Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[Centinel]

You are correct, but IMO the SCOTUS screwed up.

Mark

Or...they accomplished exactly what they wanted to.

 

[2aguy]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

If background checks cost any money they are a violation of the 14th Amendment the same way that charging money to vote is.....

We are the only ones arguing rationally, we have explained again and again why background checks do nothing to stop criminals and mass shooters and you guys don't care.....all you know is that it effects normal gun owners...

 

[MaryL]

Really, there isn't a choice here. I think guns are really cool, but, I don't like the fact that I am forced to HAVE one to survive because some other power hungry phallocentric cretin has a fetish. Guns aren't helping freedom, I have no idea what practical reason firearms fulfill. Not in this day and age, they do more harm than good. When is the Last time a mass shooing was stopped by someone with a gun? I can think of only once. But we NEED guns to protect us from criminals with guns?....No, that isn't true.

 

[2aguy]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Wrong.

It is not an 'infringement' on your 'right' to sell your own property, the notion is ignorant idiocy – the regulatory policy is applied to the person buying the gun, not the person selling; they buyer is the person subject to the background check.

Background checks are effective for their intended purpose and scope; no one has presented background checks as a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and gun violence.

And seeking to oppose background checks because criminals don't follow the law fails as a red herring fallacy – again, beyond the scope and intent of background checks; one cannot say a law has 'failed' because it doesn't address a situation it was never intended to address.

Background checks are effective for their intended purpose and scope; no one has presented background checks as a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and gun violence.

They aren't a panacea for any gun crimes or gun violence...they stop not one gun crime or mass shooting so saying no one has presented background checks as a panacea is a lie........you have presented background checks as a meaningful way to stop gun crime and mass shootings....they do not stop any......

All of the criminals who get guns do not go through background checks since they cannot pass them.

All of the mass shooters passed background checks or bought their guns illegally or stole them....


Your point is stupid....background checks do not stop criminals...at all...

 

[80zephyr]

You are correct, but IMO the SCOTUS screwed up.

Mark

Or...they accomplished exactly what they wanted to.

True...

 

[2aguy]

Really, there isn't a choice here. I think guns are really cool, but, I don't like the fact that I am forced to HAVE one to survive because some other power hungry phallocentric cretin feels has a fetish. Guns aren't helping freedom, I have no idea what practical reason firearms fulfill. Not in this day and age, they do more harm than good. When is the Last time a mass shooing was stopped by someone with a gun? I can think of only once. But we NEED guns to protect us from criminals with guns?....No, that isn't true.

Tell that to the Swiss...they kept the germans out in WW2 because they had 435,000 civilians under arms.

--Klackamas mall
--at least 3 church shootings
--Pearl Mississipi
--Smokey Mountain Law School

And the list goes on and on....

 

[Centinel]

Really, there isn't a choice here. I think guns are really cool, but, I don't like the fact that I am forced to HAVE one to survive because some other power hungry phallocentric cretin has a fetish. Guns aren't helping freedom, I have no idea what practical reason firearms fulfill. Not in this day and age, they do more harm than good. When is the Last time a mass shooing was stopped by someone with a gun? I can think of only once. But we NEED guns to protect us from criminals with guns?....No, that isn't true.

What are you suggesting be done?

 

[80zephyr]

Really, there isn't a choice here. I think guns are really cool, but, I don't like the fact that I am forced to HAVE one to survive because some other power hungry phallocentric cretin has a fetish. Guns aren't helping freedom, I have no idea what practical reason firearms fulfill. Not in this day and age, they do more harm than good. When is the Last time a mass shooing was stopped by someone with a gun? I can think of only once. But we NEED guns to protect us from criminals with guns?....No, that isn't true.

List of 16 mass shootings stopped by Armed Citizens - Illinois Tactical Blog

And my guess is, that with more armed people, that number will grow.

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Above I gave FBI sources murder rates in the USA, with a population of 300,000,000.

A. Of the countries you mentioned, Japan has the population closest to the USA at about 127 million. Not even 50%. Ethnically, they are homogeneous.
B. All have histories of incredible violence toward their neighbors, except for Aussies and Canadians.
C. Aussies and Canadians live in countries where there are very few people per land area.

Concluding that only the difference between the USA and another nation's gun laws is the ONLY reason that 8,000 gunshot inflicted murders of 300,000,000 mostly armed citizens is narrow-minded.

First, the homicide rate with guns is closer to 11,000, not 8000. and sorry, the 20,000 suicides really are a problem. Japan had 11 gun homicides in the last year I can find numbers for. The United Kingdom had 48, Germany had 258. Even accounting for smaller populations, we have a horrific homicide rate for a developed nation.

Second, history is irrelevent in this context. We've murdered Iraqis, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Native Americans by the hundreds of thousands because we've wanted their shit, too.

