The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

5 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

In Virginia, the pro gun people’s opinions don’t matter anymore

i think you're getting a little carried away and ****y about it

 

pro gun people still have quite a voice in this state. don't be surprised if some anti-republican people find themselves voting against the democrats in 2020 because of what they did. cause those people absolutely exist. not sure what % they are.

[No Excuses]

Virginia is an interesting state because it seems to be one of the few places in the country that has punished the GOP for becoming a putrid party that only caters to the lowest denominator of society.

 

It's a completely Democratic controlled state with hardly any Bernie style progressives. And the GOP's embrace of a completely insane agenda on guns is maybe the top reason why it flipped completely blue this year.

 

This isn't radical leftists pushing their agenda. It was mostly suburban families who reject the idea that to prevent gun violence in our communities, the solution is more guns. The stupidest idea that currently exists in America.

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Virginia is an interesting state because it seems to be one of the few places in the country that has punished the GOP for becoming a putrid party that only caters to the lowest denominator of society.

Well, northern VA, Richmond, and pockets of Tidewater (and Charlottesville too), and a few other areas have put the dems in control.

 

The rest of the state is very much conservative-mouth-breathing-simpleton for the most part. you know the kind; the ones that think their arguments are clever when in reality it just shows how little they know because it requires knowing little to nothing to accept those arguments on any level.

We're still just 'poor voter turnout because the candidates don't inspire me' away from republicans winning elections again.

 

What's weird is if you live in a conservative area that borders the Dem/Lib regions, the conservatives there are super angry. Like borderline militant about it all. 

 

I think the people that live in the dem/lib areas have a warped view of the rest of the state. The rest of the state is not far off from the likes of Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

 

The rest of the state are the people that support people like Corey Stewart, and allow him to generate enough signatures and money to continually run for different positions (and always lose)

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by tshile

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

What's weird is if you live in a conservative area that borders the Dem/Lib regions, the conservatives there are super angry. Like borderline militant about it all. 

 

I think the people that live in the dem/lib areas have a warped view of the rest of the state. The rest of the state is not far off from the likes of Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

 

The rest of the state are the people that support people like Corey Stewart, and allow him to generate enough signatures and money to continually run for different positions (and always lose)

 

Oh no doubt. Just heading up to Shenandoah from VA will give you a good look into the crazy-ville that exists outside of the major metro areas. 

 

But even in NoVA there are huge pockets that used to be center-right strongholds. I think most of the districts that flipped the past election were former Republican seats in suburban NoVA, Richmond and VA Beach. They had been trending Dem for a while and finally switched. 

 

They saw the GOP turning to the likes of Corey Stewart and ran for the hills.

[PleaseBlitz]

44 minutes ago, tshile said:

i think you're getting a little carried away and ****y about it

 

pro gun people still have quite a voice in this state. don't be surprised if some anti-republican people find themselves voting against the democrats in 2020 because of what they did. cause those people absolutely exist. not sure what % they are.

 

I'm sure they exist, but VA Dems just ran with gun control being a major plank, and won by huge margins (about 9%).  In all likelihood, that will grow because all of the growth in VA is in NoVa.  So, I don't think I'm getting carried away at all.  Not sure what is in the ****'s, but yea, I'm pretty happy that VA isn't governed by rubes anymore.  

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

We're still just 'poor voter turnout because the candidates don't inspire me' away from republicans winning elections again.

 

Ralph Northam:  Inspiring Leader.  😂

[TradeTheBeal!]

Sweet Periwinkle Virginia...

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I'm sure they exist, but VA Dems just ran with gun control being a major plank, and won by huge margins (about 9%).  In all likelihood, that will grow because all of the growth in VA is in NoVa.  So, I don't think I'm getting carried away at all.  Not sure what is in the ****'s, but yea, I'm pretty happy that VA isn't governed by rubes anymore.  

another word for rooster, with a y on the end of it. rhymes with rocky.

i can't even link to the definition because the URL's all contain the word...

 

i'm happy with the recent change in VA as well, even though I don't really like the dems (I hate the republicans more at this point.)

I live in an area dominated by conservatives that work in northern VA. they'rea ll really angry. maybe i'm the one with the warped view. i just don't know that the dems position in this state is all that strong. 

 

i've also checked out entirely for a while now because i just cannot handle the stupidity of it all. it got to the point where the only acceptable response to some close friends and family was to ask "are you a ****ing moron?!" and I decided, for now, that I'd rather check out and preserve a few relationships and hope it blows over soon enough....

 

I reserve the right to reverse course if soon enough never comes.

 

So maybe i'm out of touch with the real political climate these days.

 

Quote

Ralph Northam:  Inspiring Leader.  😂

right? 

Edited January 31, 2020 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Dumb, but not because it bans “scary looking” weapons (as you claimed). That is 100% just a stupid NRA talking point. 
 

