Alternative strategies for AWB or gun control

[ivwshane]

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.

 

[smackababy]

1) All that does in increase the cost of weapons, not the effects of them.

2) Has no effect on guns. People who want to buy a gun will travel however many miles to obtain them.

3) Nobody really robs gun stores, they are usually run by gun nuts who shoot first, identify later.

4) Completely unenforceable and asinine. Nobody who buys a gun, especially legally, is ignorant of gun safety. All this would solve is possibly a few accidental deaths.

5) Will only increase the cost, and does not address the issue you can repack bullets.

6) The logistics of this are ridiculous and still won't stop illegal weapons from being in the hands of criminals.

7) Now, we are regulating how much a business can produce and is, more than likely, unconstitutional.

None of those measures would stop gun violence. As much as people like to believe, the amount of gun violence committed by people who abide the laws is less than that of criminals. All these measures, if they worked, would do is slow the amount of new guns entering the system. The amount of guns 'in the wild' is in the millions. And guns just don't break after a few years. They are built to last and of simple enough construction they are easily maintained for hundreds of years.


The goals cannot be achieve by gun control.

The problem is a societal one, but a gun one. In order to stop violence we have to change culturally. Our culture is one of idolizing violent behavior. Don't believe me? Without googling, name one victim of the Columbine shooting. Or the Batman shooting. 90% of people can't. And before anyone blames the media, they only show what people watch. If people didn't want to see what is on, they wouldn't be showing it. It would be bad for business. Violence and people who commit it are idolized. They are forever remembered. Until we change our views of this, violence will never stop.

 

[DaveSimmons]

None of those sound more effective to me than requiring background checks for private sales and gun shows, and working to add the mentally ill to the not-allowed database.

I do think that the scary black gun ban is also somewhat pointless.

 

[ivwshane]

Both of you guys ignored this;

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.

This discussion isn't really about guns but how parties/politicians try to achieve their goals.

I apologize if I wasn't very clear.

 

[Agent11]

The issue isn't the guns. There is plenty of gun control already. There are other ways of dealing with the issues that matter (mentally defective and marginalized people doing horrific things), but your list shows you do not have any clue.

Because your side goes after the rights of law abiding gun owners we will always be at odds.

 

[ivwshane]

The issue isn't the guns. There is plenty of gun control already. There are other ways of dealing with the issues that matter (mentally defective and marginalized people doing horrific things), but your list shows you do not have any clue.

Because your side goes after the rights of law abiding gun owners we will always be at odds.

I can understand the first two posts but them I clarified my intentions and you ignored them.

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.

Maybe I'll add some bolding.

 

[smackababy]

I can understand the first two posts but them I clarified my intentions and you ignored them.



Maybe I'll add some bolding.

And my post addressed why steps in gun control do nothing to curb gun violence. It is a society that reveres people who go out with a bang. 11,000 gun homicides per year. The populous only cares about the less than 100 that happens in white suburbia. And all of those people who commit those crimes live on in infamy forever. Don't believe me? Why do I not have to look up the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? That happened in 1999. I cannot name a single victim from Columbine. I can name Cho Seung-Hui, granted I had to look up his surname from Virginia Tech, yet I can't think of any victims. I know he liked wrestling though.

I also looked it up because I wanted to know the amount of guns in the US. Privately owned guns (so not including government owned guns like military and police) is estimated at 270 MILLION. There is almost enough guns for everyone in the US to have one. What exactly will gun control solve? The street price of an AK-47 is estimated at around $500. I purchased one years ago for $650, but it wasn't the cheap Chinese knock-off. Those are around $250 last I checked.

 

[ivwshane]

And my post addressed why steps in gun control do nothing to curb gun violence. It is a society that reveres people who go out with a bang. 11,000 gun homicides per year. The populous only cares about the less than 100 that happens in white suburbia. And all of those people who commit those crimes live on in infamy forever. Don't believe me? Why do I not have to look up the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold? That happened in 1999. I cannot name a single victim from Columbine. I can name Cho Seung-Hui, granted I had to look up his surname from Virginia Tech, yet I can't think of any victims. I know he liked wrestling though.

I also looked it up because I wanted to know the amount of guns in the US. Privately owned guns (so not including government owned guns like military and police) is estimated at 270 MILLION. There is almost enough guns for everyone in the US to have one. What exactly will gun control solve? The street price of an AK-47 is estimated at around $500. I purchased one years ago for $650, but it wasn't the cheap Chinese knock-off. Those are around $250 last I checked.

Did you read my posts or are you trying to hijack my thread?

 

[Agent11]

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.

Your post is poorly worded. Also was it your intent to have a brainstorm on how to sneakily rape your fellow citizens 2nd amendment rights with smaller legislation that you imagine would be easier to pass?

Because thats what it sounds like. And the Dem's would be wise to drop the gun issue yesterday.

 

[ivwshane]

Your post is poorly worded.

Apparently.

 

[Murloc]

it would be dishonest. There should be popular votes on this kind of issues that define society.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So basically, you want the left to use end runs to gut gun rights the same way the right is doing end runs to gut abortion rights.

Sorry, I don't support their effort, and I can't support yours either.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think you have a brilliant idea. It appeals to everything sneaky and cunning and spiteful in me. But that's the problem for me. It is right down the road in the direction of becoming what I fear, to become the very thing I hate. So the problem for me is to lose myself in the wrong cause. The problem is not guns, but that I am full of hate. My job as I see it is to free myself of contempt for pro lifers and absolutist gun advocates. I can't allow myself to blind myself by wrong actions just because they do. I can see and they cannot. They are not to blame for their blindness. The only blindness I need to cure is my own.

