General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm back for more abuse from the gun nuts
Here's some ideas...
Extreme vetting of purchases, strict laws against unregistered firearms, and a review of what weapons are acceptable in a civilised society.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)The only measures I really oppose are AWBs and registration.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)tip of the iceberg...gun madness will end...and the choice is between reasonable gun laws and confiscation. Act now or you won't have choice.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I take it you disagree?
Ukapau
(78 posts)I have no problem disarming felons and violent people. As long as there is due process.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Keep your pistols, your shotguns, your hunting rifles.
Anything that holds over 6 rounds at a time is a weapon of mass destruction and is only authorized for military personnel.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And see no need to give them up.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)If I'm fond of stockpiles of chemical weapons and nuclear warheads, do I get to keep them? What if I see no reason to forfeit such arms?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Not something I worry about in the slightest. If gun control gets back to where they were in 1990 then I might start paying attention but that is a tremendous amount of lost ground to make up.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)It differs markedly from the "over my dead body" mantras that I hear on social media constantly and see on bumper stickers several dozen times a week.
Honestly, the next time that gun legislation comes up, the two groups that should have no say in it IMO are the NRA and people fundamentally opposed to restrictions. Those two groups have had more or less free rein to dictate legislation for decades, so it would be nice to give the opposing view a crack at it for once.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)You think that views opposed to yours should have no representation in the decision-making process. How do you propose to achieve that in our free and open society?
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Do you equally scold them for shutting down views that oppose theirs?
How have they "silenced all legislative opposition"? I hear the gun-control point of view expressed almost daily, from pundits in the media and from our elected representatives. There is no "silencing."
Orrex
(63,086 posts)We should instead concern ourselves with the actual laws, specifically the ones over which the NRA has essentially held veto power for the past half-century or so.
Please identify all legislation in the past 50 years that was proposed and drafted by anti-gun groups and which actually came up for a vote without massive revision by the NRA and its puppets. That list is probably about 0 laws long.
In stark and undeniable contrast, let us consider all of the gun-related legislation that is aggressively opposed, neutered and/or rewritten into uselessness by the NRA and its puppets. That list includes all gun-related legislation in the past 50 years.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)You talk about "silencing" but what you really mean is legislative losses. You still haven't explained how you hope to "silence" certain viewpoints without compromising the principle of free speech.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Step Two: having identified them as a terrorist group, permanently ban all members of congress from accepting financial or material support from the NRA, its members, its representatives, its surrogates, and its lackeys.
Step Three: censure members of congress who continue to accept NRA support, in the same way that we would censure members who accept support from ISIS.
Step Four: untainted by the corrupt self-interests of the NRA, have an honest discussion of the subject in congress and work toward sensible legislation (see below).
In my lifetime and yours, we have seen just about zero laws passed. Gun advocates are happy to echo the NRA's opinion on this, predictably dismissing such laws as "toothless" and "feel-good legislation." Of course, this has in large measure been due to the unceasing propaganda campaign by the terrorist NRA.
Laws about "improved background checks" and "increased access to mental healthcare" are obviously meaningless, just as they're intended to be.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)A political advocacy group that doesn't engage in any illegal activity can hardly be characterized as a "terrorist group." Not in a free and democratic society.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Whole nations and all of their citizens have been declared terrorists for reasons no more compelling than raw racism.
I think that an organization that profits from and capitalizes upon terrorism (e.g., the NRA) could similarly be held to account.
Of course, since the NRA owns so many legislators and has so many eager voluntary mouthpieces, I recognize that this is not a practical expectation.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Right -- that's Trumpist bigotry, and it's despicable. And that's your defense of your proposal? I think you could profit from a little sermonizing on the nature of free societies.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 7, 2017, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)
And your screen name is aptly chosen, given how you deliberately misrepresent my position. What a fucking surprise that a gun advocate would offer a dishonest argument in order to protect their precious guns.
The NRA directly benefits (in terms of endlessly growing legislative clout) and profits (in terms of endlessly growing gun sales) from terrorists' use of guns. This is a fact repeatedly demonstrated.
