Alternative strategies for AWB or gun control

[Fern]

-snip-
Please do not discuss the proposals themselves as they aren't really relevant to the discussion other than to show how you can reach their goals from a different approach.

OK.

2 things:

1. I already see this as a tactic used by the Left. I.e., IMO there's nothing new in using (in attempting to) small incremental changes/restrictions to limit some law or constitutional right you cannot overturn outright.

2. Looks like a long list of future court cases to me. These type of (proposed) restrictions would have to pass the 'reasonable test'. You're coming out and stating honestly the point is to limit the 2nd. I would imagine that for any of these to pass constitutional muster a better, much cleverer, rationale would need be given.

Edit: OK, I lied. A 3rd thing. I suspect that the larger, more 'head -on' type proposals being pushed now are as much for political cred as anything else. Politicians feel the need to appear to be respondsive. If they didn't proposed the big, more direct laws like hi-cap mag restrictions I think their supporters would be unhappy/dissatisfied etc.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

OK.

2 things:

1. I already see this as a tactic used by the Left. I.e., IMO there's nothing new in using (in attempting to) small incremental changes/restrictions to limit some law or constitutional right you cannot overturn outright.

2. Looks like a long list of future court cases to me. These type of (proposed) restrictions would have to pass the 'reasonable test'. You're coming out and stating honestly the point is to limit the 2nd. I would imagine that for any of these to pass constitutional muster a better, much cleverer, rationale would need be given.

Edit: OK, I lied. A 3rd thing. I suspect that the larger, more 'head -on' type proposals being pushed now are as much for political cred as anything else. Politicians feel the need to appear to be respondsive. If they didn't proposed the big, more direct laws like hi-cap mag restrictions I think their supporters would be unhappy/dissatisfied etc.

Fern

That's the thing though, some of the things republicans are pushing through aren't directly related to their goals. For example, while also pushing for restrictions in abortions like requiring vaginal probes they are also pushing things like requiring abortion/women's clinics to meet health and safety standards of hospitals. And before you say "what's wrong with that", keep in mind doctors who have private practices don't have to meet these super strict requirements. So what's the point of the law? To try and bankrupt women centers and put them out of business. So yeah they aren't restricting abortions they are just making it incredibly difficult to have one or offer it as a part of the service an institution offers. The examples I gave in my OP were equivalents to what they are doing to abortions.

And as expected the pro gun crowd got riled up and complained about such stupid (fake proposed) laws. But no one except three other people even acknowledged how dirty the strategy is. Is it because you have no problem with it?

You will also have to give me examples if democrat sneakiness. Everything I've seen them push in regards to gun control, they have been upfront about it.

Maybe it's politics as usual but it's dirty and people should be aware of it.

To me it's akin to politicians adding unrelated amendments to bills to either poison them or to get kickbacks/pork. It's a shameful and dishonest tactic.

 

[smackababy]

That's the thing though, some of the things republicans are pushing through aren't directly related to their goals.

I don't think you understand their goal. They want to be reelected. They want to keep their job and continue to receive nongifts (gifts) from lobbyists from corporations that want them to vote a certain way. This isn't just Republicans either. All politicians except Obama care about reelection. And he still cares about his party getting reelected.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think you understand their goal. They want to be reelected. They want to keep their job and continue to receive nongifts (gifts) from lobbyists from corporations that want them to vote a certain way. This isn't just Republicans either. All politicians except Obama care about reelection. And he still cares about his party getting reelected.

I'd believe that if you showed me a poll where the voters number one priority was limiting abortions.

I guess this means you have no problems with dems doing this with gun control, since a majority of the people they represent are for gun control.

 

[Agent11]

It isn't hard to drum up fear in a mob. That doesn't mean it is right.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
And as expected the pro gun crowd got riled up and complained about such stupid (fake proposed) laws. But no one except three other people even acknowledged how dirty the strategy is. Is it because you have no problem with it?

Not really.

It's just seems like something I've noticed for a long time (both sides do it). I'm just too old to stay riled up for long.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Not really.

It's just seems like something I've noticed for a long time (both sides do it). I'm just too old to stay riled up for long.

