Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Stugein said:

You would either have to open NICS up to everyone to perform checks (prone to abuse and privacy violations) or let private sellers initiate a NICS check through a local FFL in which case the FFL would need to be reimbursed for their costs. 

 

The law I read mandated that private sales simply have to be performed by a FFL, subject to the same rules as if the FFL were performing the sale.  Now, it does specifically state that the FFL is allowed to charge whatever he wants for this service.  But I'm under the impression that there's a bunch of FFLs, (And I don't see any of them jacking up the proces just because they're anti-gun.)  Pretty sure there'd be market competition.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Treat White Nationalism the same way we treat Islamic Extremism would be an interesting start, and word on the street is agencies like the FBI are finally starting to do that.

Yeah they are. 

 

I guess we’d put them on a no-gun list like a no-fly list?

 

im fine with that but I don’t know how you draw the lines for the purposes of curtailing a right. Official group membership is easy but what about social media posts? What type of language and how often? 

 

I actually don’t know what databases those  Islamic extremists go in and whether a gun check would hit one. 

 

I do know you can report anyone and they’ll be investigated but I know there’s limits. The guy that shot up the gay club in Florida was investigated. They had to stop because they couldn’t find enough cause to continue. And he later committed mass murder. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stugein said:

And that all sounds great, but the fear is that the people in charge won't be as reasonable as you are.  Anti-control folks' fears can be all reasonably accommodated for; you're absolutely right.  But that doesn't change the concerns that they won't be and that, if they are, the next person that comes along doesn't just turn it on it's head on a whim.  Checks won't be completed in days/weeks.  They will stall.  The fee will be hundreds of dollars and go up every year because something something funding/tax/spend/excuse.  Some nigh impenetrable barrier will be placed on the system so most people couldn't use it, suppressing private transfers.  Hurdle after hurdle will be put in place to ensure as many people are kept from using the system as possible.  And they aren't unreasonable fears; we see it today in many states with regard to other aspects of gun ownership.

 

Admiring the back and forth reassurances that it's perfectly reasonable for the NRA to firbid the Senate from even voting on a law (ending the "gun show loophole") which is supported by 90% of Americans, and 80% of NRA members, because well, the other side mght be unreasonable, some day in the future.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Admiring the back and forth reassurances that it's perfectly reasonable for the NRA to firbid the Senate from even voting on a law (ending the "gun show loophole") which is supported by 90% of Americans, and 80% of NRA members, because well, the other side mght be unreasonable, some day in the future.  

 

Perhaps they should put up a bill simply ending the gunshow loophole instead of the additions to HR8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Perhaps they should put up a bill simply ending the gunshow loophole instead of the additions to HR8

 

I dont agree with everything you say, but I do agree with making smaller more specific bills.  I do not understand why our government doesnt do this, and this is definetly a both sides issue.  Is it so they can sneak more stuff in to get more people to vote for it?  That's a big reason what kills the bills.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Well, and everyone has this personal view of what certain words mean.

 

When you say "People with mental health issues in their history should be banned from owning guns, and if they live in your house you shouldn't own guns either" sounds great to many/some people.

 

But when being mildely autistic falls into that category, there's going to be some angry people that previously thought it was a good idea.

 

Or if a red flag is, let's say, being suspended from school for certain things... All the sudden the parent has to surrender their weapons.

 

These specific examples may not be very good, because I'm winging the whole conversation, it's the general point that I think stands... when the details start to get decided, some people are going to realize that thing they supported excludes them from certain things and they're not going to be happy about it.

 

 

Oh, I've said numerous times that while is may sound simplistic to look at the lated mass shooter's Facebook posts and say "somebody should have seen this, and stopped him from getting a gun", that you have to realize that to take the gun away from one would-be mass shooter, you have to take the guns away from thousands (millions?) of people who maybe said some unpopular things, but haven't broken any laws or anything.  

 

(And if you do take the guns away from thousands of people?  You can't even prove that you stopped one mass shooter.)  

 

If you really want to go down that path, understand that you're going to be taking things away from thousands of people, with nothing to show for it  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Perhaps they should put up a bill simply ending the gunshow loophole instead of the additions to HR8

 

This is the other thing that irritates the piss out of me.  This idea that every problem needs sweeping legislation. The best case scenario is like ACA - you get it, but you can’t do anything in the future to make it better. 

 

I cant think of many good solutions in my life that involved sweeping change. Incremental movements in the right direction always did well. 

 

But out government now seems to be all or nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Larry said:

If you really want to go down that path, understand that you're going to be taking things away from thousands of people, with nothing to show for it  

Yup. And here’s the kicker in the big picture...

 

the right changes will probably provide little to no impact in the short term (unless you confiscate guns...). When you factor in the intellectual capacity of the general public, there will be a sizable portion of the country that either thinks, or is susceptible of having their support changed by, arguments that “see it didn’t work” when there’s a mass shooting a month after it goes into effect. 

 

Getting the first bill passed is the first of many hurdles in terms of stopping mass shootings and general gun crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, twa said:

 

Perhaps they should put up a bill simply ending the gunshow loophole instead of the additions to HR8

 

They did. 

 

Text of the bill, if anybody wants to read it. 

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

They did. 

 

 

That was certainly not HR-8

 

what bill was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

That was certainly not HR-8

 

what bill was it?

 

See previous post. Now including the text of the bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 10:09 PM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I knew that’s where you were going. Can’t say I agree with the statement though. It’s pretty clear that irresponsible gun ownership is more acceptable than any restriction.