They catapult false propaganda about guns and gun safety in hope of protecting their profits and influence; they suppress actual science intended to study the medical and social impact of guns; and they exert direct influence over legislators and the media in order to enact their will. These are facts.
These facts are very different from an idiot racist fuckhead declaring whole nations to be terrorists.
My point, which you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, is that the NRA undertakes actions directly intended to benefit terrorists, and we are therefore justified in recognizing them as a terrorist organization.
You seem to imagine that such a thing is impossible. My example demonstrated that such designations are entirely possible
Arguing with a gun advocate is like drowning oneself in a tub of liquefied manure, so I'm done wasting my time with you and with all the rest.
The predictable eagerness with which gun advocates leap to protect their guns in the wake of each weekly mass shooting never fails to disgust me, yet for some stupid reason I engage again and again in hope that someday gun advocates might actually be able to look past their precious, precious guns and see the larger reality.
That day is not today.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)The NRA is a non-profit. They don't sell guns.
That may be, but none of that meets any definition of "terrorism."
Directly intended to benefit terrorists? Hardly. Some of their actions and policies may indirectly benefit terrorists, but the same is true of the ACLU. Rhetorical tip: accusing someone who disagrees with you of failing to understand you is a very weak gambit.
Now that's what I call reasoned discourse ...
Marengo
(3,477 posts)HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Just sayin
hack89
(39,171 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)I assume you mean a hunting rifle that you need to load, not something that can fire 60 times per second.
hack89
(39,171 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)What civilian situation do you foresee will present itself where you need to mow down a crowd of people?
hack89
(39,171 posts)AR-15s are the standard. I don't own guns for self defense. I live in a safe ares.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Timed accuracy. Takes a lot of skill.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)?
hack89
(39,171 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)You could rent them at a range temporarily instead of owning them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The status quo works just fine.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)that are not also capable of killing 50 people in two minutes?
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)in their mind is shirtless, muscley, oiled-up with a bandana around their head screaming like Rambo as they save the world from a continuous onslaught of faceless terrorists.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)We used .22 caliber (very small bore) rifles and shot at paper targets that were circles, not shaped like human bodies. Since we weren't trying (or imagining) that we were killing anything, a bigger caliber wouldn't have made sense to us.
There is no question testosterone is heavily involved in shooting these weapons that were invented to kill human beings.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is not like competitive shooters are a violent crowd.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)to kill 58 and wound almost 500
StrictlyRockers
(3,854 posts)He sees no problem here. Everything is fine.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Who cares if there are mass shootings? They need convenient access to a hobby! That's what's important. They live in safe areas. Fuck everyone else.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)are capable of a massacre.
SonofDonald
(2,050 posts)Your prior posts talk all about how dangerous a gun is and it's obvious you are opposed against any civilian gun ownership.
But then you call them "Toys"
Drop kicked yourself right out of this argument.....
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)as solely for target practice as if they were a fun toy to play a game with.
They are not.
You can drop kick somewhere else, kindly.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Skittles
(152,967 posts)ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Or at least the vast majority dont. I would oppose a ban on magazines that hold more than 6 rounds. I wouldnt support but could live with a 10 round limit.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)What sort of standard, average civilian situation can you hypothesize where you believe you'll need a firearm that can shoot more than six times (and kill six people) at once without reloading?
Why all the firepower?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)So let's go with that!
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Under what circumstance are you armed and facing more than six enemies at once in a self-defense circumstance?
How often does that happen?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That gets you to 12.
Let's go with 12!
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)You want guns for the impending zombie apocalypse.
That makes so much ... sense.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Which you might as well round up to 20!
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)To me all life is precious.
And such stuff as 20 round mags & reloads starts getting heavy after a while.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Why the arbitrary difference between "six" and "ten"?
You could "live with" firing only ten times but not six?
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)And a 6-round magazine won't do it?
C Moon
(12,188 posts)ClarendonDem
(720 posts)But 10 is somewhat more reasonable. I agree that magazine limits are arbitrary and am not a fan
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)where you get to roll on the ground and say pithy one-liners before you dispatch your enemies one-by-one?
