Gun Control Measures

[soundforbjt]

Limiting constitutional rights doesn't work that way. You'd rightfully reject my premise if I said "let's hear your solution for preventing transgenders from sexually assaulting people that's more effective than banning them from the restroom of their expressed gender." Both are relatively rare events that you're attempting to prevent and in both cases the "solution" could plausibly work.

How are their rights being limited? Because they couldn't have a type of gun they wanted? They can still keep and bear arms. Your other analogy is just crazy.

 

[Bird222]

Why? Could you not hunt without a semi auto? Could you still conceal carry? Could you still open carry? Could you still target shoot? Could you not still defend yourself and your home? The only thing you couldn't do is kill a lot of targets without reloading.

Stole this but it pretty well describes how I feel about the 2A.

"A person has a natural right to protect themselves, their families, property and land from outside aggression. That right necessitates the ability to keep and bear arms of like/kind to those weapons which may be used against him."

 

[sportage]

NO GUN CONTROL will ever happen as long as republicans control any one of the three branches of government.
All this latest gun control talk is only a diversion from the pressure and outrage from the public.
And more so simply a diversion from old Moscow Mitch.
BTW... what a waste of a senate seat is Moscow Mitch.
Government could use that senate chair for displaying a nice potted plant, or something useful...
They will talk, pretend talk, but they have one card left to play that they have never played as of yet.
That is, after the talking and after the debating and after pretending to get really really really close to producing result, Trump or Moscow Mitch or maybe both in unison will tell the people, "sorry people, we just can't get it done."

They will say....
WE WANT TO DO IT AND THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO DO IT AND THE PEOPLE WANT US TO DO IT BUT......
PASSING ""ANY"" GUN LAW(S) WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTION AND THUS END UP IN ENDLESS LEGAL LITIGATION .
SO SORRY AMERICA, NO GUN CONTROL FOR YOU.
JUST REMEMBER TO DUCK-AND-COVER.

And as for assault weapons, NO ONE NEEDS THEM.
The US military are the only people that should have such weapons.
For everyone else they are ONLY A TOY.
A toy that kills and the risks are too high.
If anyone thinks that owning an assault weapon is their answer, they might try viagra instead.
Or penis enlargement surgery.

 

[soundforbjt]

Stole this but it pretty well describes how I feel about the 2A.

"A person has a natural right to protect themselves, their families, property and land from outside aggression. That right necessitates the ability to keep and bear arms of like/kind to those weapons which may be used against him."

Well, if all semi autos were banned, no one but police and military would have them. If you think the military doesn't already outgun you, I don't know what to say. I'd prefer the police to be able to "outgun" criminals.

 

[K1052]

There appears to be mounting alarm inside the GOP that they are no longer insulated on gun control due to women and surburban voters who already have increasing disagreements with the party and dislike Trump. Nothing is certain yet but the GOP leadership seems to be waking up a bit to the political danger of doing nothing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

A basic background check doesn't cost anywhere near "thousands" per person. We aren't getting people top secret government clearances.

You are doing a background check that requires three different agencies. You are required to do fingerprints and a photo. Those things cost time and money. I did some searching and could not find a estimate for how much each NFA background check costs, but I did find some small piece of information that raises my estimate of how much they cost: It is not a one time deal. You have to then support each NFA stamp by requiring approval for every transfer, ever time someone crosses a state line, every time they change address. So, unless you want to charge for all of that as well, it needs to all be factored into that original fee.

It seems that putting them in the NFA (which would also tie finger prints to serial numbers) would be a good first step.

I agree it is a good first step. It has a number of other provisions I think would help as well.

It makes the penalty for owning a NFA controlled item considerable higher than is current for any other firearm and with less burden of proof. Just having possession of a NFA controlled firearm with out proof of a permit is a felony with a $10,000 fine and 10 years in federal prison.

You can not sell or otherwise transfer a NFA controlled item with out ATF permission and a background check, basically all transfers of NFA controlled items is treated just like an original sell. It closes the gun show loophole and makes all grey markets into a black market.

You can not cross state lines with a NFA controlled item without written permission from the ATF.

You must always be able to provide proof of registration for any ATF controlled item on request. (want to carry a gun, you must carry it's registration papers as well)

Obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the serial number of a NFA controlled item is against the law.

Any violation of those things could carry a penalty of up to $10,000 and 10 years in federal prison, and the possibility of secondary charges that include of up to $500,000 fine and an additional 5 years in prison.

