Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Discuss Current Events, Politics, Theology, Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, etc. Please stay on-topic. Serious discussions/debates only. No personal attacks.
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Postby Feydakin » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:44 pm

Copy and paste from the #NoBillNoBreak "sit in" the Democrats did... http://ninjaevolution.net/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1201

It's not "Democracy" what they are doing, it's a temper tantrum, much like the filibuster it just shouldn't be a part of our legislative process. They literally got nothing accomplished. Yet again wasting taxpayer dollars like all politicians do.

Also, side note, two of the gun legislation bills that were shot down were brought forth by House Republicans.

Plus, the NRA actually signed off on one of the Bills that got voted down... THE NRA.

The bottom line is, none of that legislation would have accomplished anything aside from adding to an already broken and under-enforced system of laws... but I doubt anyone that's complaining about it actually took the time to read anything about it or do any research other than read social media posts and political sound bytes on their favorite liberal punditry station, I mean news station.

Even fucking Bernie Sanders supporters are calling bullshit here. This is from a major Sanders supporting Twitter account.

Image

https://twitter.com/Tehelmin/status/745924559929544704

There are some much less flattering Photoshop meme's of the sit in too that are pretty bad...

This Business Insider article breaks it down pretty well as to why these bills failed to pass.

------------------------------------

Four gun-control bills are set to receive a vote on the Senate floor on Monday, as the demand for gun-control legislation reaches a fever pitch in the aftermath of the Orlando, Florida, terrorist attack — the deadliest mass shooting in US history.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the votes late on Thursday afternoon. Two of the bills were sponsored by Republicans, while two were backed by Democrats. All will need 60 votes in order to pass, and each is being proposed as an amendment to the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill before the Senate.

The announcement came after a 15-hour filibuster initiated by Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, on Wednesday. Along with fellow Senate Democrats, Murphy is backing a bill to enhance universal background checks, which would close the so-called gun-show loophole, and a bill to ban suspected terrorists on terror watch lists from buying weapons.

That second Democratic bill, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, failed on a party-line vote in December, just one day after the San Bernardino, California, attacks. It was voted down by a 54-45 margin, and just one Republican — Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois — voted in favor of the bill.

During a Monday conference call, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said that if the bill were passed when first brought before the Senate in December, then the Orlando terrorist attack would have been avoided.

"We're just asking for people to come into this country and go out and buy a gun," Feinstein said during that call with reporters, later adding, "Even if you're a suspected terrorist, you can go out and buy a gun. And that's just not right. So I hope there will be a change."

Opponents to the Feinstein bill say that, since you can be placed on a terror watch list without being found guilty of a crime, then it could cause US citizens on the list to be erroneously stripped of their Second Amendment right without due process.

"Is going after the Second Amendment how you stop terrorism? No," House Speaker Paul Ryan said during his Thursday press briefing. "That's not how you stop terrorism."

Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Cory Booker of New Jersey, among others, have insisted that due process elements will be "baked into it."

The lead Republican proposal was reintroduced by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Thursday. It's a slightly altered version of the SHIELD Act, which was shot down late last year.

If passed, the attorney general can delay a weapons purchase by any person who is either a known or suspected terrorist, or has been subjected to a terrorism-related investigation within the past five years for three days. Law enforcement would need to get a court order within that three-day window in order to stop the sale, should probable cause be shown before a judge. The bill also allows for the attorney general to take the buyer into custody if a judge determines probable cause.

Cornyn said in the release:

It would not only stop terrorists from getting guns, but it would take them off the streets, and it would do so in a way that's consistent with our Constitution. Every single Senator wants to deny terrorists access to guns they use to harm innocent civilians, but there's a right way to do things and a wrong way.

My legislation actually does what we need to do to give law enforcement first the notice that this individual is trying to buy a weapon, and then the opportunity to take them off the streets and deny them access to a firearm. We need a robust response to protect American citizens but one that doesn't infringe on constitutional rights.

McConnell came out in favor of the legislation, calling it a "serious solution" in a release. The National Rifle Association — soon after presumptive Republican nominee Donald Drumpf tweeted on Wednesday about meeting with the organization to discuss potential terror-watch-list-related gun control with the organization — announced its support of the legislation.