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)People use firearms on a daily basis to defend their family. But continue to ignore facts. Thats a common failing on the part of gun-grabbers, and one of the reasons there hasnt been meaningful gun control since Clinton.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Do you live in contested Mogadishu?
Do you have daily stampedes of wild buffalo to stave off with warning shots?
How many days out of the year do you defend your family with a gun?
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Didnt see that part in the 2d Amendment.
I actually live in a fairly safe neighborhood, but not sure why that is relevant.
Defensive firearm use happens all the time. A few examples from the last week:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/05/green-lake-county-homeowner-fires-gunshots-intruder-police-say/833767001/
http://katu.com/news/local/hillsboro-homeowner-shoots-at-intruder-stolen-car-found-hours-later
You prefer those folks couldnt defend their home?
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)I have no problem with pistols, shotguns, single-action rifles.
I don't want to take away ALL your guns. You have the right to defend your home by displaying your gun and firing warning shots and if necessary directly at intruders.
What I don't agree with is that you need the ability to shoot at them 100 times inside of a minute to do so.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)I really dont think it would make any difference but could support an AWB.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)That's all I'm saying.
We probably won't ever *end* gun violence, but keeping assault weapons out of people's hands as much as possible could reduce the casualty count in these types massacres.
If the church shooter had to reload or carry multiple pistols into that church, there's a much lesser chance he would have hit ~50 people and killed 26.
If the Vegas shooter didn't have an assault weapon, he probably wouldn't have done so much damage at such a distance.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech with two pistols.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)I guess there's nothing we can do to stop or reduce gun massacres.
The NRA wins.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)... interfere with the mission, right?
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)How would you reduce gun violence or at least the casualty count in these types of circumstances?
"I live in a safe place where it doesn't happen so I don't care" is not a valid answer.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)You opined that the Texas church shooter wouldn't have been able to kill as many if he had only had a couple of handguns. I cited a case where a person armed with only two handguns killed more people than in the Texas massacre.
I pointed out your factual error. It's not up to me to make your case for you. I personally believe that disarming the American public is a task so huge and so fraught with political consequences that it is virtually guaranteed to fail.
I believe that diligent enforcement of existing law, with the possible addition of expanded background checks, would do much to reduce the occurrence of these tragedies. Any long-term solution would necessarily involve the nature of contemporary American culture itself -- the political currents, the economic disparities, the racial tensions, the whole ugly ball of wax and the hatred and frustration that it breeds. Pursuing an aggressive gun-control agenda just adds fuel to the fire. That's just my opinion.
George II
(67,782 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)My family (not me) enjoys hunting. They won't kill anyone, lock up their guns and are very responsible...hell my Grandpa would have smacked amy of us who pointed a gun at anyone or an animal like a dog or cat...we weren't aloud to point sticks at each other and pretend they were guns...but some who have guns now are not rational...and we absolutely have to get the guns out of their hands. Personally I don't think an individual is a militia...bad court ruling...but we have to live with it for now...so lets try to save as many lives as we can by having reasonable gun laws and take the automatic weapons out of the hands of would be killers by out and out banning them and high capacity magazines. Every gun needs to be registered...just like a car.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)Teflon coated bullets or silencers...and a permit process for concealed and open carry...also insurance...we change the laws so people who are injured by accidental shootings, and who are injured when someone's kids grabs a gun and shoots up a school or the gun is stolen and used to kill folks...Careless gun owners need to be held accountable. We need gun registration for every new gun...so it is clear where the gun came from...some sort of retroactive registration for those guns already out there...and anyone who has an unregistered gun faces criminal prosecution. Gun dealers should account for every gun they sell...which right now they don't...no doubt some are arming gangs and criminals or people who can't pass the limited checks in place...online needs to screen buyers too and register every gun they sell. Also, gun shows need to have a process of gun registration...so the new owner is now shown as the register owner of said gun.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)I remember DU folk saying the same thing in 2013.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)this is one fucked up, gun humping nation
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)having to put up with folks of questionable intelligence walking around with guns in the God damned grocery store...thinking they are John Wayne waiting for the gunfight at the OK corral...by God I want gun laws that are enforced...tough laws. SCOTUS already said that was permissible. I believe the Supremes got this wrong...individuals are not a militia... but in the meantime. Ban automatic weapons, bump stocks and institute a ban on high capacity magazines...there are some in California who will go to jail as...california has done this. They think it is a joke...I say lock them up. I have had enough. Let me tell you maybe this election or the next, people who want gun laws will start voting this issue and then the NRA and their sycophants are screwed...may that day arrive soon!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I still think the 2nd A has been totally misunderstood and/or intentionally misrepresented.. but hell, I'm just a drummer, What could I possibly know?