 

[irishScott]

Wait, so what's the purpose of this thread?

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.

So you're bashing republicans?

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.

So you ask us how we would feel about the proposals you listed, then tell us not to discuss said proposals?

^^^ With that in mind, it seems you've spent a moderately long post just to snicker at Republicans with a bad analogy.

 

[waggy]

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.

bhahahhaha

"i'm going to list a bunch of stuff and ways to limit your rights. i don't want you to talk about those but to give me more ideas" lol

 

[Moonbeam]

bhahahhaha

"i'm going to list a bunch of stuff and ways to limit your rights. i don't want you to talk about those but to give me more ideas" lol

I don't understand how you can logically say that. His thread asks only one question, could Democrats pull the same tricks, the assumption is made that is exactly what they are, as republicans do. He did not ask for more ideas. He listed a bunch of parallels to what republicans do. If they limit rights, guess what?

 

[irishScott]

bhahahhaha

"i'm going to list a bunch of stuff and ways to limit your rights. i don't want you to talk about those but to give me more ideas" lol

Well he has to, the intelligence level of some of his "proposals" reminds me of that moron CNN put up that wanted to ban all live ammunition with only rubber bullets being legal.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol, thread fail.

First, these aren't my ideas.
Second, I tried to edit the original post and I clarified in subsequent posts the purpose of the thread, which is to discuss how people would feel if dems used the republican strategies to achieve their goals.
Third, only two people understood me and that either means all three of us are so partisan that we feel ANY republican moves against things we believe in are bad OR the rest of you are so partisan that you don't even notice what the republicans are doing or dont care because they are on "your side".

I think I can conclude from all the responses that tactics like these are looked down upon because instead of addressing the problem head on in an open and honest way they go around the normal democratic procedures of open and honest debate.

And yes the proposals I put forth were direct parallels to what the republicans are doing with regards to abortion.
Pretty disgusting in my opinion but effective. So would people be disgusted if dems did the same thing but were also effective? Would or should their back door policy changes be called out?

 

[irishScott]

Lol, thread fail.

First, these aren't my ideas.
Second, I tried to edit the original post and I clarified in subsequent posts the purpose of the thread, which is to discuss how people would feel if dems used the republican strategies to achieve their goals.
Third, only two people understood me and that either means all three of us are so partisan that we feel ANY republican moves against things we believe in are bad OR the rest of you are so partisan that you don't even notice what the republicans are doing or dont care because they are on "your side".

I think I can conclude from all the responses that tactics like these are looked down upon because instead of addressing the problem head on in an open and honest way they go around the normal democratic procedures of open and honest debate.

And yes the proposals I put forth were direct parallels to what the republicans are doing with regards to abortion.
Pretty disgusting in my opinion but effective. So would people be disgusted if dems did the same thing but were also effective? Would or should their back door policy changes be called out?

Oh, well with that in mind I'm in complete agreement that the Republicans have used obstructionist and end-run tactics to get their policies through, at least since Obama was elected, and that in general principle such tactics shouldn't be used.

But they're catching their share of flack for it, most notably through the last presidential election. More than a few Republicans are nudging to the left on social issues, as they should be. Honestly though, I think the Democrats kinda like it. A republican party that's moderate on social issues would resonate with a lot of independents and moderates.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh, well with that in mind I'm in complete agreement that the Republicans have used obstructionist and end-run tactics to get their policies through, at least since Obama was elected, and that in general principle such tactics shouldn't be used.

But they're catching their share of flack for it, most notably through the last presidential election. More than a few Republicans are nudging to the left on social issues, as they should be. Honestly though, I think the Democrats kinda like it. A republican party that's moderate on social issues would resonate with a lot of independents and moderates.

At the federal level they are getting flack for it but not at the state level. They are doing a pretty good job of restricting abortion rights at the state level, so they really don't need Washingtons help to achieve their goals. At the end of the day, its still mission accomplished.

 

[nextJin]

I honestly do not understand why the left leaning folks in our country continue to try and push gun bans, new gun taxes, magazine size limits, etc. None of those will change anything.

I support the gun show loophole change but that won't stop much either, it just makes sense.

The overwhelming majority of the crimes that make primetime are those of mass shootings which are done by people with mental illness. I'd like to see some legislation that focuses on that as opposed to what is being discussed at the moment. Local shootings and gang violence are a seperate issue I believe. That can be addressed with more LEO presence and gang violence crack downs. We will never solve the issue, but we can single out the cause and effects of different aspects of gun violence. There really is no one size fits all measure.

Feel good legislation is never a good idea. I understand peoples need to do something, but things should be targeted and implemented that make sense.

 

[ivwshane]

I honestly do not understand why the left leaning folks in our country continue to try and push gun bans, new gun taxes, magazine size limits, etc. None of those will change anything.

I support the gun show loophole change but that won't stop much either, it just makes sense.

The overwhelming majority of the crimes that make primetime are those of mass shootings which are done by people with mental illness. I'd like to see some legislation that focuses on that as opposed to what is being discussed at the moment. Local shootings and gang violence are a seperate issue I believe. That can be addressed with more LEO presence and gang violence crack downs. We will never solve the issue, but we can single out the cause and effects of different aspects of gun violence. There really is no one size fits all measure.

Feel good legislation is never a good idea. I understand peoples need to do something, but things should be targeted and implemented that make sense.

 

[nextJin]

I thought this was DC Shane why the hair pulling

 

[ivwshane]

I thought this was DC Shane why the hair pulling

Read all of my reply posts.

 

[smackababy]

I still feel my initial post in this thread covered the topic of ANY legislation regarding gun control. I have yet to see any facts stating otherwise.