 

[glenn1]

Limiting constitutional rights doesn't work that way. You'd rightfully reject my premise if I said "let's hear your solution for preventing transgenders from sexually assaulting people that's more effective than banning them from the restroom of their expressed gender." Both are relatively rare events that you're attempting to prevent and in both cases the "solution" could plausibly work.

How are their rights being limited? Because they couldn't have a type of gun they wanted? They can still keep and bear arms. Your other analogy is just crazy.

So using your "logic" you'd be fine with telling transgenders that their rights aren't being limited, just because they can't use the bathroom corresponding with their expressed gender identity? They can still use the firearms bathroom, they just don't get their preferred pick of which one because the rest of us feel safer that way. Or for gays/lesbians we can simply go back to telling them "we're not limiting your right to be married just because you can't have a spouse of the sex you prefer, you're free to marry someone of the opposite sex if you like."

 

[soundforbjt]

So using your "logic" you'd be fine with telling transgenders that their rights aren't being limited, just because they can't use the bathroom corresponding with their expressed gender identity? They can still use the firearms bathroom, they just don't get their preferred pick of which one because the rest of us feel safer that way. Or for gays/lesbians we can simply go back to telling them "we're not limiting your right to be married just because you can't have a spouse of the sex you prefer, you're free to marry someone of the opposite sex if you like."

How many mass sexual assaults have there been in bathrooms involving transgenders? Your analogy is stupid. Show me the problem with sexual assaults in bathrooms and we can discuss that, this is about guns, not some gotcha point you're trying to make.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So using your "logic" you'd be fine with telling transgenders that their rights aren't being limited, just because they can't use the bathroom corresponding with their expressed gender identity? They can still use the firearms bathroom, they just don't get their preferred pick of which one because the rest of us feel safer that way. Or for gays/lesbians we can simply go back to telling them "we're not limiting your right to be married just because you can't have a spouse of the sex you prefer, you're free to marry someone of the opposite sex if you like."

The problem with your argument is that we already limit firearms. Limits are already a part of the right to bear arms, and has been for nearly 100 years. No right is without limits.

Just like we did limit marriage rights until recently. We changed our decision on what is allowed, because our society changed in what we believe. So is our society changing in what we believe to be acceptable rights to bear arms. So that right's limits will also change.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can have any insane firearm I want! It's right there in the Constitution! When I saw this baby I decided I couldn't live w/o it-

 

[glenn1]

Just like we did limit marriage rights until recently. We changed our decision on what is allowed, because our society changed in what we believe. So is our society changing in what we believe to be acceptable rights to bear arms. So that right's limits will also change.

When we've adjusted the limits of rights it's almost always been to expand the right, not significantly decrease or limit the right. I don't think you're "evil" for wanting to limit firearms or categories of them and think you honestly believe it's the most moral course of action, but you're also being extremely flippant about the people whose rights are going to be limited and the impacts it has on them (and the society as a whole). Calls to ban "assault weapons" strikes me as a kabuki theater type of action akin to the modern-day TSA screening at airports where the risk is extraordinarily low to begin with and the impositions on citizens doesn't really justify the tiny amount of benefits.

 

[Veliko]

When we've adjusted the limits of rights it's almost always been to expand the right, not significantly decrease or limit the right. I don't think you're "evil" for wanting to limit firearms or categories of them and think you honestly believe it's the most moral course of action, but you're also being extremely flippant about the people whose rights are going to be limited and the impacts it has on them (and the society as a whole). Calls to ban "assault weapons" strikes me as a kabuki theater type of action akin to the modern-day TSA screening at airports where the risk is extraordinarily low to begin with and the impositions on citizens doesn't really justify the tiny amount of benefits.

What are the tangible negative impacts these restrictions and impositions would have on them and society as a whole?

 

[Moonbeam]

What’s also curious is they seem to be advocating gun ownership restrictions based on mental health, which would be WAY more intrusive than any gun background check.

Trust me, if anyone actually attempted to implement the sort of mental health things conservatives are talking about right now those very same conservatives would freak out.

They wouldn't be allowed to own guns.

 

[Moonbeam]

I know nothing, but how about we put a property tax on guns, say 50 dollars a year to own one. Anybody caught owning a gun without a current tax stamp on his person pays a hefty fine or faces prison time. Collectors could have the gun gun barrels lead sealed by an authorized gun smith and subject to unannounced annual inspection by the local police, and own them tax free. We could use the money to do lots of neat stuff like bringing broadband to rural America or supplement income for homestead farms.

