TheGreatBuzz

After all, what's a thousand deaths a month, compared to an imaginary scenario in which I imagine that you will complain?

Population control? :shrug:

Well look at that!  Burgold and I agree again!

Sure. Obvious problem is you not only can't say that, you can't even produce a reasonable argument that it would have any meaningful probability of working out that way.

Unless the conversation is between a bunch of people who are clueless about guns, then you can come up with all kinds of good sounding ideas with no meat.

 

While a mag limit wouldn't prevent everything, it allows more of a chance for something to be done.  Every time a mag is changed, there is a chance for error.  It allows a few seconds for someone to try to stop the person.  You also can only carry so many mags so you would have to get mags out of a bag.  A mag limit would help a little and has more of a chance of passing than your "everything needs to be bolt action" idea.

Go ahead and try to lump me into the "clueless about guns" crowd.  I dare you.

You and everybody else who doesn't have a problem with a "no fly" list, but who has a problem with a "no gun" list.  And who lists "constitutional right" as their reason. 

 

My position is, I can certainly see someone having a problem with both lists.  For lots of reasons.  (No due process, no defined criteria for being on the list, no notification that you're on the list until it's too late for you to correct a mistake, no process for ever correcting a mistake.  there's probably more.) 

 

I can't justify the argument (that I'm pretty sure I'm seeing, from multiple posters), that well, putting people on the no fly list, they don't feel obligated to object to.  But, forbidding those same people from buying a gun?  Well that, they're sure, is unconstitutional. 

I never said I have a problem with one and not the other.  In fact, I don't think I have seen anyone say that.  I, and I bet most people, would be fine with both if there were transparency to the system.  And some sort of appeals system so I can be quickly removed if it's found to be an error.

but seems like a mistake pretty easily fixed upon appeal.

It would be except the government is involved.  Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting his name off the list.

Really admiring the way people like to pretend that the ability to buy an AR-15 is a constitutional right, but the right to sit on an airplane isn't. 

Is this referring to me?

 

As for mistakes... that's what appeals are for. If I were wrongly on the terrorist watch list I'd want to get myself off it. I'd want to prove myself a good citizen. I don't think people are put on the list for dart board reasons (random name gets picked). Mistakes can happen though... the answer is not to assume that every name on the list is a mistake though. The answer is to appeal the decision.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140624/15302927673/court-says-process-getting-off-no-fly-list-is-unconstitutional.shtml

There are a bunch of other articles that show how ridiculous the No fly list is with how people are put on it and how hard it is to get off it.  But here is just one article about it.  This is why I have an issue with saying you can't exercise a constitutional right if you are on the list.  Now if they did a better job managing the list, then I would fully support such action.

Larry there is validity to both sides of the argument.  See what I posted right above.  I quoted my post from the other thread.

Post moved from the shooting thread, because it belongs over here.

Part of me thinks you've got a great point. Stories like that one indicate that it's WAY too easy for somebody to wind up on a list.

OTOH, part of me says that there's something wrong with the notion that we can ban someone from getting on an airplane (after getting through security), but stopping them from getting a gun is too much.

Seems to me that it should be easier to stop someone from getting a gun, than it is to stop them from buying an airplane ticket.

Good call.  It probably does belong here.  So I will copy my response here also.

I agree with both of these statements individually.  But do you prefer being over protective (your 2 year old can't get on a plane because she is on a terrorist watch list and it's pretty much an act of congress to get her off) or not protective enough (someone with plenty of circumstantial evidence that links to terrorist but can't do anything because of lack of due process)?  Or can we fix both lists?

Well the post I was referring to ask for an either/or conclusion which usually means 100% on one side or the other.  But you did not hit the four keys that type out "100%" so I guess I shouldn't have assumed that. 

****ing pain in the ***

Does it have to be 100% one or the other Larry? 

Posted this in the Orlando shooting thread but deserves to be said here also.

One of the problems with the NRA is that, just like Washington itself, it is not controlled by its members but instead by big business.

 

And that's very reasonable as well.

See?  In a matter of 10 minutes the two of us who are on different sides were able to come up with some reasonable guidelines.  But politicians can't do it because compromise is seen as a bad thing.  And that isn't just with gun control, it's with all things. 

I am glad to see that Sisko and skinsfan you are both being pretty reasonable.  I wouldn't be opposed to a 5 round limit IF you could still be able to get other things after a much more stringent background check. 

