tshile Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I have a problem with keeping assault rifles in the public market because some people think it's a toy. So do I. But, here we are... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Or, another possible way of looking at it: Things necessary to keep your government in check. (No, I don't think today the individual can fight the military. hell those oregon dip ****s couldn't withstand the FBi and all the FBI did was just stand there. but I also don't think the founding fathers foresaw ar-15s and everything else we have today.) That's my point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Now, your turn: Does the government have the right to tell people that they can't get on an airplane, without convicting them of a crime? Yep. Because flying on an airplane is not an enumerated right of the People in the Constitution. Now, you want to extend your logic and require journalists to go through government mandated training and thought shaping border to exercise their Constitutional freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I think that the case where someone is going to use a gun for harm, I'm not comfortable holding the gun loaner responsible unless he's knowingly loaning it to a felon. If me and Jim Bob are long friends and use each others guns for hunting, I don't think I'd be responsible for Jim Bob flipping out and using my firearm. Using friends guns for hunting is common place. That's like loaning my care to someone who then drives to a bar and kills someone drunk driving. The knowingly part is in line with most states with regards to knowingly allowing people with revoked/suspended/no licenses to operate one's car. I think that's a good starting point, though personally I'd like the burden to fall a little more on the transferor to verify. To what extent one faces penalties can be discussed, I think a reasonable compromise might be a civil penalty, not a criminal one (this would, in a way, sort of mirror how your insurance, if you lend your car to an unlicensed driver and they act badly, can basically escape liability and foot you with the bill). Thus, there's no criminal liability pass-through, nor any criminal penalties that could lead to jail-time or loss of right to own a gun. Civil penalties would be a reasonable deterrent on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Yep. Because flying on an airplane is not an enumerated right of the People in the Constitution. Now, you want to extend your logic and require journalists to go through government mandated training and thought shaping border to exercise their Constitutional freedom? The 9th amendment and 10th amendment? The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) How about we ban people who take selfies from buying/owning guns Edited June 14, 2016 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 tshile, I love "rights" less than I love the idea of my son, daughter or wife dying in another stupid "radical violence" shooting. Or your family dying in a stupid shooting. How many more of these until we say: low powered sports type weapons, small mags, large background checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 tshile, I love "rights" less than I love the idea of my son, daughter or wife dying in another stupid "radical violence" shooting. Or your family dying in a stupid shooting. How many more of these until we say: low powered sports type weapons, small mags, large background checks. We always balance our rights against our security. Often, we balance our freedoms against the illusion of security. I'm for gun control and believe it will help. Research seems to suggest it does. The example other nations' offer seems to suggest it does. I think we need to conscious of how and when we sacrifice our rights. I was quite wary about the Patriot Act in general and warrantless wiretapping in specific. I can see my very real concerns being legitimately thrown in my face here. Yet, I do believe that there are good and beneficial compromises to be made in the area of gun control. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Hmmm, an uh Interesting approach: https://twitter.com/sethmoulton Seth Moulton Congressman for #MA6 Many people have expressed frustration with the “thoughts and prayers” I and others tweeted yesterday, demanding more. They’re right.6:56 PM The tradition is to send “thoughts and prayers” first, then perhaps demand policy change later. I’m done with that.7:10 PM This morning my team debated my response to this mass shooting. It’s sadly a worthwhile debate because we know it will happen again—soon.7:16 PM .@HouseGOP routinely holds “Moments of Silence” after each mass shooting--underscoring their cowardly silence on even VOTING on gun reform.8:44 PM So I’m joining @jahimes in not attending any more House “Moments of Silence” for mass shooting victims. Walked out of my first one tonight.9:08 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Yep. Because flying on an airplane is not an enumerated right of the People in the Constitution. Neither is an AR-15. But now that we've dealt with the "that technology didn't exist 200 years ago, therefore the government can take it away on a whim" "logic", . . . . Do you really want to try to claim that the founders wanted Americans to have all the guns they wanted, but they were cool with the government telling them that they couldn't travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Neither is an AR-15. But now that we've dealt with the "that technology didn't exist 200 years ago, therefore the government can take it away on a whim" "logic", . . . . Do you really want to try to claim that the founders wanted Americans to have all the guns they wanted, but they were cool with the government telling them that they couldn't travel? Couldn't travel by airplane. You can drive if youre on the watchlist. Or take a boat, or walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Couldn't travel by airplane. You can drive if youre on the watchlist. Or take a boat, or walk. Ah, got it. The right to keep and bear arms grows, over time, as technology improves. But the right to travel doesn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) https://intelnews.org/2016/06/13/01-1918/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Former CIA, NSA directors, retired generals, launch gun control group Former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, as well as several 3- and 4-star generals and admirals have launched a new effort to control the sales of guns