Nothing about a vertical foregrip. 
 

And sure, people can disagree on how the term should be defined. It tends to differ based on whether you are pro or anti gun. In Virginia, the pro gun people’s opinions don’t matter anymore. They should make the definition as broad as possible. 

It was a “scary looking weapon” ban.  Banning things like a collapsible stock and a muzzle break?  But not worried about how many rounds it can fire?

 

Look at these two pics.  The top would be fine under an assault weapon ban while the lower wouldn’t.  Yet they fire at the same rate using the same bullet with the same effective distance.  One just looks scarier.  It’s ****ing stupid.

 

*And the vertical fore grip is a California thing.  Sorry I got that confused.  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Did you intentionally miss the point?

 

So 6 months from now, after they've banned it, it's OK for one person to have it simply because they bought it before the ban and now it's not ok for another person to have it?

 

your grand rebuttal to that is "go buy one before they ban it" ?

 

If it's OK for one person to own, then it needs to be OK for others. This idea that it's only OK if it was purchased before a certain date is stupid. It's a high powered weapon and we're going to draw the line on who can/can't have it simply by whether someone purchased it before a certain date? ridiculous.

 

Is that written in stone somewhere?

 

When the government decided to ban spice, did they reimburse everyone who had bought it? 

 

It's not a requirement. It's what you want. Cool. I'm not sure I care, much less think it's appropriate that tax payers fund reimbursing gun owners for owning a gun that's now banned.

 

And no, the least you can do is nothing; just ban the weapon and make it illegal to own. 

 

I agree with grandfathering them in and think it's ok for those who purchased them legally prior to the ban to be able to keep them.  No it's not ridiculous, the previous ban (which grandfathered them in) worked.  And IMO, it would work again as far as reducing these tragic events from happening.

 

It's pretty simple, you either want to buy one or you don't.  And if you haven't prior to a ban that grandfathers them in, then you probably weren't going to anyhow, even when they were legal.  So who cares that someone owns something you can't have?  

 

There are a lot of things they could implement with grandfathering.  Mandatory registration for those that own weapons that would be grandfathered in so they can keep track of them.  Laws with strict penalties for those that are caught in possession of one that did not register it with the government, etc.  

 

 

[tshile]

The problem is it’s not logical

 

its either too dangerous to have in public or its not

 

Arbitrarily picking a date is nonsense. 
 

it’s just catering to those that have it, that are just ok with it because they already have it

 

if it’s not too dangerous for you to have one because you bought it 6 months ago, then it’s not too dangerous for me to have one now. 
 

so either it’s a dumb idea and we shouldn’t ban it for anyone, or it’s a good idea and it should be banned for everyone. 

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

The problem is it’s not logical

 

its either too dangerous to have in public or its not

 

Arbitrarily picking a date is nonsense. 
 

it’s just catering to those that have it, that are just ok with it because they already have it

 

It's a lot easier to ban guns from people who don't already have them  

 

[/snark]

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

It was a “scary looking weapon” ban.  Banning things like a collapsible stock and a muzzle break?  But not worried about how many rounds it can fire?

 

Look at these two pics.  The top would be fine under an assault weapon ban while the lower wouldn’t.  Yet they fire at the same rate using the same bullet with the same effective distance.  One just looks scarier.  It’s ****ing stupid.

 

*And the vertical fore grip is a California thing.  Sorry I got that confused.  

 

I don’t think one “looks scarier” than the other. /shrugs. 
 

I also didn’t post the entire law, there are other criteria that could define a certain gun as an assault weapon. Anyways, lines gotta be drawn, sorry if you don’t think this particular law is perfect. It’s also 30 years old at this point and, unfortunately, we know a lot more about mass shootings now. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by PleaseBlitz

[TradeTheBeal!]

They both looked equally scary and it makes perfect sense to me why a collapsible stock would be a focus.

Edited January 31, 2020 by TryTheBeal!

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[China]

72-Year-Old Man Kills Burglar, Goes Back to Bed: Police

 

When a Dallas 72-year-old suspected someone was breaking into his home, he took matters into his own hands.

 

James Michael Meyer told police he woke up around 5 a.m. Thursday by a noise outside his house, according to the Dallas Morning News. When he investigated the racket, police say, Meyer saw someone trying to break into his storage shed with a pickax. 

 

According to police, Meyer grabbed his hand gun and went outside, yelling at the suspected burglar not to come closer — or he'd shoot.

 

After the person stepped toward Meyer, police say, he fired his gun. The person dropped the pickax and began running away, and Meyer fired again "into the night," police say.

 

Not knowing whether he hit the suspected burglar, Meyer said, he went back to bed. Later, as daylight broke, he again looked outside and saw the man lying face down in the park, he said. His wife called a lawyer for advice, and then Meyer called authorities, according to police.