So, sorry, we have a real problem. And I'm getting a little tired of watching preschoolers being wheeled out in body bags so you can compensate for your tiny dick.

FBI table 8, 2014....8,124 gun murders...

Japan, South Korea and China have absolute gun control, and have 2x the suicide rate we do and all of their suicides are done without guns......

And in each of those countries their criminals and terrorists get guns...usually fully automatic guns and grenades...even in Japan where they have gang wars and use grenades........in the 80s, 90s and the last one started in 2006 and ended 7 years later.....

 

[2aguy]

Of course hardened cockpits has nothing to do with that.

I wouldn't know. Have we ever had a case since 9/11 where the terrorist GOT on the plane and then was foiled by the hardened cockpit?

Or did they never get on the plane at all because we are checking them out before they get on the plane?

The TSA missed 90% of weapons passed through their check points during the last test....

 

[BluesLegend]

Really, there isn't a choice here. I think guns are really cool, but, I don't like the fact that I am forced to HAVE one to survive because some other power hungry phallocentric cretin feels has a fetish. Guns aren't helping freedom, I have no idea what practical reason firearms fulfill. Not in this day and age, they do more harm than good. When is the Last time a mass shooing was stopped by someone with a gun? I can think of only once. But we NEED guns to protect us from criminals with guns?....No, that isn't true.

Tell that to the Swiss...they kept the germans out in WW2 because they had 435,000 civilians under arms.

--Klackamas mall
--at least 3 church shootings
--Pearl Mississipi
--Smokey Mountain Law School

And the list goes on and on....

Ahem its "Clackamas".

 

[BluesLegend]

Whatever you lawless libs want gun control or otherwise the answer is NO!

 

[2aguy]

Here you go....more accurate numbers....TSA screeners failed to find weapons and explosives 95% of the time....the video on the link from CNN makes this point at the 12 second mark....

The TSA......can't find weapons in luggage to save their lives...or yours...

TSA screeners failed tests to detect explosives, weapons - CNNPolitics.com

 

[2aguy]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

How many times does a person have to have a background check?

Look I went through my state's ridiculous permitting process

16 hours of classroom time, range certification, fingerprinting, references, paid hundreds of dollars all to exercise a constitutional right

I now have a little card with my photo on it that says I can buy any type firearms and carry concealed

That license needs to be renewed in 5 years at the cost of a couple hundred more dollars

Now IMO I should just be able to flash that license and buy a gun anywhere in my state but I still have to fill out reams of paperwork and then wait before I can take ownership of something I have a right to own

It's ridiculous and will not stop anyone from using a gun to shoot someone

Same here...are you in Illinois....and the gang bangers shooting up the South Side of Chicago get guns in an hour for less money.........at 15...

 

[2aguy]

Of course hardened cockpits has nothing to do with that.

I wouldn't know. Have we ever had a case since 9/11 where the terrorist GOT on the plane and then was foiled by the hardened cockpit?

Or did they never get on the plane at all because we are checking them out before they get on the plane?

95% failure rate by the TSA to detect weapons and explosives.......

 

[2aguy]

Each amendment carries the same weight as the others. Your argument is puerile and ill-informed.

Uh, we had 33,000 gun deaths last year due to the bizarre reading of the 2nd Amendment.

We had exactly ZERO Deaths because someone heard something on TV they didn't like.

That is of no consequence where concerns the right. Most of the 33,000 were suicides, which is a victimless "crime". Even so, 33,000 is not even an infinitesimal blip against the more than 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners nationwide.

19,900 people committed suicide without guns in this country too..........

 

[2aguy]

Indeed. No system will ever be perfect, and Cho was a known whack-job who wasn't reported. Privacy laws, ya know. Can't point out the crazies.

No, the problem with Cho is that the gun dealers didn't look into him.

It took the Media less than a few hours to find out this guy had a history of anti-social behavior going back to junior high school. And yet he was STILL able to buy two guns, one of them by mail-order.

Which is why I have my perfect solution. If you sold or manufacture a gun used in a crime, you can be sued by the victims.

It's how we got the tobacco industry to clean up its act.

Yeah...the media have the resources and the time, the gun store complied with federally mandated background checks....

 

[2aguy]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

How about citing actual research and not just pulling numbers out of your butt......

There are 357 million guns in private hands...

 

[2aguy]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Here...actual research...

Gun-Homicide Rate Decreased as Gun Ownership Increased
According to data retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993 (see light blue line in chart). By 2013 (most recent year available), the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50 percent to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population.
--------
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report(and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

 

[frigidweirdo]

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

Oh, I suppose there aren't lots of people on the right calling for Muslims to not be allowed to enter the US? I mean, TRUMP SAID IT and his supporters agreed with him. You don't do this, er.... rubbish.


Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

This was never said: ""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

"But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night."

""I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

None of this was said, according to YOU.