What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[kaz]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

$1000 tax on assault rifles and every gun is shot before sold and registered so if that gun committed a crime we can trace it.

Can we charge a $1000 tax on abortions?

No we should give poor people a tax credit if they get one. You having a baby or a gun isn't doing any of us any good.

Swish. Missed the point. Abortions aren't doing the fetus any good and you're saying it's OK to tax guns, which are in the bill of rights. So let's tax abortions $1,000 and raise revenue

But it will cost you $2000 to take care of the kids that the breeders can't afford to have. I don't give a fuck about a fetus. It has no rights. And this planet is over populated so do us a favor and abort yourself. It isn't too late.

You are free to have a gun if you can afford to have one.

Can you make your own gun? Can anyone make their own make shift weapon?

And don't we already tax gun purchases? Just tax them more.

Swish, missed it again.

Also, I reject your argument that I'm responsible for either paying to abort or paying to raise someone else's kid as the crap that it is

 

[M14 Shooter]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.
Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

$1000 tax on assault rifles...

There's already a $200 tax on assault rifles - why do we need $1000?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. What is the end game

A. A safe and sane policy which reduces gun violence in America.

How to accomplish this is the nut which is difficult to crack, when men and women of good will and common sense begin to have an honest and productive debate, only then will the issue be seen in the light of day. Today the one and only response to common sense debate on gun control coming from the extreme gun lobby is the Second Amendment; every thread on the issue of gun control comes down to this, "IT'S MY RIGHT!". Totaling disregarding the the daily carnage in America and the Right to Life of innocent victims of gun violence, the health care cost of gun violence and the costs to local government to investigate gun related crimes, accidents and suicides.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Actually it isn't. Right at the beginning of it is the conditional phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State, ...." That's a qualification before the Amendment is even voiced.

No stupid, that is a reason.

Exactly what that means is highly debatable and not the topic here, but it's a worthy one. In any case, you're not getting away with the myth, because it's right there in the document.

Nope, the right of the people shall not be infringed.

No debate, no obfuscation, no distortion alters the simple words.

You seek to end civil rights, but to do so you will have to either repeal the 2nd or blatantly violate the Constitution. You are a democrat, hence you have utter contempt for the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Q. What is the end game

A. A safe and sane policy which reduces gun violence in America.

Gun violence has declined every year in the last 50.

The end game for you and your filthy party is to crush all civil rights.

 

[Rustic]

Q. What is the end game

A. A safe and sane policy which reduces gun violence in America.

How to accomplish this is the nut which is difficult to crack, when men and women of good will and common sense begin to have an honest and productive debate, only then will the issue be seen in the light of day. Today the one and only response to common sense debate on gun control coming from the extreme gun lobby is the Second Amendment; every thread on the issue of gun control comes down to this, "IT'S MY RIGHT!". Totaling disregarding the the daily carnage in America and the Right to Life of innocent victims of gun violence, the health care cost of gun violence and the costs to local government to investigate gun related crimes, accidents and suicides.

Putting homicides, suicides and accidental deaths in the same category is lying. Gun violence is a non-issue in this country, criminal control is the problem, most every violent act is done by repeat offenders. More laws don't help shit dumbass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Q. What is the end game
A. A safe and sane policy which reduces gun violence in America.

Unsurprisingly, none of the restrictions you want will lead to this as it is impossible to prevent people from breaking the law by passing another law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. What is the end game

A. A safe and sane policy which reduces gun violence in America.

Gun violence has declined every year in the last 50.

The end game for you and your filthy party is to crush all civil rights.

How do you define gun violence?

The end game is common sense gun regulations, of course your kind rejects such an idea because your handlers have told you to protect the profits of the NRA and its advertisers by claiming "they" are after your guns. There are some extremists who want what you speculate, but the vast majority of Americans see a problem and seek a solution.

"Shall not be infringed" is hyperbole, the rights to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is legally restricted now and always has been. I get it, from reading posts from people like you, those whose one and only fall back is to quote this phrase, is an extreme, callous and self serving way to end intelligent debate, something the conservative set in American has made into a wedge issue (i.e. an emotional argument).

 

[M14 Shooter]

The end game is common sense gun regulations...

"Common sense" dictates that the regulations have efficacy and do not violate the constitution.
Thus, nothing you want qualifies as 'common sense'

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Isn't that a variation of "regulated?"

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here. Something has to give. We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it. I mean if you wanted to just get right to it, in actuality the government shouldn't even be able to preclude the mentally ill from owning guns. I mean the 2n does say "NO REGULATION" , but no one that I''m aware of would support that stance.

In this digital era, it is ridiculous that we can't simply show an ID and boom know instantly that someone is okay to sell guns to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here. Something has to give.

Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it.

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here. Something has to give.

Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it.

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

So if the 1st is being misinterpreted, the 2nd should be also?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

And how would you apply the limitations, and the reasoning behind them, of the rights protected by the first to the rights protected by the 2nd?

And, again:
Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

And how would you apply the limitations, and the reasoning behind them, of the rights protected by the first to the rights protected by the 2nd?