 

[SMOGZINN]

When we've adjusted the limits of rights it's almost always been to expand the right, not significantly decrease or limit the right.

You are right about this, and it is worth considering. What you are wrong about is that I am not flippant about it. I am a gun owner. I grew up on a working cattle ranch where guns are a part of life. Where I grew up they are more then a toy, or a hypothetical protection, they are a work tool.
That experience very much informs my opinion on what is an acceptable compromise.

I am not looking for an 'assault weapon' ban. I know how useless that would be. I want is a reclassification of nearly all semi auto firearms to a restricted device under the NFA (that part is new after my discussion with Wuzup101 because he had good points). What I advocate is that we only allow single shot per barrel, bolt action, breech load, or single action revolvers under the current laws. It is quite restrictive, I know, but it would allow nearly every legitimate use of a firearm by a civilian, while still not banning the weapons altogether.

 

[soundforbjt]

Walmart just did their part to stop gun violence...They took down violent video game displays, but left the gun displays alone.

So proud of them...

 

[sportage]

The promise of passing gun control is something democrats could wage the campaign on. But I wonder.....
I wonder if democrats actually won the presidency, took the senate, and retained control of the house, I wonder if democrats would actually pass gun control legislation?
Wouldn't that be a kick in the head if democrats won everything, but still failed to pass gun control legislation?
Their word no better than the word of Donald Trump.
Considering their failure to impeach Trump after taking the house, how can anyone trust them? Trust any of them on either side?
I seriously doubt the influence of the NRA ends with republicans.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if democrats were also under the spell of the NRA.
Maybe the hope of any gun control legislation ever passing is wishful thinking.
Or as they say, when hell freezes over.

 

[Bird222]

Well, if all semi autos were banned, no one but police and military would have them. If you think the military doesn't already outgun you, I don't know what to say. I'd prefer the police to be able to "outgun" criminals.

Do you really believe this?

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you really believe this?

No some criminals would still have them in less numbers and parts & ammo would be limited, but what's your idea to stop mass shootings?
edit: career criminals usually don't commit mass murder, there's no money in killing people at a walmart, etc. for them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Do you really believe this?

You start with a buyback program. That lowers the initial number.

Then over time they would become harder and harder to get, as police confiscate any they come across. The value of guns start to rise as the black market reacts to the danger of being caught with one and the difficulty of acquiring them.
If getting caught with one is a felony all by itself then just carrying one becomes risky, and fewer people will choose to do so. If they are afraid to carry it they are not likely to use it.
At some point the value of the item itself becomes too high for most people to want to risk losing it, and then they start to become collectors items instead of tools used by criminals.

 

[Moonbeam]

Walmart just did their part to stop gun violence...They took down violent video game displays, but left the gun displays alone.

So proud of them...

How stupid can you get. Violent video games are a perfect way to solve mass gun shootings. You just change first persons shooters to where you use a catapult to drop bags of cement on people's heads. This will divert millions of dollars to hardware stores and the cement industry. I'm coming out with a brand new catapult kit called Wind it Up Man for the guys and for the girls, Bag Your Man.

 

[Lanyap]

I can have any insane firearm I want! It's right there in the Constitution! When I saw this baby I decided I couldn't live w/o it-

Mmmm, I could fit that on my SUV or hot rod car. Nobody would mess with me.

 

[SlowSpyder]

There appears to be mounting alarm inside the GOP that they are no longer insulated on gun control due to women and surburban voters who already have increasing disagreements with the party and dislike Trump. Nothing is certain yet but the GOP leadership seems to be waking up a bit to the political danger of doing nothing.


View attachment 9388

View attachment 9389

Yea, but that's only because most people are mislead by the fake media about how big of a problem supposed "assault" weapons really are. Rifles, including silly named "assault" weapons are responsible for very, very few homicides every year but they get blown up by the fake news looking for ratings and to push an agenda.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yea, but that's only because most people are mislead by the fake media about how big of a problem supposed "assault" weapons really are. Rifles, including silly named "assault" weapons are responsible for very, very few homicides every year but they get blown up by the fake news looking for ratings and to push an agenda.

aww you missed using the word 'snowflake' to win fox news buzzword bingo. Maybe next time bunky. The prize is a nice set of sheets.

 

[SlowSpyder]

aww you missed using the word 'snowflake' to win fox news buzzword bingo. Maybe next time bunky. The prize is a nice set of sheets.

Why do you have a war against truth in your head?