Merlot
(9,696 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)Signed, a guitar player. lol.
ProfessorGAC
(64,425 posts)Put sheet music in front of him!
BTW: Guitar and piano here.
IronLionZion
(45,261 posts)Normal people would get called up to serve as needed. It made sense back then because they would need to defend against foreign invasion. Things have changed considerably since then. Normal people with guns now don't stand a chance against modern military forces.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)continues, we may be able to change or repeal the 2nd amendment.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I seriously doubt it will ever happen,., but.. who knows...
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Only prevents states from banning guns altogether. Just about anything else you want is constitutional. Theres just no political will to pass gun control, at least among Republicans. I thought a bump stock bam would be something easy to pass but even that is stalled.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)So...I doubt that has changed.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Cattledog
(5,897 posts)Towlie
(5,308 posts)IronLionZion
(45,261 posts)and yes, a well regulated militia is the most ignored part of the 2nd amendment right after the fact that it is literally an amendment, so it can be changed.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Good luck.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Not so much for the rest of your agenda.
And I won't classify UBCs as extreme vetting.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)I consider UBC and tighter regs on private sales to be extreme vetting.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I highly recommend them.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)but with every gun tragedy, that day gets closer and closer.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Strong support for UBCs - little to no support for bans and registration.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)This poll at the end of today's article is from spring 2017 68% AWB And high capacity
I can't image it's gone down since spring
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/06/readers-mass-shootings-mental-health-plays-part-but-guns-do-most-damage/836443001/
hack89
(39,171 posts)In a fairly narrow band - the Gallup polls that go back decades show that.
I would be interested to see a graph versus time for Pew.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Many people thing the only good ideas are the popular ideas, hence the success of Pet Rocks and Prom Kings.
hunter
(38,264 posts)Gun fetishists are in a similar position.
Most people don't want guns around.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The country is pretty evenly split on most gun control measures and have been for decades.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)"The country is pretty evenly split". But the NRA gets 100% of what they want.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Because it directly impacts how many elected officials on each side of the issue there are.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Support for gun control is not evenly distributed. Blue vs red, urban vs rural.
Do you think for a second that support for guns in the south and other red states needs gerrymandering yo be effective?
hunter
(38,264 posts)Opinions are not anywhere close to "evenly split." Even Wal-Mart quit selling guns because that's where gangsters were buying them. (Of course the gangsters didn't stop stealing them from "responsible" gun owners, including cops.)
I think this is an issue like gay marriage. When the nation starts to lean against guns, as it began to lean toward the acceptance of gay marriage, the process will accelerate. Yes, I do view much stricter gun control laws as progress.
Personally, I'm suspicious of anyone who carries a gun for "self-defense," even cops. I see them as a potential danger to themselves and others.
I've witnessed and experienced gun violence firsthand, but there are only a few stories I'll share here on DU.
Some people, including this last church shooter, obviously shouldn't have guns.
If you're worried that someone like me is going to take away your guns, you probably should be.
If you've got a gun for hunting, or shooting the random rabid or plague infected animal on your ranch, then I've got no problem with that. If you occasionally shoot a few cans to keep in practice, I've got no problems with that either. (But please don't use lead ammunition, it's bad for the condors and other wildlife. It's bad for people too.)
My family is Wild West. There's zero tolerance for fools with guns. As a kid, I watched my mom take a loaded gun from a young man, unload it, and break it. The guy instantly transformed from a tough guy to a kid whining loudly he was going to sue her. He never did. My mom took away my grandma's guns when my grandma started to get paranoid. My brother beat the crap out of a guy brought a gun into his bar, a bit preemptively, but the cops agreed the guy was there to rob the place.
All the hand-me-down guns my parents ended up with have been destroyed, possibly including some "collectibles." (Collecting guns seems a morbid hobby to me.) One of my brother's has our grandfather's deer rifle, since my grandma gave it to him. My brother doesn't hunt. My siblings and I have been hunting, but it's not a tradition we've passed on to our own kids.
I think anyone who dresses up in cammo to shoot paper targets of bad guys is a fool. Anybody who lets imaginary bad guys, the sort they'd care to shoot, live in their head is a potentially dangerous fool.
I don't respect gun fetishes or the second ammendment as it is currently interpreted.
NRA members, most especially the gun manufacturers who whip up the fears and feelings of inadequacy of so many gun buyers, can go fuck themselves with a cholla cactus.
Don't tell me attitudes like mine make people vote Republican. If that's all it takes to make a person vote for someone like Trump, they're already an asshole.
I'm not running any Democratic campaigns, I'm especially not running for office, so there's no need for me to guard my opinions.
lark
(23,003 posts)and supports background checks for all, including for mental illness and including gun shows. Polls shows 70% approval of these
restrictions. It's congress that wont bend because they are paid not to. That is the total tragedy of this.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)I had a brother who most would classify as a "crazy person" and he wouldn't hurt a butterfly. otoh there are plenty of not-crazy people who apparently think it's OK to put up their fists or pick up a gun because they can't deal with their lives and need to take it out on somebody else. which makes it easy to call them "crazy" because that is crazy, right?
it is also a dodge since apparently the only way to know if someone is sufficiently crazy to be denied access to WMDs is...past behavior. oopsie, too late! shoulda seen that coming! sorry for the inconvenience!
SMH
clearly what we are doing and not doing is not working...how 'bout some science-based, evidence-based, shit even common-sense based proposals/solutions instead of BS about crazy people and mental health issues?
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)mental illness for mass shooting gun death is wrong...the guy who shot up the church wanted to get back at his wife and mother in law...maybe the pastor too...don't know. But he wasn't mentally ill...he had a reason. People don't understand that just because a person kills does not mean he/she is mentally ill. Domestic abusers are not mentally ill...just violent...no different than gangs.
shanny
(6,709 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)If you want one, it's proof enough that you're crazy.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)IronLionZion
(45,261 posts)Crazy people don't know they're crazy.
I think most of the people who want semi-automatics with high capacity magazines are crazy and shouldn't have them.
Most Trump supporters are crazy.
Response to SHRED (Original post)
Not Ruth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)mopinko
(69,806 posts)and gun humpers would care that it is illegal?
and you are advocating people off themselves?
and you have said this before?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)For my young girls to grow up in a country that needs constant security at every corner of America while citizens are able to openly carry any type of guns is insane and could not be normalized.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)underpants
(182,281 posts)DUI
Domestic Abuse
Anything violent
No need for actual confiscation but if they are found later to have a gun (there could be a set time limit) then they get slammed.
mopinko
(69,806 posts)mental illness is not workable, except those found so by the court.
plus it's the one not getting treatment, or even a dx, that are the real problems.
cali passed a law allowing family to petition the court to pull a foid card.
i am wondering how that is going.
genxlib
(5,508 posts)Bring it on.
Let them tell us how we just don't understand...
There is an old saying, "Where there is a will, there is a way"
We can find the "way" if we can muster the "will".
It is the "will" that is sorely lacking. If a bunch of dead children don't motivate this nation to do something, then we might just be too far gone.
But I won't stop arguing for gun control. I don't care how much they think it is; impractical, unnecessary, unconstitutional, ineffective, etc.
I would rather be ineffective on the correct side of the issue than complicit with the attitude that we just have to accept it.
"gun nuts" need to control their guns/ammo/clips or SOMEONE ELSE will
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Including elaborate technical diagrams of bullets and such.
All designed to distract in my opinion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)control...all polls show this, and if they don't do something when the time comes, and it will...going to be much worse for those who are willing to sacrifice kids to their sacred God ...the gun. I believe they will be hammered..rightfully. Why should You and I have to live in fear so they can walk around all macho with their gun and most likely small dicks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)There is wide support for some gun control measures like UBCs but not for more draconian measures like gun bans.
Haven't you been paying attention to past 20 years - there has been a steady liberalization of gun laws across the nation. There is no indication that things are changing.
the gun manufacturer's and gun massacre profiteers have been spending millions in lobbying assholes to loosen restrictions. The people did not champion this, just some people.
And idiots use our non existing "draconian" laws in Chicago as a wiping boy argument, like resident asshole just did yesterday.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That support your opinion? Gallup and other major polling firms have data that go back decades.
mikeysnot
(4,755 posts)How about some data...
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q13&year=2013
That is a lot of cash, in 2013 alone...
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)saved my life, but I want the God damned loopholes closed...I don't want armor piecing bullets are silencers...you better support common sense gun solutions or in time you will lose the whole shebang...mark my words. I don't carry my gun to the grocery store, nor do I leave it around so others can find it...I don't need high capacity magazines ...their only purpose is to kill people. I am sick of worrying about my kids in movie theaters and school...now church...better support reasonable fixes or what you end up with will by much worse (for your anyway...but for others...it will save lives).
hack89
(39,171 posts)Because I don't believe you.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Why does any civilian need an assault rifle capable of killing 50 people in a short time ever?
"Competetive target shooting" is not an answer. You can compete with a single-action rifle or a pistol. You can compete with paintball guns. You don't need to compete to see who can mow down a crowd of people the fastest.
hack89
(39,171 posts)forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Except "I like muh guns."
hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't really care what you think of me not do I feel any need to explain myself to you.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Usually "tired of you" means "I don't have an answer."
I accept your official resignation.
Have a great day!
hack89
(39,171 posts)What did your victory gain you? From what I can see my defeat has cost me nothing.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)You earn 26 more deaths in Texas that your habit enables.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Living in fear is never easy. Fortunately I live in a safe area with hardly any violent crime. Drugs and alcohol are the real dangers to my family.
forgotmylogin
(7,496 posts)Your logic has defeated me. There is no way to reduce or prevent gun massacres cuz everyone needs their machine guns.
The NRA wins.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)And we can stop automatic weapons and high capacity magazines now.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)LonePirate
(13,386 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Those are the only ones that will work.
Response to hack89 (Reply #48)
Orrex This message was self-deleted by its author.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)An nra lie to drum up fear and sell more guns?
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)If not outright civil war.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)Open your eyes!
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)Smh
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)in a rural area with no police really...but I would gladly hand over that gun to save one person from dying in any sort of shooting. I have come to believe that guns should be banned. If we can't do that now...then let's go after high capacity magazines...and fight fucking congress who wants to add armor piercing bullets and silencers to the mix.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)themselves...why don't you value human life instead of so called gun rights?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)You value human life over sentimentality? If gun rights are so called, how is it you have one in the first place?
Lachrymologist
(15 posts)What if the Trump administration decided that it needed to round up immigrants, homosexuals and POC and toss them in camps?*
I'm only asking because this is the central question (IMHO) when doing a, "review of what weapons are acceptable in a civilized society."
*I doubt that will be happening this term (or next) but it is a valid fear shared by a lot of people so please don't simply dismiss it.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)stop it....but you can stop the senseless murder of innocents by banning guns or at least automatic weapons (this would include AR 15), high capacity magazines, teflon bullets and silencers...also...no one has the right to walk around with a gun...should be permitted and carefully vetted for conceal carry or open carry...that invades the public space...and violates my rights.
Lachrymologist
(15 posts)I believe the hypothetical situation I'm asking about could lead to the senseless murder of millions if our worst fears about the President are ever realized.
The idea that a population with hunting rifles could do much damage at all to a government with the arsenal similar to that of the US Federal Government is laughable, yes, which is why this question is so important to consider.
