it does not.

My earlier comment linking this to abortion was in jest, but the point is that if the courts can strike down legislation which is just a thinly disguised ban for that legal right, it can do so for this one as well.



It would be the responsibility of the judiciary to see to it that doesn't happen. Those "activist judges" would be doing some good...



True -- at least if any of those people go on a rampage, we'll know it was strictly the result of their own talent, provided by years of training. Doesn't seem right that anyone whose cheese has slipped off his cracker can achieve the same results with a $100 bump stock from gunbroker.com and 15 minutes with a phillips screwdriver, does it?



Agree to disagree on that one.



Not all ammo, just certain types of ammo... as for "any threat that may present itself," if a bullet is colloquially known as a "cop killer," then one can only guess what the perceived threat is...

(Yes, I know that the "cop killer" bullet is mostly mythical -- someone should really work on marketing them better)



If I were in charge, I would limit it to people who have been prescribed certain medications (I'll leave it to the mental health experts to come up with the list, and let the legislators quibble over it), simply because "armed" and "off their meds" never ends well...

Umm... no thank you. I would get more accomplished head-butting a wall all day then answering this rant. Probably get less of a headache.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Hank77]

I don't want legislation to be so restrictive that they themselves become a ban. I really wouldn't want this to turn into a gun DMV that you have to take a day off of work to register your gun like your vehicle. I feel that if you have a firearm registered to you then you are responsible for that gun. But to have to reregister every year is a bit excessive. What is this going to cost, $20 a gun? Yearly? Does a 9mm cost $15 but a 30/30 $60? This can easily get to a point that they can purposely make it so that they can take your guns for not being able to pay their way overpriced registration fees.

I'm starting to feel the 'give an inch, they want a mile'. All these registering and year after, gun insurance, etc,. etc. etc........yes to make it too exorbitant that it cuts out the family meat hunter, the little farmer/rancher, so only the rich and famous can own a rifle.

 

[jgarden]

The White House and the Republican Congress don't even possess the "intestinal fortitude" to take the "baby steps" of banning "bump stocks" that give a shooter the firepower to kill/wound 100's of innocent men, women and children within minutes - apparently the NRA has decided that "bump stocks" are now part of the 2nd Amendment!

 

[LostMarbels]

I'm starting to feel the 'give an inch, they want a mile'. All these registering and year after, gun insurance, etc,. etc. etc........yes to make it too exorbitant that it cuts out the family meat hunter, the little farmer/rancher, so only the rich and famous can own a rifle.

For me, it is more important that our founders understood demicide, and that governments themselves kill more people than any other domestic act of violence, terrorism, or mass murder combined. Unchecked governments kill and enslave those that they control. It is an indisputable fact, from the English oppression of the Scotts in the 13th century, to the genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority government, in the 1990's. Every time, throughout history regardless of who they are, or when in history it happened, the government always disarms the peoples they intend to kill. And then since the target population is unarmed, and rounded up they kill millions.

260,000,000 million citizens have been slaughtered by their own governments from the 1890's to the 1990's.

Let's look at slavery for a moment. Do you think slaves were armed? Well, why not? What could possibly go wrong by allowing entire peoples you are oppressing to carry weapons?

In modern day, what do you think would happen if buses started rounding up blacks to be put in shackles and sold into slavery?

Same scenario as above, but this time Americans have agreed to ban firearms, and no law-abiding black person, or citizen, have any guns at all. Now what? They still have their MRAPS, dogs, and guns. Helicopters with night vision. Predator drones...... What do you do when a veritable army comes for you?

But it cant happen in America, that is just stupid.... WWII, some 130-150 thousand Japanise are disarmed, arrest/detained without due process, and sent to concentration camps in American after Pearl Harbor. Executive Order 9066, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942.

But that was a long time ago..... HR 645 National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, signed by Barrack Obama on Jan 22, 2009. There are 800 operational camps in America right now.

Before you get on your conspiracy theory high horse....

Those of you who do not like Trump. Do you think it is even remotely possible that Trump could act outside of the law and round up dissenters to his regime?

Those of you who support Trump. Do you think it is remotely possible that Trump could be assassinated and his supporters are rounded up?

If you have any doubt that the government will not kill you, if you do not feel 100% safe, why would you give up your means of defense?

 

[jgarden]

I question as to whether this President would ever voluntarily step down from
office as a result of impeachment, the 25th Amendment or the 2020 Election!

This is a President who only supports the democratic system when it works in his favour - when it doesn't he characterizes it as "rigged!"

 

[LostMarbels]

I question as to whether this President would ever voluntarily leave office as a result of impeachment, the 25 Amendment or the 2020 Election!

This is a President who only supports the democratic system when it works in his favour - when it doesn't he characterizes it as "rigged!"

That was random....

Please help me by reiterating what the point you are trying to convey has to do with:

It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

Thanks, bit confused is all.

 

[jgarden]

It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

"The Donald" didn't waste any time dismissing the Texas church shooting as a "public health," and not a "gun" problem, from half a world away - Japan!

This President, he NRA and their motley crew of "deplorables" like Steve Bannon, have already demonstrated that they will do or say whatever is expedient at the time, and then refuse to hold themselves accountable - even to their own rules!

There is no denying that allowing the legislation on semi-automatic weapons to lapse, combined with the introduction of "bump stocks," has provided every misguided individual in America with the firepower to kill/wound literally 100's of innocent men, women and children within minutes!

 

[Vylo]

it is more important that our founders understood

Our founders understood almost nothing about modern times, or modern America seeing as they died almost 200 years ago. There is wisdom to be gleamed from their writings, but you have to keep in mind the context, and how dated many of their views were.

 

[LostMarbels]

Our founders understood almost nothing about modern times, or modern America seeing as they died almost 200 years ago. There is wisdom to be gleamed from their writings, but you have to keep in mind the context, and how dated many of their views were.

Can you logically refute this post #422? Or answer the questions posed honestly?

 

[Vylo]

Can you logically refute this post #422? Or answer the questions posed honestly?

I was simply commenting on the fact we shouldn't take our founding father's words as gospel, especially when it comes to things that have changed with time. I support gun rights.

 

[super animator]

*post*

will you stop promoting propaganda and start discussing with other people?

 

[Almost there]

Phase one of religious discrimination.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide which religions are worthy of protection under our Constitution and which ones are not.

It's sad that so many forgot why various Christian groups came to the Americas in the first place....

What if the Catholic church declared war on the US?

 

[Almost there]

Phase one of religious discrimination.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide which religions are worthy of protection under our Constitution and which ones are not.

It's sad that so many forgot why various Christian groups came to the Americas in the first place....

Also, my point is that it is easy to declare Islam a political system rather than a religion. Could we still have fought against Nazism if they declared Hitler their divine ruler.

Come to think of it, I think that was what was going on with Japan during WWII.

Sometimes a "religion" gives up their first amendment protection in the same way you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And the actual teaching of Islam is damning enough.

 

[Almost there]

But anyway, I'll get back on topic and say that I think stricter regulations on semiautomatic firearms would help make it harder for these groups to obtain weapons in the USA

I think that may be possible, but as we learned in Texas, there are two sides to that coin. And when you DO make them illegal, you end up with what happens in Europe. i.e. only one side of the coin has them.

 

[bhsmte]

What if the Catholic church declared war on the US?

Why would they do that?

 

[bhsmte]

I think that may be possible, but as we learned in Texas, there are two sides to that coin. And when you DO make them illegal, you end up with what happens in Europe. i.e. only one side of the coin has them.

And how many citizens are killing other citizens in europe with guns?

 

[Almost there]

Why would they do that?

Good answer, and addresses my point.