Fern

I think you are creating a false equivalency and then copping out. What riles me up, if that if those are the words for it, is the fact Republicans pull this crap all the time and win with it and the left won't go there because the behavior isn't natural to them. They can't rationalize it because they use logic and reason to think and can't hide from themselves what they are doing. They aren't bigots who believe that abortion is murder and that any trick, even the murder of abortion doctors in the most extreme cases, is justified because they are on God's side and secular leftist laws don't matter and should be replaced by the Bible, as one example.

Where are we going when one side acts with fervent abandon and wins and the side that is laid back and not similarly fanatically driven gets wiped out and held hostage to uncompromising determination. How moral is it when the morality of the right and not the left always wins by dirty tricks. What do you do with a school yard bully.

 

[ultimatebob]

Most of these rules regarding bullets would just help to make reloading ammunition more popular.

Most of the hardcore/professional shooters reload their own ammo already, so they're just reuse their existing shell casings as long as they can.

A better approach for gun control would be a better background check system that includes mental health records. I'm not sure how to make it HIPPA compliant, though.

 

[corwin]

That's the thing though, some of the things republicans are pushing through aren't directly related to their goals. For example, while also pushing for restrictions in abortions like requiring vaginal probes they are also pushing things like requiring abortion/women's clinics to meet health and safety standards of hospitals. And before you say "what's wrong with that", keep in mind doctors who have private practices don't have to meet these super strict requirements. So what's the point of the law? To try and bankrupt women centers and put them out of business. So yeah they aren't restricting abortions they are just making it incredibly difficult to have one or offer it as a part of the service an institution offers. The examples I gave in my OP were equivalents to what they are doing to abortions.

Wait a second...so this is a troll thread that is in no way about any sort of gun control and is in fact just about you bashing republicans and the way they go about limiting abortion?

I think a thread title change is in order, this forum should be above things like this

P.S. Your analogy there about "having to meet stricter standards" is pretty funny considering you probably buy into the whole "gun show loop hole" bullshit. A private sale is a private sale whether it happens at a "gun show" or at my house to my neighbor, talk about "stricter standards" for no reason

 

[ivwshane]

Wait a second...so this is a troll thread that is in no way about any sort of gun control and is in fact just about you bashing republicans and the way they go about limiting abortion?

I think a thread title change is in order, this forum should be above things like this

P.S. Your analogy there about "having to meet stricter standards" is pretty funny considering you probably buy into the whole "gun show loop hole" bullshit. A private sale is a private sale whether it happens at a "gun show" or at my house to my neighbor, talk about "stricter standards" for no reason

No my title is appropriate you just aren't capable of having a rational discussion without feeling "your side" is being attacked. In fact, there is no republican bashing going on. If you think talking about republican strategy is a form of republican bashing then it's apparent how wrong you think their strategy is but the discussion is about whether or not democrats could/should use similar strategies to push their agendas which you failed to understand.

 

[smackababy]

No my title is appropriate you just aren't capable of having a rational discussion without feeling "your side" is being attacked. In fact, there is no republican bashing going on. If you think talking about republican strategy is a form of republican bashing then it's apparent how wrong you think their strategy is but the discussion is about whether or not democrats could/should use similar strategies to push their agendas which you failed to understand.

Your thread is titled alternative strategies or AWB or gun control. And then you give some strategies, but tell people not to discuss them. If you want to discuss how to use underhanded ways to strip freedoms, without making a law that actually effects them, then make a thread about that.

 

[corwin]

No my title is appropriate you just aren't capable of having a rational discussion without feeling "your side" is being attacked. In fact, there is no republican bashing going on. If you think talking about republican strategy is a form of republican bashing then it's apparent how wrong you think their strategy is but the discussion is about whether or not democrats could/should use similar strategies to push their agendas which you failed to understand.

No you are using a flame bait title to talk about republican tactics to limit abortions, you said as much. You aren't actually wanting to talk about any of the "laws" you proposed in your OP, hence your title is trolling. If you want to talk about politicians underhanded backdoor tactics in general then your title should reflect that instead of trolling...