The second Republican proposal came from Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey. He crafted legislation that would direct the attorney general to create a new list of suspected terrorists who could be barred from buying weapons.

"We don't want terrorists to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun, and we don't want innocent, law-abiding citizens to be denied Second Amendment rights because he's wrongly on the list with a bunch of terrorists," Toomey said during a Wednesday speech on the Senate floor.

The Pennsylvania senator's bill is not up before the Senate on Monday.

Democrats roundly rejected both pieces of legislation.

Booker said during a CNN interview:

The Cornyn bill, which is the last version that I saw, creates a really impossible hurdle for the FBI. If they have someone under investigation, they're going to have three days to mount a court challenge to block them, expose their investigation, and create an environment where that terrorist, now being notified, will say, "You know what? Instead of going to that brick-and-mortar federally licensed gun dealer, I'm just going to go buy off the internet." That's where it falls down.

He added that the legislation is a front to ensure that "no legislation passes."

Schumer called the proposals "wolves in sheep's clothing" during a Thursday press conference, adding that under Cornyn's proposal "every terrorist will get a gun."

"If the FBI had that evidence, they would've arrested them in the first place," he said. "It's a fake. It's a way to say they're doing something when they're doing nothing."

A "whole court case in three days?" he continued. "Who would think that would make any sense!"

He said that Toomey's proposal "was even worse" because it would force the government to rebuild a new terror watch list.

"We'll be here for decades!" he said.

Another gun-control proposal set to go before the Senate on Monday is backed by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. It would ensure that the FBI is alerted of terrorism suspects who purchase a weapon without barring them from doing so. Anyone being investigated or who had been investigated for terrorism-related activities within five years would be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and the FBI would be notified if one was buying a weapon.

The recent push for added gun control came after 49 people were shot dead at an LGBTQ nightclub in Orlando by a gunman who pledged allegiance to ISIS.

------------------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
AliceElite
//wrestles darkness...WINS!
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:54 am

Postby AliceElite » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:57 pm

Psy wrote:ALSO, IT'S A FUCKING AMENDMENT. AMEND IT AGAIN.



This.

I think the constitution is silly. It's just silly. I work in politics and thinking that the constitution is some sort of nationality bible is absurd. You know what we call religious people who stick to every aspect of a bible? Orthodox. The world changes, and so should our rules of government.

Maine is probably going to have to amend our constitution to achieve a majority rule system in our state - where we frequently (like, 9 of the last 11 races for governor) see candidates win with less than 50% of voter support. I will be excited when we amend our constitution.

The second amendment is not infallible. The constitution is not infallible. Lets be clear - this is a document that was originally intended to dictate how rich white men would govern their country. This was not a document that was made with everyone in mind. We had to change it to give women the right to vote, to give people who aren't white the right to vote, we had to change it TWICE to deal with the issue of prohibition....This document is not the end-all-be-all of government.

I do not give any shits about our second amendment rights. If I care about anything, it's that in the declaration of independence I was given the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and that these are rights that no person gets to take from me. THAT is the document that defines us as a country. THAT is the document that we should care about, and yet, we routinely have people shouting "MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS" as they shoot us, taking our lives.

And the second amendment isn't EVEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS. The amendment that made alcohol illegal? We took that back - and we can, and should, take this back too, so we will all stop murdering each other. Civilized countries don't let their citizens routinely murder each other.

There is no good reason other than "Well, we want them" to have widely available gun ownership. Farmers want to hunt, protect their animals and crops? Okay, that's fair - there's a reason for that. You want to own a rifle because, I don't know, it's pretty? That's not a good enough reason to own an instrument of murder.


As a semi-unrelated aside, making abortion illegal is an interruption of my bodily autonomy - at that point, a corpse has more control over their body than I do over mine. They absolutely are apples and oranges, and comparing them is an injustice to both the fight for reproductive justice AND the fight for common sense gun laws.