And maybe a tyrannical government can't be, "stopped," but that wouldn't keep me from fighting it anyway.
So if we had to protect millions from the gas chambers (as many feared we would have to), would automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, Teflon bullets and silencers help or hinder that fight?
History is full of examples where Governments hit their populace with a Jackboot so it is hard to exclude it as a possibility.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)safety, registration, background checks and storage procedures for owning guns. These responsible gun owners have the right to own guns and should not be compared to those that are insane and have mental health issues. The background check system needs to be updated and made certain that it works properly. The system is only as good as the information going into it.
sellitman
(11,596 posts)It's a menace to our society and needs to be treated as such.
It has enabled this mass murder to the point where it now is commonplace.
FUCK THE NRA, they are now terrorists.
moda253
(615 posts)Let's start there.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. Force the Military and States to report, rather than the carrot/no carrot 'voluntary' reporting system.
2. Registration so the police know WHO to seize WHAT guns from when they are under restraining order, or misdemeanor/felony DV conviction.
Those are the two holes to plug.
azureblue
(2,131 posts)But no ammunition. Make unauthorized possession of ammo a felony. Tightly regulate its sales and licensing. For instance, You want to hunt? Then you go buy exactly the number of shells you will need. You want a 1000 capacity magazine. Great, it's all yours/ You just don't get to have the rounds to put in it. Best part about this is, there is no mention of regulation of ammo in the 2nd amendment. The NRA never says a word about ammo restrictions - just gun sales. Gun lovers get to have all the guns they want. And a gun with no ammo is about as deadly as a brick.
Or, if you ask me, return to the days of muzzle loaders, black powder, hand molded bullets, and smooth bore weapons..
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Without ammo, arms are useless, which would defeat the intent of the 2nd amendment.
Any restriction meant to inhibit the exercise of a fundamental right as its sole purpose is Unconstitutional.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)Scruffy1
(3,239 posts)No one should have a firearm unless they can demonstrate a need for it. I don't hunt anymore, but I am not anti hunting. Semi automatic long guns should be banned. I hunted a lot when I was young and there is no need for them. Your odds of recivering from recoil and obtaining the target again are practically nil. A single shot is plenty. Bump stock bans won't be effective. Anyone can jury rig a semi auto to be a bump fire weapon with items laying around the house. Handguns should be illegal unless you have a very valid reason.
When a hunter buys a rifle or shotgun it's usually associated with beatiful fall days spent with friens. When someone buys an assault rifle it's only associated with killing. They are sick people.
lark
(23,003 posts)I've had more heated arguments over guns than drumpf, though most of the gun nuts, except maybe on this board, are also drumpf voters. They want free and unfettered access to any and all types of guns, period the end, and just refuse to see that this is what is killing thousands of people every year. They'd rather thousands die than they be inconvenienced every one tiny bit, so shameful.
What is up with this killing instinct in America? Just blows my mind.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)you can have and retain your weapons however everyone in your household needs to be evaluated for mental health on a periodic basis. Any violent tendency requires mental health treatment or removal of the firearms.
spanone
(135,636 posts)aeromanKC
(3,307 posts)Both are antiquated.
Though all of your ideas are also good. I would add limit clip capacity to 7 if you can't hit Bambi in 7 shots get a new hobby.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)aeromanKC
(3,307 posts)Had its purpose in 1789, but not so much today. Though I am sure the Black Helicopter tin foil hatters would disagree.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)With its agents is a good thing. Obviously, it was enough of a problem at one time to justify its inclusion, no reason why it couldnt become so again if the amendment was removed. Think of quartering as a means of control and intimidation.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Why not 5, or 11?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Loss of firearms for domestic abuses and other violent events even if not a felony and limited magazine size.
All doable and all effective.
bucolic_frolic
(42,678 posts)and the Founders didn't clarify a lot. A well armed militia meant minutemen to grab their flintlocks and defend the country.