 

Meyer was charged with murder and jailed, with bail set at $150,000 as of Friday.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Looks like the results of this legal dispute could have some significant ramifications:

 

Former ATF agent at center of legal dispute over AR-15

 

(CNN)In his 23 years with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Dan O'Kelly was one of the agency's top gun experts.

 

He served for five years as the lead firearms technology instructor at the ATF National Academy, where he co-wrote the curriculum for incoming agents.

These days, however, O'Kelly is using his formidable firearms expertise and institutional knowledge of the ATF to take aim at his former employer.

He's at the center of a brewing legal dispute that federal prosecutors say has the potential to upend the 1968 Gun Control Act and "seriously undermine the ATF's ability to trace and regulate firearms nationwide."

As O'Kelly sees it, the ATF has been deliberately misinterpreting a key gun control regulation for decades because officials fear that following the letter of the law would allow criminals to build AR-15s and other firearms piece by piece with unregulated parts.

 

He said he voiced his concerns to an ATF official two decades ago, but was rebuffed.

Now, however, his view is gaining traction in courtrooms around the country.

In December, a federal judge in Ohio dismissed weapons-related charges against two men after O'Kelly testified that the AR-15 part at issue in their case was not subject to federal law or regulation.

US District Court Judge James G. Carr for the Northern District of Ohio called the ATF's long-standing interpretation of the regulation "unreasonable and legally unacceptable."

 

A brief history lesson in gun control legislation is required to understand the unfolding controversy and O'Kelly's role in it.

In the early days of gun control, every single part of a gun was subject to regulation under the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

 

Three decades later, with the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, Congress sought to streamline what was considered an overly burdensome regulation by choosing a single part of a weapon as its key component for regulatory purposes.

Under the new law, manufacturers were required to stamp that part with a serial number for tracing purposes, and it would be subject to all the same laws as a completed firearm itself. Since 1993, that includes a provision that licensed dealers conduct criminal background checks on would-be buyers of the part, just as they would prospective purchasers of a fully intact firearm.

This key part, according to the Gun Control Act, was referred to as "the frame or receiver," which is, generally speaking, the body of a firearm in the area surrounding the trigger.
An accompanying federal regulation provided a precise, highly technical definition:

"That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."

The problem -- and this is where O'Kelly comes in -- is that he says roughly 60% of the guns in America do not have a single part that falls under that definition. The AR-15, for example, has a split receiver -- one upper and one lower. Neither meets the requirement on its own.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[LadySkinsFan]

Watched the In Memoriam special tonight about survivors and victims of the Parkland, Las Vegas, and Sunderland Church mass murders. We need sensible gun laws and we need them now. Dems can win with this issue against the Republicans. It happened in Virginia and it can happen nationwide.

[twa]

 

[China]

Virginia lawmakers reject Northam's assault-weapons ban, as Dems balk

 

A bill backed by Gov. Ralph Northam that would ban the sale of assault-style weapons in Virginia failed on a committee vote Monday morning, setting back one of the biggest priorities for the newly minted Democrat-controlled government in the state.

 

A crowd of gun-rights activists packed into the committee room cheered as the vote came in, with four moderate Democrats joining Republicans to shelve the bill until next year. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[TheGreatBuzz]

Always good to see bipartisanship.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Tabled for a year...and that’s democracy.

[tshile]

It’s going to be interesting to see the next election results. 
 

the last one had gun control as a big time item. It’s going to be next time too. 

[Nerm]

On 1/31/2020 at 12:30 PM, tshile said:

 

Did you intentionally miss the point?

 

So 6 months from now, after they've banned it, it's OK for one person to have it simply because they bought it before the ban and now it's not ok for another person to have it?

 

your grand rebuttal to that is "go buy one before they ban it" ?

 

If it's OK for one person to own, then it needs to be OK for others. This idea that it's only OK if it was purchased before a certain date is stupid. It's a high powered weapon and we're going to draw the line on who can/can't have it simply by whether someone purchased it before a certain date? ridiculous.

 

I understand the logic behind not grandfathering previous purchases, but from a practical standpoint, if your goal is to reduce gun violence, then I think grandfathering previous purchases makes a lot of sense.  I know a lot of people in this thread dismiss rural/red state citizens as backwards, ignorant, "gun nuts".  These are people I have lived around my whole life.  They are not violent people.  However, I have met many people that would resist if the government came to disarm them when they have not done anything to threaten others.  Especially veterans.

 

I think attempts to confiscate guns would result in more violence, rather than less.  A ban on sales would not necessarily do that.

[Larry]

Admiring the number of people who will argue that gun owners are calm, peaceful, law abiding people, who will commit armed violence against the government and law enforcement if they try to enforce a law, with a straight face.