On a personal note: I get people who are like "I HAVE RIGHTS!" Yeah, okay, you do. But the government is supposed to protect me. I deserve to be safe. I deserve to not live in fear. I live in an open carry city, and pride was this weekend. I'm pansexual - I have sex with men and women and nonbinary folx and trans men and women, and I am a part of that community. That community has become dangerous. That community has become risky. I actually and really feared for my life and the lives of my family and friends, and with 50 of my siblings in this community murdered and more injured, that is not an unreasonable fear. I was afraid to take my son out in public. AFRAID. I called people before i marched in the parade to tell them that I loved them. I called Isaac and said, "I don't think anything is going to happen, I hope nothing is going to happen, but know that I love you. Know that I'm so glad I met you and that you made my life bright and filled with laughter and joy." I told the father of my son that if he got so much as a bad feeling, to take our son home immediately, stay close to the car, and to leave me there if things got dangerous - I would find a way home, and I wanted Fox to feel safe. Can you imagine having to say that to your friends and loved ones? "If I die, know I loved you?" To prepare for that kind of loss?

This is not a theoretical or philosophical debate. This debate has real consequences, and the consequences are that a man died in a bathroom while texting his mother, telling her that he loved her, that he was in danger, and that he was scared. The consequences are that mothers are losing their sons. I can't imagine getting those texts from my son. I am crying, now at this time of writing. This is real and personal for hundreds of thousands of USAmericans.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that is worth this. Nothing. There is nothing valuable in upholding such a ridiculous mandate when it means that people around me are dying every day. There is nothing valuable in continuing to allow these people to commit acts of domestic terrorism. Nothing in our country is worth this. Literally nothing.

If it were up to me, and the only solution to this mass-murder issue was "dismantle the government and rebuild it from the ground up", I would fucking do it. What point is there in even having a government when we're just dying, daily, over things that are actually really simple fixes? The rest of the developed world has solved this fucking problem already why are we so god damned late to the table?

I am really tired and exhausted of this debate, because, for me, it's an easy fucking choice: continue to let our citizens be murdered, or take away the weapons of destruction. Shit's not hard, USAmericans are just fucking stupid.
Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Postby Feydakin » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:11 pm



If you want to know more about this case, Google it... Note; the stuff in between the actual story is inconsequential to the story itself, and should be ignored.
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Brewtality
novice ninja
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Tanzania, East Africa

Postby Brewtality » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:21 pm

Bloody hell Alice, that was brilliant.

When does one's right to own a semi-automatic weapon Drumpf someone else's right to not be shot to death by someone with a semi-automatic weapon?
Image

Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Postby Feydakin » Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:10 pm

An ongoing article by The Guardian

Gun control – a Guardian investigation
The uncomfortable truth about gun rights supporters – sometimes they are right


If commonsense reforms to American gun laws are to have any chance, thoughtful gun owners need to be treated with more respect – and split from the fundamentalist leaders of the NRA

by Lois Beckett

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/22/gun-rights-supporters-national-rifle-association-nra

------------------------------------------------------

Staked out next to the parking lot at the National Rifle Association’s biggest get-together of the year, I asked NRA members to explain what, exactly, the liberal media was getting wrong about the gun debate.

We were outside the Louisville convention center because the NRA had refused media credentials to the Guardian for its four-day event, which it said had attracted more than 80,000 people.

Approaching the most ardent second amendment advocates in America one by one, it’s clear that not everyone conforms to the implacable stereotype embodied by NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, whose dogmatic stance and hectoring tone define an organization that claims more than five million members.

Let the record show: calm, reasonable, friendly Americans also believe in gun rights.

I asked the NRA members: when I have to cover the next mass shooting – and there will be another mass shooting – what would it look like to do that fairly?

I heard a lot of suggestions: don’t treat us like rednecks. (I saw only two men wearing overalls among a crowd of thousands.) Don’t confuse a civilian semi-automatic rifle with an actual military gun. Don’t say: “I support the second amendment, but ...” That makes you what gun nuts call a “butter”.

The most common complaint I heard was that while the American media constantly covers gun violence and gun massacres, it rarely covers self-defensive gun use.

“You always hear it in the news if something goes wrong, but you don’t hear about all the things that go right,” said John Correia, a NRA member who runs Active Self Protection, an Arizona-based self-defense training company.

“I think a lot of gun owners feel demonized.”

