The Gun Control Debate Thread

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

Nothing is going to change.  Politicians make too much money off guns and democrats are too afraid to do anything about it.

[brandymac27]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Nothing is going to change.  Politicians make too much money off guns and democrats are too afraid to do anything about it.

Its a damn shame. I'm at the point where I could care less about my 2nd A right if it helps put a stop to these mass shootings.

[Captain Wiggles]

Just get rid of the ****ing things at this point.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I wonder how many mass shootings we’d have to have before anything was done... if sandy hook wasn’t enough to get a democratic president to constantly talk about the issue, you can bet Republicans ain’t doing nothing about it.

[visionary]

 

[twa]

thought Cali already had gun control

 

http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/08/californias-reasonable-regulation-of-fir

 

 

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

That’s exactly why we need an all out ban. Thanks for making our point, TWA.

[LD0506]

 

 

 

Aaannndddd.....the NRA comes boiling up to show you who they really are.....again

 

 

I know, I know it's awful and bloody and stomach churning and seems like it will never end, but this nonstop bloodbath of innocents and the paid shills condescendingly dismissing it is a GOOD thing! This is the only way you ever garner enough angry, tearful, vocal powerful public support to cry ENOUGH! and do something about it.

[grego]

10 hours ago, Springfield said:

Nothing is going to change.  Politicians make too much money off guns and democrats are too afraid to do anything about it.

 

not wrong, but how much money are drug companies giving politicians? 2.5 billion, if the guardian is correct. that dwarfs any numbers i've seen from the NRA (not that they arent above criticism).

 

"But experts have caution that the relationship between contributions from pro-gun groups and Congress’ reticence to change the nation’s gun laws is complicated at best. The NRA accounts for just a fraction of the contributions lawmakers receive, and the group doesn’t crack the top 50 in terms of spending to the lobby the federal government."

 

i would really like to see that angle pursued (despite the fact that there are kooky people also pursuing that angle).

[twa]

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

That’s exactly why we need an all out ban. Thanks for making our point, TWA.

 

you will need a constitutional amendment.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

That’s exactly why we need an all out ban. Thanks for making our point, TWA.

 

I don't think an all out ban is the solution and I'll post my suggestions later.  But I'm curious, let's say that is proposed and gains enough support to where it could happen.  Can you tell me specifics about  your plan, what the new laws would be, penalties, how it would be enforced, who would regulate it, where the funding would come from, etc.?  

 

It's easy to sit there and make a broad statements like "we need an all out ban on guns" without thinking about everything that would involve to get it passed and what it would take to carry though, etc.  So what's your plan?

 

Same goes for broad statements like, "We need stricter gun control", which I've advocated for and posted my possible solutions many times in here in the past.  Just wanted you to know I wasn't calling you or anyone out specifically.  I just prefer details and like to see the thought process behind those broad statements.

[Hunter44]

5 hours ago, twa said:

 

you will need a constitutional amendment.

Naw, the POTUS said that he was told he can change the 14th by executive order so I guess the 2nd could be changed in the same way. 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Hunter44

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I don't think an all out ban is the solution and I'll post my suggestions later.  But I'm curious, let's say that is proposed and gains enough support to where it could happen.  Can you tell me specifics about  your plan, what the new laws would be, penalties, how it would be enforced, who would regulate it, where the funding would come from, etc.?  

 

It's easy to sit there and make a broad statements like "we need an all out ban on guns" without thinking about everything that would involve to get it passed and what it would take to carry though, etc.  So what's your plan?

 

Same goes for broad statements like, "We need stricter gun control", which I've advocated for and posted my possible solutions many times in here in the past.  Just wanted you to know I wasn't calling you or anyone out specifically.  I just prefer details and like to see the thought process behind those broad statements.

 

Stop the commercial selling of guns and ammo. That’s a start. That would probably completely sold the problem.

Edited November 9, 2018 by CousinsCowgirl84

[purbeast]

 

[Larry]

^^^^ Obviously it's his fault. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Stop the commercial selling of guns and ammo. That’s a start. That would probably completely sold the problem.

 

So you have no plan.  

[DCSaints_fan]

On 11/3/2018 at 12:43 PM, visionary said:

 

 

In Texas, dog shoots YOU

 

(Well New Mexico, but close enough)

Edited November 9, 2018 by DCSaints_fan

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

@CousinsCowgirl84  you said start with banning the sale of all guns and ammo.  So, answer the following:

 

1.  What is to be done with all the guns and ammo already owned?

2.  What are the new laws/regulations in place for those people already in possession of legal firearms prior to the ban of future sales?

3.  Who is going to enforce the new laws and regulations and to what degree?

4.  What about hunters?  If yes, how is that going to be regulated as far as them obtaining firearms to hunt with?  Who is going to regulate?  If no, what about animal population control?  Who is going to take care of that?  

5.  If you propose that all guns be confiscated from citizens that purchased them prior to your all out ban, who is going to be charge of confiscating them?  How will they even know who has what?  

 

You are proposing an extreme solution to a very serious problem, but one of the major issues on this is both sides won't even work together and implement common sense gun laws/regulations.  Imo, it starts with implementing national gun laws, where all the states have the same laws/regulations (exceptions given to those with already strict laws in place like CA, NY, DC, etc.), speaking mainly to the age limit to purchase, requiring a permit to purchase all firearms, stricter background checks, gun registration, magazine capacity limits, mental health screening, etc.  

 

 

[mistertim]

48 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

@CousinsCowgirl84  you said start with banning the sale of all guns and ammo.  So, answer the following:

 

1.  What is to be done with all the guns and ammo already owned?

2.  What are the new laws/regulations in place for those people already in possession of legal firearms prior to the ban of future sales?

3.  Who is going to enforce the new laws and regulations and to what degree?

4.  What about hunters?  If yes, how is that going to be regulated as far as them obtaining firearms to hunt with?  Who is going to regulate?  If no, what about animal population control?  Who is going to take care of that?  

5.  If you propose that all guns be confiscated from citizens that purchased them prior to your all out ban, who is going to be charge of confiscating them?  How will they even know who has what?  

 

You are proposing an extreme solution to a very serious problem, but one of the major issues on this is both sides won't even work together and implement common sense gun laws/regulations.  Imo, it starts with implementing national gun laws, where all the states have the same laws/regulations (exceptions given to those with already strict laws in place like CA, NY, DC, etc.), speaking mainly to the age limit to purchase, requiring a permit to purchase all firearms, stricter background checks, gun registration, magazine capacity limits, mental health screening, etc.  

 

 

 

Sorry, but there really isn't any way to push "both-side-ism" on this one. On one side you have a party that wants to have a national discussion about gun control and possibly implementing some common sense laws, which are supported by a vast majority of the American public. On the other side you have a party that refuses to even have that discussion, that screams at the top of their lungs about the other side wanting to "take peoples' guns away" at any mention of said common sense measures (which have zero to do with taking peoples' guns), and that actively pushes for LESS restrictions on purchasing guns all over the country, even after these massacres keep happening. 

 

How exactly do you work with the "other side" when they see your mere invitation to a place at the table as an existential threat to their entire being? Well, at least their wallet's entire being.

Edited November 9, 2018 by mistertim

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

56 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Sorry, but there really isn't any way to push "both-side-ism" on this one. On one side you have a party that wants to have a national discussion about gun control and possibly implementing some common sense laws, which are supported by a vast majority of the American public. On the other side you have a party that refuses to even have that discussion, that screams at the top of their lungs about the other side wanting to "take peoples' guns away" at any mention of said common sense measures (which have zero to do with taking peoples' guns), and that actively pushes for LESS restrictions on purchasing guns all over the country, even after these massacres keep happening. 

 

How exactly do you work with the "other side" when they see your mere invitation to a place at the table as an existential threat to their entire being? Well, at least their wallet's entire being.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make.  Both sides can't even work together (or one side refuses to work with the other - however you want to phrase it) on common sense laws and apply even the basic restrictions/regulations.  So it's naive to think that there will ever be an outright ban on the sale of all firearms and ammo.  Does it mean that one side gives up?  Absolutely not.  

 

I'd like to think that there are politicians on both sides that would favor some common sense laws, probably is, but at the end of the day, even those on the left aren't going to piss off voters and start preaching absolutes (e.g. all out ban).  Not to mention, both sides want this debate so it's something they can rally people behind during election years.

 

I seriously doubt we even see another assault rifle ban like the one implemented under Clinton.  

Edited November 9, 2018 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[twa]

9 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

 

 

I seriously doubt we even see another assault rifle ban like the one implemented under Clinton.  

 

 

Good, that one was stupid.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

@CousinsCowgirl84  you said start with banning the sale of all guns and ammo.  So, answer the following:

 

1.  What is to be done with all the guns and ammo already owned?

 

Nothing, initially. Ammo can only be used once, unless your skilled.

 

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

2.  What are the new laws/regulations in place for those people already in possession of legal firearms prior to the ban of future sales?

 

 

Its it’s a first step. It might take 10-15 years to have an affect.

 

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

3.  Who is going to enforce the new laws and regulations and to what degree?

 

If you close the gun shops, that’s all that’s required. 

 

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

4.  What about hunters?  If yes, how is that going to be regulated as far as them obtaining firearms to hunt with?  Who is going to regulate?  If no, what about animal population control?  Who is going to take care of that?  

 

Guided hunting with temporary gun licenses. A rental, if you will.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

5.  If you propose that all guns be confiscated from citizens that purchased them prior to your all out ban, who is going to be charge of confiscating them?  How will they even know who has what?  

 

 

I did not propose that.

[Gibbit]

39 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Guided hunting with temporary gun licenses. A rental, if you will.

Guided hunts are for trophy hunters and wouldn't work for controlling deer and feral hog populations.

 

And to be honest with the $ aspect....

 

Quote

The Economic Importance of Hunting

Economic data on hunting in the U.S. and California

This webpage was developed from the report of the same title for the IAFWA through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative Grant Agreement No. 14-48-98210-97-G047 using Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration administration funds.

 

Hunting is much more than a traditional American pastime. It creates more than 700,000 jobs nationwide. New studies now show that annual spending by America's 14 million hunters amounts to $22.1 billion. By comparison, and if hypothetically ranked as a "corporation," that revenue figure would put hunting in thirty-fifth place on the Fortune 500 list of America's largest businesses, right between J.C. Penney and United Parcel Service.

The impact of the American economy of all that spending is extraordinary. When the spending figure was "crunched" recently by economic analysts to account for "ripple" or economic multiplier effects, hunters' spending was shown to have:

• Created a nationwide economic impact of about $61 billion.
• Supported 704,600 million jobs, or nearly 1 percent of America's entire civilian labor force, in all sectors of the American economy. Created household income (salaries and wages) totaling 416.1 billion, which is roughly equivalent to 25 percent of America's entire military payroll.
• Added $1.4 billion to state tax revenues, or nearly 1 percent of all annual state tax revenues combined.
• Contributed $1.7 billion in federal income taxes, which equates to almost half of the entire federal budget for commerce.

 

Not to mention it fills my freezer and I don't have to buy meat

 

 

Still though..... I hunt with a bow, a single-shot muzzleloader and a single-shot slug gun. I do just fine

Edited November 9, 2018 by Gibbit

[LD0506]