in the United States. The effort is certain to attract attention after last weekend’s deadly mass shooting in Orlando, Florida. The group, which calls itself Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, is led by former CIA Director David Petraeus, former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden, and US Army General (ret.) Stanely McChrystal. The group’s advisory committee includes recognizable figures such as that of Admiral Eric Olson, who led US Special Operations Command from 2007 to 2011 and was the first US Navy SEAL to be appointed to four-star rank. Other advisory committee members include high-ranking veterans from every branch of the US Armed Forces, such as R. Adm. Jamie Barnett, Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney and Air Force commander Lt. Gen. Norman Seip. The group was formally launched at a press conference in Washington, DC, on Friday, just hours before Sunday morning’s mass shooting in Orlando. The organizers of the new effort said it came out of the 120,000-member strong Veterans for Responsible Solutions, a project spearheaded by USN R. Adm. Barnett in 2013, after the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, which killed 15 people. Another group that has offered support for the new effort, and will act as its parent organization, is Americans for Responsible Solutions, a non-profit organization that promotes gun control in compliance with the US Constitution. It was founded shortly after the 2012 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtwon, CT, which killed 28. The organization’s founders are former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, whose Congressional career was cut short in January 2011, after she and 18 other people were shot in Tucson, AZ. During their press conference on Friday, Veterans Coalition for Common Sense leaders said each had “swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland”. But they were now “asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives”, they added. The group said they aimed to encourage their elected representatives to “do more to prevent gun tragedies”, including closing legal loops on gun background checks, strengthening gun control laws more broadly, and focusing on the mental health component that appears to be part of many mass shootings. In a separate development, another former Director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, said on Monday that “an assault weapons ban makes sense, at least to me”. In an interview with news site OZY, McLaughlin said that, in his personal view, “it is way past time for an assault weapons ban”. Edited June 14, 2016 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Just tossing some ideas out there. Maybe not limit ammo, but apply it to certain purchases, like high capacity magazines. Thing is, you would still be able to get them. Someone will make them, and someone will sell them. They would just cost more than they do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Ah, got it. The right to keep and bear arms grows, over time, as technology improves. But the right to travel doesn't. Well instead of taking issue with the watch list, we should limit gun ownership to black powder rifles.It'd work better than magazine limits. Edited June 14, 2016 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) tshile, I love "rights" less than I love the idea of my son, daughter or wife dying in another stupid "radical violence" shooting. damn man. You really hate your family. Edited June 14, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Why are we arguing over terms? If such a ban was reinstate they'd pick some word to use for the bill and just make a select list anyway. Arguing semantics here is a waste of time. If you see "last post by Larry" there's a good bet the argument is semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) These are the things our founding fathers felt were God given human rights: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to a fair and speedy trial, and the ability for absolutely anybody to buy absolutely any killing machine for whatever the **** reason they want. With all due respect to the founding fathers, their judgement was not unfallible. They may have screwed us on that last one. Edited June 14, 2016 by justice98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 damn man. You really hate your family.Yeah - maybe I got the wording wrong. Either way - it is time for some trading of "gun rights" for safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 safety or the illusion of safety? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) safety or the illusion of safety? There is no real doubt that good gun laws result in less gun crime, and given the current laws that having a gun in the house actually increases the chances that a family member will be killed by a gun. It is easy to believe that good gun laws will simultaneously make people that do not own guns, and the ones that do own guns actually safer. Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 lotta things are easy to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 And I suppose actual statistical comparisons between real countries of gun related homicide rates, gun related suicide rates and gun related accidental deaths are easy to fake. Its not "easy to believe" - it is a statistical certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Either way - it is time for some trading of "gun rights" for safety. I don't say this being an asshole....but good luck with negotiating that trade. These pussies won't budge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) And I suppose actual statistical comparisons between real countries of gun related homicide rates, gun related suicide rates and gun related accidental deaths are easy to fake. Its not "easy to believe" - it is a statistical certainty. You don't even have to go to other countries. There are good studies that have looked at states before and after passing gun laws or before and after repealing gun laws and compared them to other states that didn't change their gun laws over the same time period. Things like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/missouri_background_checks.pdf Or looking at gun homicide rates vs. non-gun homicide rates within a state based on changes in gun laws: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703 Not all gun laws are effective, but there are things that almost certainly are effective. Edited June 14, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts