The Democrat’s Folly with Gun Control

[bradly1101]

Any whiff of gun control results in massive gun sales. Indeed during Obama’s presidency Smith and Wesson’s sales skyrocketed. The fear is that one may not be able to buy this rifle/clip/ammo down the road if the Dem’s have their way.

It has gotten to the point of gun saturation, and anyone’s ability, no matter how crazy/violent/troubled they are, to buy a gun seems to be enshrined, and the Democrats had a lot to do with that, going against their stated goal. In politics as well as foreign relations the reaction often far outweighs the action.

Personally, as you may have read in other threads, I think the Second Amendment requires a literal translation and allows only people in militias to carry guns, presumably government approved militias like the separate state militias that existed at the time. Feel free to fight me on this, but I’ve heard it all.

There are people everywhere in every state and every town who could not responsibly own a gun, but they obviously get them and with increasing regularity wreak havoc with them. And their ubiquity is directly related to the fight against them. Face it Dems, you lost this one and more attempts at action will just sell more guns, undoing any gun control anyway.

The solution, I believe, is to wear armor wherever you go.

 

[buckshot24]

Did Obama and both houses of congress try and pass gun legislation when they had all both branches locked up? If not, why?

 

[ivwshane]

I wouldn't worry about it, gun sales go up but that's because the same idiots keep buying more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-more-guns-in-fewer-hands-than-ever-before​/

 

[ivwshane]

Did Obama and both houses of congress try and pass gun legislation when they had all both branches locked up? If not, why?

They did indeed. Nothing passed because the dems for all intents and purposes never had a super majority to override a filibuster.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

It has gotten to the point of gun saturation, and anyone’s ability, no matter how crazy/violent/troubled they are, to buy a gun seems to be enshrined, and the Democrats had a lot to do with that, going against their stated goal. In politics as well as foreign relations the reaction often far outweighs the action.

Americans own record levels of guns. Gun deaths have trended downward for decades.

Personally, as you may have read in other threads, I think the Second Amendment requires a literal translation and allows only people in militias to carry guns, presumably government approved militias like the separate state militias that existed at the time. Feel free to fight me on this, but I’ve heard it all.

That's a nice opinion, thanks for that. The people who actually wrote the actual constitutional amendment meant it to be for personal gun ownership regardless of membership in government approved militias. There is extensive literature backing this up. What is the point of defending yourself from the government if the government has to approve of your ability to do so? What government that wants to turn against it's people will ever approve of a militia that can oppose it? It doesn't make any sense.

There are people everywhere in every state and every town who could not responsibly own a gun, but they obviously get them and with increasing regularity wreak havoc with them.

You mean DECREASING regularity. Gun deaths are trending down. There are far fewer gun deaths now than there were in 1970 when there were far fewer guns. Relax.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Onion News heading: NRA secretly backs Obama and the Democratic Party.

 

[ivwshane]

Americans own record levels of guns. Gun deaths have trended downward for decades.

Probably because fewer Americans own guns.

That's a nice opinion, thanks for that. The people who actually wrote the actual constitutional amendment meant it to be for personal gun ownership regardless of membership in government approved militias. There is extensive literature backing this up. What is the point of defending yourself from the government if the government has to approve of your ability to do so? What government that wants to turn against it's people will ever approve of a militia that can oppose it? It doesn't make any sense.

That's a nice opinion as well and there is extensive literature that says the opposite as well as 100+ years of precedent. The point of the second was to force states to defend America as there was no standing army hence the reason it was necessary for well regulate militias, to protect the country, IE the security of the states.

You mean DECREASING regularity. Gun deaths are trending down. There are far fewer gun deaths now than there were in 1970 when there were far fewer guns. Relax.

Again, gun ownership is down so...

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Probably because fewer Americans own guns.

Again, gun ownership is down so...

Wrong again. Again. More people own guns now than did in 1970. Or 1980. Or 1990. Or whenever. A smaller percentage of the population owns guns now, but not fewer people. "Fewer Americans own guns" is false. Are you now going to retract your statement and reformulate your opinion based on the facts? Eh...no.

 

[ivwshane]

Wrong again. Again. More people own guns now than did in 1970. Or 1980. Or 1990. Or whenever. A smaller percentage of the population owns guns now, but not fewer people. "Fewer Americans own guns" is false. Are you now going to retract your statement and reformulate your opinion based on the facts? Eh...no.

Oh shit you got me! I said fewer people when I should have a said a smaller percentage! That totally changed the argument!

/S

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Oh shit you got me! I said fewer people when I should have a said a smaller percentage! That totally changed the argument!

/Sc

Americans own record levels of guns. Gun deaths have trended downward for decades.

Probably because fewer Americans own guns.

You said there are fewer deaths because fewer people own guns. I showed you were wrong about fewer people owning guns. I actually did get you. Your argument was invalid and untrue. It literally does totally change the argument. Your argument was that more people owning guns means more people going berserk and killing people. I showed that is not true. Now you are changing it to say that only a higher percentage of people owning guns leads to more deaths.

 

[ivwshane]

You said there are fewer deaths because fewer people own guns. I showed you were wrong about fewer people owning guns. I actually did get you. Your argument was invalid and untrue. It literally does totally change the argument. Your argument was that more people owning guns means more people going berserk and killing people. I showed that is not true. Now you are changing it to say that only a higher percentage of people owning guns leads to more deaths.

Yeah, did you see the chart I originally linked? It was based on percentage. So again I'm not changing anything, I clarified it for you.

And yes a higher percentage of people who own guns tends to lead to higher gun deaths.

 

[sandorski]

More like. "Americas folly with Guns"

 

[umbrella39]

Overactive fear centers...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Looks like the stock really took off after the Sandy Hook shooting. There was a lot of talk about gun restriction after that terrible incident, I think that spurred a lot of gun purchasing.

 

[bradly1101]

Americans own record levels of guns. Gun deaths have trended downward for decades.

Excellent! Problem solved! The problem with data is that there are many ways of looking at it. There are periods recently that actually show it on the rise, and that may happen again. 32K is still a big number to me. Many would see that as a public health crisis.

In places like Chicago, where gun violence is rampant in some areas, the gun control laws are strict, but in nearby Indiana the laws are quite loose, so of course there is a problem.

That's a nice opinion, thanks for that. The people who actually wrote the actual constitutional amendment meant it to be for personal gun ownership regardless of membership in government approved militias. There is extensive literature backing this up. What is the point of defending yourself from the government if the government has to approve of your ability to do so? What government that wants to turn against it's people will ever approve of a militia that can oppose it? It doesn't make any sense.

It is interesting that a government would build in a way to violently be destroyed by its own people. We must be unique in this. Actually I believe that this is a misreading of the Second Amendment. The militias it speaks of, I believe, were in support of the government, not against it. The Second Amendment debate is an argument for the ages though.

I also don't think that it was meant as the end-all to gun legislation; it doesn't "enshrine" anyone's rights. Indeed there have been gun control laws since the 1830's. Even recently there was an assault weapons ban, but it expired (genius!). Now is there an almost free flow of the weapons trade in the U.S.

You must admit that gun manufacturers with the help of the NRA have lubricated the purchasing of these weapons so well that people who by law are required to stay away from them get their hands on them easily. In a shop where the Orlando shooter bought his guns, supposedly he was subject to a background check if he bought a handgun (I'm not sure about a long gun - including modified military assault weapons). But even if he was subject to a background check, he probably would have passed.

Gun shows are the easiest place to buy guns for a felon; you just have to lie about it. That includes Internet sales. The vast infrastructure required to check every purchaser will be fought against tooth and nail, and will never exist IMO.

The current fight in congress to "get everyone on the record" again will not only drive up gun sales, it will further drive a wedge between the two sides. Letting go rather than trying to control will have the opposite effect in my opinion.

 

[bradly1101]

More like. "Americas folly with Guns"

True dat.

 

[Artdeco]

There is no gun show loophole, the ignorance in this thread is truly impressive.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

You must admit that gun manufacturers with the help of the NRA have lubricated the purchasing of these weapons so well that people who by law are required to stay away from them get their hands on them easily. In a shop where the Orlando shooter bought his guns, supposedly he was subject to a background check if he bought a handgun (I'm not sure about a long gun - including modified military assault weapons). But even if he was subject to a background check, he probably would have passed.

Whenever you buy a gun from a commercial seller you are subject to a background check. No ifs ands or buts.

I really wish you guys would stop talking about "assault weapons". Assault weapons are nothing more than semi auto rifles with scary bits of plastic on them. They are no more or less deadly without those bits of plastic. This is a proven fact that everybody ignores.

 

[zinfamous]

This is news?

I've always assumed that the NRA and gun industry always donated shitloads of money to democratic campaigns. Nothing better for those with gun hard-ons than a democrat in the whitehouse.

 

[Artdeco]

This is news?

I've always assumed that the NRA and gun industry always donated shitloads of money to democratic campaigns. Nothing better for those with gun hard-ons than a democrat in the whitehouse.

No kidding, Obama & Hillary are the best gun salesmen on the planet.

Right now, if you can find them in stock, AR's and parts have gone up ~30%

 

[bradly1101]

Part of the gun control legislation proposed by Democrats attempts to address the "background check loophole." But when you think about the solution, it would require that every seller have access to a database. The database hopefully would include known felons, but would it include mental status? How could it? Would it include the amount of guns owned? Would there be a limit?

And since "no fly, no buy" can easily be couched as stepping on rights, I doubt it will ever pass either.

The NRA and gun manufacturers have won. They have convinced enough of the population, partly with fear, that they must consume guns with vigor. If there's profit to be made on a gullible, fearful market with a right, nay obligation, to their reading of an amendment to The Constitution, they will attempt to suck that market dry.

If the American answer to guns is the right answer, then why this?

 

[JockoJohnson]

It is interesting that a government would build in a way to violently be destroyed by its own people. We must be unique in this. Actually I believe that this is a misreading of the Second Amendment. The militias it speaks of, I believe, were in support of the government, not against it. The Second Amendment debate is an argument for the ages though.

It is interesting that a government would build in a way to prevent it from becoming a dictatorship to the people that it supports. See, look at things from a different perspective. And this is what the courts have determined the 2nd amendment to stand for and that is why citizens have the right to own guns. Not sure if you were aware of this, but before the US was a free, sovereign country, England ruled over it and could do whatever it wanted and the colonists had no say in the matter.

So your beliefs and opinions are contrary to the facts.

 

[Artdeco]

Part of the gun control legislation proposed by Democrats attempts to address the "background check loophole." But when you think about the solution, it would require that every seller have access to a database. The database hopefully would include known felons, but would it include mental status? How could it? Would it include the amount of guns owned? Would there be a limit?

And since "no fly, no buy" can easily be couched as stepping on rights, I doubt it will ever pass either.

The NRA and gun manufacturers have won. They have convinced enough of the population, partly with fear, that they must consume guns with vigor. If there's profit to be made on a gullible, fearful market with a right, nay obligation, to their reading of an amendment to The Constitution, they will attempt to suck that market dry.

If the American answer to guns is the right answer, then why this?

And if you pull apart those stats, it's a lot less clear cut. But don't hurt yourself with critical thinking.

 

[Ackmed]

I wouldn't worry about it, gun sales go up but that's because the same idiots keep buying more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-more-guns-in-fewer-hands-than-ever-before​/

So only idiots buy guns?

 

[alien42]

once upon a time i was invested in a penny stock called Saf-T-Hammer. too bad i sold early, they ended up buying Smith and Wesson and i would have made a fortune.