 

Swinging back around now...

 

Query: Other than restricting gun ownership for everyone, what can be done to protect society from the irresponsible gun owners that can be "identified"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess some people just live in fear...

 

‘We’ve got to protect ourselves’: Some threaten to shop elsewhere if they can’t openly carry guns

 

Chad Howard carries a pistol everywhere he goes. And he isn’t about to stop now.

 

On Friday morning, he left home as he always does: with his .40-caliber Smith & Wesson clipped to his right hip. He took his wife to the hospital for blood tests, then went to the local Walmart Supercenter in Corinth, Miss., where he waited to see whether he — and his visible firearm — would still be welcome.

 

Days earlier, Walmart had become the latest big-box chain to take a public stand on guns when it announced it would ask customers to stop openly carrying firearms in its 4,750 U.S. stores. ‘The retailer said it would stop selling ammunition for military-style rifles and handguns, and would push Congress to pass tighter gun-control laws. 

 

Walmart’s stand represented a major shift in the way retailers are positioning themselves in an increasingly fraught debate over who has the right to have guns, and where.

 

Walmart wasn’t alone. Within hours, Kroger, the country’s largest grocery chain, said it too would ask customers to refrain from openly carrying firearms at all 2,800 of its stores.

CVS, Walgreens and Wegmans made similar announcements in quick succession. In total, those retailers have more than 23,000 stores in the United States, though some of them are in places that already have such a policy against openly carrying guns. Other big chains, such as Target, Starbucks and Chipotle, have had such policies against open carry for years.

 

Gun-control advocates and industry experts hailed it as an admission by one of the country’s largest corporations that the government wasn’t doing enough to stop gun violence.

 

“The sheer size and power of Walmart means this is perhaps the biggest blow to the NRA in the history of the organization,” said Chris Allieri, a crisis management expert and founder of Mulberry & Astor, a public relations firm in New York. “This is not some left-leaning coastal CEO sending a tweet or two. This is Walmart saying. ‘This is how we’re going to do business going forward. Take note.’ ”

 

Although Americans took to social media to say Walmart’s efforts made them feel safer about shopping at the company’s stores, the National Rifle Association and gun rights groups increasingly are encouraging members to stop shopping at retailers that have tightened their open carry policies in recent days. Freedom Movement USA, a group of constitutional conservatives calling for a Walmart boycott, has had 3.5 million visitors on its Facebook pages since Tuesday, according to the group’s head, Brandon Harris.

 

Howard, 57, who calls himself “a constitutionalist and a Christian,” said the policy changes felt personal. He owns about 20 guns and has been openly carrying a pistol for six years. His wife keeps a revolver in the middle pocket of her purse. He said he quit going to Dick’s Sporting Goods last year after the company stopped selling military-style rifles. Now he’s prepared to boycott Walmart too, if anyone there gives him trouble about his gun.

 

“With this world being the way it is, we’ve got to protect ourselves,” said Howard, who worked as a construction supervisor until he broke his back on the job 15 years ago. “I haven’t had to shoot anybody yet, but you never know. I’ve keep a fire extinguisher in my house even though I’ve never had to use it.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, China said:

I guess some people just live in fear...

Go to the Mass Shootings thread and it seems most people do.  The differences are in the ways people want to mitigate the cause of that fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, i mean there sure must be something wrong with those people who think that people deciding that they're just going to go kill a bunch of people this afternoon (and then doing it) is a prblem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some live in fear of being murdered, others can’t muster the courage to face a background check.

 

Who can say what is wiser?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Larry said:

Yeah, i mean there sure must be something wrong with those people who think that people deciding that they're just going to go kill a bunch of people this afternoon (and then doing it) is a prblem.  

Is this directed at me?  Not sure what your trying to say.  My point was that a lot of people DO live in fear (and I'd argue rightfully so).  But different people respond to that fear in different ways.  Some want stricter gun laws, some home school their children now, some want to be able to carry a firearm to defend themselves.  And I didn't say there was anything wrong with any of those responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat guns like cars.  Local and national registry.  Start a DGR ( Department of Gun Registry) similar to the DMV.   You must pass a test (multiple and on-going) and pay yearly registration.  ALL gun sales must be reported with the DGR, and all of your personal guns must be registered.

 

Background checks mandatory upon initial firearm purchase, and depending on the crime you can't own or possess a gun.  if you commit a qualifying crime, you lose your right to own a weapon (similar to losing the right to drive if you speed or drive drunk).  

 

NRA needs to be abolished, or severely disrupted.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry.  Maybe I've seen too many of these threads.  Where "iiving in fear" is shorthand for "these whiny liberals just just STFU about complaining about these mass shootings, accept that it doesn't kill that big a percentage of the population, and quit this fake act that it's a problem."  

 

There's a tendancy, in long-debated topics like this one, to view lots of trigger phrases as an attempt at going somewhere where we've been before.  Lord nows I'm vulnerable to it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Larry said:

Sorry.  Maybe I've seen too many of these threads.  Where "iiving in fear" is shorthand for "these whiny liberals just just STFU about complaining about these mass shootings, accept that it doesn't kill that big a percentage of the population, and quit this fake act that it's a problem."  

 

There's a tendancy, in long-debated topics like this one, to view lots of trigger phrases as an attempt at going somewhere where we've been before.  Lord nows I'm vulnerable to it.  

 

Yea, I don't think we are having the same conversation because I wasn't saying any of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, I seem to have lost the ability to type a coherant sentance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.