LOL..."rational" discussion

 

[ivwshane]

Your thread is titled alternative strategies or AWB or gun control. And then you give some strategies, but tell people not to discuss them. If you want to discuss how to use underhanded ways to strip freedoms, without making a law that actually effects them, then make a thread about that.

That is what this thread is about as I have explained several times now. Other people understood this, you didn't.

Now unless you have something to add relating to the topic then stop thread crapping.

 

[corwin]

That is what this thread is about as I have explained several times now. Other people understood this, you didn't.

Now unless you have something to add relating to the topic then stop thread crapping.

Yet you don't really want to discuss your "alternative strategies" at all? Seems you are the one off topic here...

 

[ivwshane]

Yet you don't really want to discuss your "alternative strategies" at all? Seems you are the one off topic here...

No I don't because they are irrelevant, other than to show how it would be done if such a strategy were used.

 

[corwin]

No I don't because they are irrelevant, other than to show how it would be done if such a strategy were used.

So again, you're trolling...we get it

 

[RampantAndroid]

There are several issues going on right now in DC and at the state level that each side (dems and reps) are pushing for. While looking at how each side is trying to accomplish their goals it made me wonder if the dems could use the republicans tactics to push their outcome.

Currently the left is pushing for gun control in various ways via getting the law changed or by creating new laws that directly relate to their intended goals (less weapons on the street, preventing the wrong people from having guns, and making the potential for destruction less or harder to accomplish with magazine restrictions).

Instead of trying to get things changed the way they are currently going about it (via big laws that address the previously mentioned points) what if they did the following and tried to make changes via an assault from the rear:

1) Enacted higher state taxes for weapons manufacturers including businesses that make bullets.

2) Create zoning restrictions specifying not only where gun stores can be but limiting how many can be in a certain area.

3) Requiring gun stores to implement strict and costly security measures (like requiring security cameras, vaults where all arms and ammunition must be locked up when the business is closed).

4) Require all gun and bullet sales to require a video about gun safety to be shown for every sale.

5) Implement a separt tax at the state level for every bullet sold kind of like a cigarette tax.

6) Require all bullets and gun components to have a serial number on them and require a database to be kept that gun/bullet manufactures and sellers would have to update when and where those items are sold (no other buyer info associated with this database).


7) Limit the amount of guns and ammo anyone particular manufacture can make and tie that limit to the total amount made by a companies.

This are just a few things off the top of my head.

None of the above measures ban any weapons or limit magazines. Who would be ok with those proposals as a whole?
Who would be ok with the above strategy to limit or make it harder to buy guns and ammunition?

If dems started pursuing these measures or things similar at the local level how would that make you feel? What issues do you have with the above strategy?

Please do not discuss the proposals themselves as they aren't really relevant to the discussion other than to show how you can reach their goals from a different approach.

tl;dr: Punish the people already following all the procedures, do nothing to deal with the fact that most gun crime is perpetrated by people who are known criminals (that 70% figure that floats around.)

When will you stop and realize that banning guns isn't happening, and that perhaps you should turn around as look at stopping the crimes, not banning the implement?

 

[ivwshane]

So again, you're trolling...we get it

Reported.

 

[ivwshane]

tl;dr: Punish the people already following all the procedures, do nothing to deal with the fact that most gun crime is perpetrated by people who are known criminals (that 70% figure that floats around.)

When will you stop and realize that banning guns isn't happening, and that perhaps you should turn around as look at stopping the crimes, not banning the implement?

Thanks for not reading.

 

[corwin]

Reported.

Ditto

 

[Charles Kozierok]

First, to all the people accusing others of trolling, please read this.

Now, to the thread itself. ivwshane's stated intention is to discuss tactics for accomplishing policy objectives, not specific policies themselves. That seems pretty clear, it is certainly not "trolling" by any reasonable definition of the term, and if anyone had a problem with it, they should have brought it up days ago rather than derailing the thread with off-topic stuff now.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Thanks for not reading.

Except I did. NONE of what you propose actually does beneficial things. You're trying to do an end around to essentially ban people like me from shooting at TARGETS for the reason of FUN. I pay insane prices for defense ammo, I want cheap for plinking ammo. What you're trying to do here is prevent me from doing that by taxing ammo and guns.