And, again:
Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

My personal limitations? US citizen, no criminal record, no mental health record. That's it. You walk into a store to buy a gun, you hand over your micro chipped ID, the store runs it and it simply confirms that you are eligible to buy a gun and that's it, no record of what you buy, no limits, no waiting period. Either you pass those three small things or you don't.

 

[P@triot]

You ignorant FUCK! Did the statute comply with the boundaries established for interstate commerce by law and precedent? NO it didn't you ignorant FUCK! If it didn't then the statute was volitive of same. You can split that hair as thin as you want, but all you're doing is saying the same damn thing, FOOL!

I got this "stuff" directly from the case file you dumb FUCK! This is from the Syllabus;

"Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined."
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Your last statement is absolute horseshit! And I note you supplied only your OPINION with no substantiation to back your claim that somehow Amendment II magically amended the Commerce Clause. Do you have a permit for spreading so much equine fecal!

You have some serious issues. Aside from being just plain wrong on every post - do you have any idea how ignorant you sound? Filling your responses with foul language in capital letters just makes everyone not take you seriously. You come across as someone who is just filled with anger over being proven wrong.

Can you see a mental healthcare professional? Maybe get put on some prozac or something?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

And how would you apply the limitations, and the reasoning behind them, of the rights protected by the first to the rights protected by the 2nd?

And, again:
Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

My personal limitations? US citizen, no criminal record, no mental health record. That's it.

I'm sorry.... where does any interpretation of the 1st allow for restrictions like these?
Remember: You agree that the 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st

You said' "something needs to give".
Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How do you define gun violence?

Rationally.

The end game is common sense gun regulations, of course your kind rejects such an idea because your handlers have told you to protect the profits of the NRA and its advertisers by claiming "they" are after your guns. There are some extremists who want what you speculate, but the vast majority of Americans see a problem and seek a solution.

The end game for you is to crush civil rights and end the Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed" is hyperbole,

No, it is the Constitution, which you and your filthy party have utter and complete contempt for.

the rights to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is legally restricted now and always has been. I get it, from reading posts from people like you, those whose one and only fall back is to quote this phrase, is an extreme, callous and self serving way to end intelligent debate, something the conservative set in American has made into a wedge issue (i.e. an emotional argument).

You seek a disarmed populace, which all tyrannies have. Armed people are free people and cannot be ruled.

There is no debate, you may not infringe on the right of people to speak, even though speech that is outside of the politically correct rules of the left fills you with rage. You may not infringe on the religion of others, even though the sight of Jesus in a manger in a park forces weak minded Bolsheviks like you to fall to your knees in worship. You may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even though an armed people will not be subject to the benevolent dictatorship you seek.

Trump is a symptom of the anger America has at you hate filled, anti-liberty leftists. Make an overt move on civil rights and you'll find out just HOW angry America really is. You think tht with Scalia gone you can openly shit all over the Bill of Rights, and I don't doubt you will do it. But the results will not be pretty.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here.

2nd amendment supporters recognize a very stark reality, proven again and again by history: When government has the power to restrict or take away people guns, they often degenerate into tyrannies, disarm their populace, and then oppress them more and more. Sometimes ending in massive wars or massacres.

The stark reality is, we are safer and more secure when government has NO POWER to take away or restrict our guns. Even the occasional mugger, murderer, or mass shooter, does far less damage than government has historically done.

Something has to give.

I fully agree. And that "something" is government, which has to give up any pretense that they can benefit us overall by restricting or taking away our guns.

What can't give, is the people's insistence that it be so.

We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it.

Oh, have you found some way to refute what I've already pointed out more than once in this thread?

You support govt having the power to decide which of us can own or carry a gun, and which of us can't?

How does that square with what I said earlier?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. A jury, after all, is the antidote to government power: A group of citizens, not related to government, who have the power to decide cases on a final, irrevocable basis, and even decide that certain laws will not be followed... and make that decision stick, whether government likes it or not.

The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

I mean if you wanted to just get right to it, in actuality the government shouldn't even be able to preclude the mentally ill from owning guns. I mean the 2n does say "NO REGULATION" , but no one that I'm aware of would support that stance.

My, how quickly they forget. (raises hand politely)

This makes it very clear how liberals manage to conclude they are in the majority with their strange, unworkable views: In the middle of resounding dissent and weighty arguments against them, they simply announce that "no one supports that stance". It takes Orwell's "doublethink" one step further - something I didn't think was possible, even for head-in-the-clouds liberal fanatics.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

And how would you apply the limitations, and the reasoning behind them, of the rights protected by the first to the rights protected by the 2nd?

And, again:
Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

My personal limitations? US citizen, no criminal record, no mental health record. That's it.

I'm sorry.... where does any interpretation of the 1st allow for restrictions like these?
Remember: You agree that the 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st

You said' "something needs to give".
Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

Walk into an airport and yell "I have a bomb" and see if the police shrug ans say "well , he was just exercising his first amendment rights"

NO right is absolute. Nor should it be in today's asshole filled world. That's called a reality. I reiterate, under a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, there couldn't even be law against a murderer owning a gun, that's regulation. Do you support allowing convicted murderers to buy guns? Surely not. Just as an example.