Yet they couldn't have been blind to criminals owning firearms, or that people might carry them in public
In my view firearms in public make the jobs of law enforcement more difficult
In the 60s you went to a rifle range to shoot
Guns in transport were locked in the trunk, unloaded
I don't know if that was a good idea, but we didn't have monthly massacres
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Been out trying to win some hearts and minds of some of my conservative, pro-gun friends with whom I share mutual respect. All two of them.... Anyway, we could agree that both sides were appalled by the loss of life and that better enforcement of existing laws and better education are an acceptable starting place for both sides.
They really, really feel that guns make them safer and that they have a god given right to own them. They really do not trust the government. We will not change those feelings with facts. The key, IMO, is to get the decent ones to focus on the immorality of such pointless loss of life and to persuade them to start holding their brethren accountable for irresponsible and erratic behavior around firearms. Just like people began holding friends accountable for drunk driving. We have all taken the keys away from a friend who was getting ready to make a bad decision, right?
I also chatted a bit with a ex-police officer. He said he had, in fact, charged adults who allowed a child access to unsecured firearms when the child injured or killed themselves or others, but the DAs generally didn't prosecute the crime. So that might be a place to start too. Enforce laws we actually have on the books. It's a start.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's amazing that it takes no more than this to easily out them. And they don't even know it.
librechik
(30,663 posts)If an accident or injury occurs,the gun is covered. Make the deductible very high, at least equal to the value of the gun.
I like your ideas, too,SHRED
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Gunners will obfuscate, but it's their sick habit and the way we have allowed it to get our of control that is causing this reaction.
Let em whine.
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,777 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Should be military, police and licensed gun ranges. No one else should have them and anyone caught with one should face automatic prison terms and fines. Anyone convicted of a violent crime should be denied any gun, period.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)OK then.
SonofDonald
(2,050 posts)Because asking a question or suggesting a course of action without actually doing anything whatsoever is just laughable.
Don't start a post
Start a movement.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)crawl out of the woodwork to defend their precious and say, "My hobby is more important than all these lives" every time there is a mass shooting.
Really, I think they're on some payroll.
I think the first thing we all need to do is put those three posters on ignore and not let them hijack the conversation with the same bullshit they always spew. Then we could have an actual conversation about this.
SonofDonald
(2,050 posts)For people to argue with or just make mad, this solves absolutely nothing, I have read nearly all of his prior posts and I like the guy and his attitude.
Except for this thread, I'm a gun owner but not a gun nut, you'll never reach any agreement or find any common ground to talk about gun control when you go looking for a fight right off the bat.
Then you point fingers at each other and blame each other for not being able to have an intelligent discourse on guns and reasonable responsible ownership.
I don't have to be convinced that there's a clear and present danger to people by those who have huge gun collections, I feel that the fact that a person has a huge gun collection is a contributing factor to the thought process that MAY end with those weapons being used to hurt others.
Not in every circumstance of course but a good amount of the nutjobs who do go off and kill others have an arsenal with them.
I dont have the answer to this, but ridicule right off the bat solves nothing.
Just my two cents.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)children slaughtered in school? People mowed down at a concert? People gunned down in church? AW that's too bad.....but don't go FISHING FOR PEOPLE TO ARGUE WITH!!!
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Not to say anything that brings the enablers, educators and deniers out of the cave. It's a pointless exercise.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)I'll rrefrain.
I'm just so pissed that this country has so many people that love guns more than they do people.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)POKE A STICK AT THOSE COWARDS
FUCK THEM
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Youve convinced me. Im sure Congress will pass gun control tomorrow.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)ClarendonDem
(720 posts)The NRA thanks you for proving their point about gun grabbers. You undermine any effort to pass reasonable gun control laws.
Skittles
(152,967 posts)and YOU prove MY fucking point
OVER AND OUT because I DETEST wasting my time talking to GUN HUMPERS
Nice
Stinky The Clown
(67,697 posts)Just like after every massacre. Telling why guns are not the root of the gun problems
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Skittles
(152,967 posts)Response to SHRED (Original post)
Post removed
ellie
(6,928 posts)It is way past time to ban guns.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Why would anybody object to making sure people who own guns aren't likely to go on a shooting spree (and obviously aren't a criminal or otherwise disqualified from owning guns.)