Again, it's an end around on the 2nd amendment protecting my very right to do this. You wanted my issues with your approach, and you have them. If you want to do some actual good, look into measures like not allowing guns in the same household as someone who is unstable, pursuing people who attempt to obtain guns illegally (of thousands of attempts by felons to buy guns, 40 were prosecuted) and look into why some 70 odd percent of gun crime is perpetrated by people who have gamed (or slipped through) the justice system.

I don't think you're trolling, I just think you're not getting the message: Most people DO want something done. Myself included. I am not willing to accept measures like serial numbers on every bullet or higher prices though as that does NOT address the actual problem in ANY way.

 

[ivwshane]

Except I did. NONE of what you propose actually does beneficial things. You're trying to do an end around to essentially ban people like me from shooting at TARGETS for the reason of FUN. I pay insane prices for defense ammo, I want cheap for plinking ammo. What you're trying to do here is prevent me from doing that by taxing ammo and guns.

Again, it's an end around on the 2nd amendment protecting my very right to do this. You wanted my issues with your approach, and you have them. If you want to do some actual good, look into measures like not allowing guns in the same household as someone who is unstable, pursuing people who attempt to obtain guns illegally (of thousands of attempts by felons to buy guns, 40 were prosecuted) and look into why some 70 odd percent of gun crime is perpetrated by people who have gamed (or slipped through) the justice system.

I don't think you're trolling, I just think you're not getting the message: Most people DO want something done. Myself included. I am not willing to accept measures like serial numbers on every bullet or higher prices though as that does NOT address the actual problem in ANY way.

Let me help you out; pretend everything I wrote had nothing about guns in it but instead was about skittles or any other object or issue you can think of. Because the point of my post was not about guns but about political strategy to achieve ones goals.

If group A wants to ban skittles and group B is principally against any sort of restrictions on skittles would you have a problem with group A doing anything and everything BUT banning skittles to achieve a similar affect?

Would you feel the same way if your core belief was that skittles are essential to your happiness? Would you feel the same way if your core belief was that skittles are bad and you felt their existence was an assault on your beliefs and way of life?

Do you get it now? The only reason I brought up guns and abortion was because they are current events with each side persueing their goals in two different ways.

And just incase you still don't get it and feel like not addressing my topic, the laws I proposed are ridiculous and stupid, just as stupid and ridiculous as the anti abortion laws republicans are pushing across this country. The difference, of course, is that you only care about the despicableness of one of the issues and not the other.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

After discussing this thread with some of the parties involved, I think what happened was a misunderstanding.

The title is "Alternative strategies to AWB or gun control". The word "to" makes it sound like it's about, well, alternatives to AWB or gun control.

What the OP apparently meant was "Alternative strategies for AWB or gun control". Meaning, strategies for how to get AWB or gun control implemented.

I've changed the title.

 

[Agent11]

Anyone seriously asking themselves that question needs to consider some things first.

1 {~*,*}~ What is your definition of 'assault weapon'?

California seems to be going full retard in their zeal to reclassify en-mass as such...
You should never go full retard.

Semi automatic rifles are not assault weapons.

The truth is that 'assault weapons' are already 'banned' of course you can still buy a fully automatic select fire weapon in many states, but they are heavily regulated... The autos aren't what you all have your panties in a bunch about though are they?


2 ~{*.*~} Is what you propose constitutional?

I would insist on consults with INDEPENDENT scholars and institutes, a thorough read of Heller and applicable supreme court cases, a promise to your constituents that anything you pass would be to your knowledge constitutional and you would make every effort to verify such.

Because guess who would have to pay for the defense of such laws.

3 ~{ *=*}~ Is this proposal a good faith attempt to fix a targeted problem while minimizing as much impact on law abiding gun owners as possible?

You guys REALLY need to ask yourselves this one FREQUENTLY.



These are three areas I find sorely lacking in most anti-gun legislation. If anti-gun people address these issues with moderation and honesty then they would find it easier to talk about other gun related issues.

For the agenda that the anti-gun nut really wants though you would need to pass a constitutional amendment in my opinion.

Good luck with that.