My criteria would be anything semi automatic that loads with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.

Okay.  Not bad criteria.  I don't agree with you but at least respect your opinion.

So since we are bringing up assault weapon bans again, what would be your criteria?  Is it just going to be a "scary looking weapon" ban?  What about semi-automatic hunting rifles?  Or semi-auto shotguns?  Where do you draw the line?

TWA raises a valid question.  This guy apparently bought everything legally and had all required licenses, etc.  OTHER THAN AN OUTRIGHT BAN (not gonna happen) what needs to be done better? 

Do you know why nothing gets done? It's because gun owners and the lobby are powerful. It's because any kind of restriction, for the public good, is seen as an infringement on second amendment rights. No one is trying to take your gun away. We just want stricter background checks. What does that have to do with taking your gun away? How does that infringe on second amendment rights, to make sure crazy people don't get guns? 

 

I always found it hilarious how the gun industry was so averse to closing the background check loophole at gun shows too. There are a lot of holes that need to be fixed. 

 

You say "we" like that is all every person advocating for gun control wants.  But there are people out there that want a lot more gun control than just better background checks.  I am a gun owner and a pretty hard core defendant of gun rights.  It is a big thing I look at when voting.  I have no problem with better background checks.  But there are people that are proposing a lot more.  So please don't just say that is all "we" want.

The real problem is politicians don't compromise any more.  We can debate why that is but it has been shown that reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement.  I believe it was Bang (could have been someone else) and myself who are on very different ends of this argument came to a reasonable agreement in like 15 minutes in this thread a while ago. 

 

If I woke up tomorrow of news that every local police department was coming to door to door to disarm the nation, I'd be a happy man. Again, I'm sorry to all the people who don't contribute to this problem (and might legitimately save a loved one from one of these bad guys by having guns), but I'd rather somehow hit the reset button. 

You shouldn't be to happy about that idea considering it would probably lead to some form of civil war.  Right or wrong, there are a lot of crazies out there.

IMO that's no way to live.  I try to do things like not sit with my back to the door but other than that, I won't let these things keep me from doing what I want.  If you do, they win.  I just figure if it's my time, then there is no stopping it.  Just my $.02 though.

Thanks for reminding me about the SC vacancy. May be the one thing that get me to vote R.

What state is that tshile?

Yea I've never read the actual decision because it's lawyer speak and can be hard to interpret. But it seems to me that ScaLia meant that criminals don't get CCW but California said NOPE to most everyone. I see a supreme Court case coming again.

Edit: I've read interpretations and articles about it. I'm not com l lately uninformed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/index.html

Interesting. Doesn't this go against the Supreme Court Heller decision? Can they do that?

His name has been done for a while. I'm surprised he hasn't cashed out and moved to a nonextradition country for his last year's. That's what I would do.....if I were an old rapists.

I wonder about statue of limitations. Hasn't it passed for this? Also I hope they have more than just that statement. He definetly seems guilty to me but would still like him found guilty because he is proven to be, not because the population thinks he is.

I could see we have made some headway here. 

More progress in less time than the gov't. 

 

I think eight is a more than appropriate age to start to teach responsibility of handling a firearm. 

I like the idea of a caliber limitation for ownership...I do feel that in a controlled environment ( range), any firearm should be at someones disposal to learn about. 

 

Even as a suburbanite, gun violence happens, if I recall correctly, typically that is where most of it happens. 

 

I do appreciate the reference to a 4-wheeler as far as danger and responsibility. 

I also knew someone that was incapacitated with a 22, giving the killer a chance to finish via another method. 

Too bad the government will never have bipartisan, meaningful headway.  Such a shame.

I don't know anything about children and what is appropriate at what age so I will defer there.  But I also like the idea of a controlled environment (gun range with a legit RSO watching) a kid being able to learn with a bigger gun.

I know people have been killed with a .22 but the likelihood is less then with a larger caliber.  You have to start somewhere and the smallest caliber (reasonably available) seems like a good spot.  .22 ammo is also like 50 cents for 1000 rounds so you can afford to get your kid plenty of practice.  I just don't want to completely take guns away from kids in every situation.  Many parents take their kids hunting as bonding time and teaching a useful skill.  I would like that to continue in a reasonable manner.

Now someone take the underlined part and twist it into something I clearly don't mean.  That is how a gun control debate must be handled according to the example set by our leaders.