The NRA members have a point. This week, the Guardian is exploring the terrible toll of gun violence in the US, and why the gun debate has become a vicious cycle of debate and inaction. Each year, more than 30,000 Americans are killed with guns. Add in people violently injured with guns, and the total is nearly 100,000. Look at justice department survey data on broader gun use in crime, including incidents where offenders simply have or display a firearm, and the count of firearm crime is even higher: close to 500,000 total firearm victimizations a year.

But these numbers have to be put in context. The number of self-defensive gun uses each year is fiercely debated, and the estimates vary widely. But there are roughly 300 million guns in civilian hands. Set 30,000 gun deaths, or even 500,000 gun victimizations, against 300 million. As incomplete and imprecise as much gun data is, the bigger picture is clear: most guns are not being used in crimes. Most gun owners are not committing crimes.

Even David Hemenway, a leading public health researcher who is skeptical of how many good things are done with guns, concedes this point.

“The large majority of gun owners aren’t going to do anything good or bad for public health with their guns this year,” he said.

If you want to understand why gun rights advocates might not support new laws, or why the status quo might seem acceptable to some Americans, this is an essential bigger picture to grasp. There are millions of gun-owning Americans who use their guns safely, whose friends use their guns safely, whose children never access a gun when they are not supposed to.

The constant coverage of America’s most shocking acts of violence may make it seem like this gun-filled country is the wild west. That’s just not true.

Gun advocates also have a point when they argue that the general public does not have a very accurate sense of overall gun violence trends. A Pew survey after the Newtown shootings asked Americans if gun crime in the country had gone up or down over the last 20 years. The majority of Americans, 56%, said they believed gun crime was higher than 20 years before.

The reality was that America had become much safer over the previous 20 years. Even as the total number of guns in the civilian hands crept upwards, gun violence dropped sharply as the crack epidemic receded, for reasons that are still not fully understood. The country’s gun murder rate was down 49% since its peak in 1993.

The percentage of Americans who had an accurate understanding of this most basic gun violence trend: 12%.

If you come to the NRA annual meeting expecting danger and risk and the thrill of the forbidden, you will be disappointed. In between the dire political speeches about the power elites and felons getting their voting rights back and how Hillary Clinton will destroy the second amendment, there are sessions on the history of the second world war and how to train your puppy.

When I asked NRA members if they’ve ever had to use their gun to defend themselves, I heard no stories of dramatic shootouts or heroic interventions. Instead, each story was one of restraint: they felt threatened, they displayed a gun, and their potential attacker ran away.

But breaking the stalemate of the gun debate also requires acknowledging how wide a political gap there is between general public opinion in America and the small, fiercely committed membership of the NRA – and how different those world views can be.

When Senate Republicans voted down a measure to require criminal background checks on all guns sales earlier this week, the votes sparked outrage and incomprehension. How could anyone oppose background checks? In the documentary Under the Gun, news anchor Katie Couric had assembled a group of gun rights supporters to ask them that question.

“If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” she said.

The question was followed by silence and footage of the gun rights supporters looking away. The moment seemed to back up the liberal orthodoxy on gun control: there are some gun laws that are such common sense that even fierce gun rights supporters have no reason to oppose them.

After the film premiered, one of the gun rights advocates in the room leaked a separate audio recording of Couric’s interview. In fact, the gun rights advocates had had plenty of skeptical responses to Couric’s question about background checks. The film’s director had simply edited them out. Couric later apologized for making gun rights advocates “appear to be speechless”.

At the NRA convention, I asked Correia, the Arizona-based self-defense expert, if he supported universal background checks.

“Absolutely not, unequivocally no,” he said. “It won’t make a difference. Go back and look at the mass murders in America, and what you find is you’ll find guns that number one, were stolen, or two, were legally purchased. So to say, ‘Oh, wait a minute, if we add, you know, more bureaucracy to law abiding folks it will prevent crime. I don’t think that’s the case.”

Correia is right that many mass shooters could not have been stopped by background checks, including the shooter at Sandy Hook and the Orlando shooter last week.

But there’s reason to believe at least some other shooters would have been stopped with tougher gun laws. Is there evidence on gun control laws that might convince a skeptic like Correia? What about policies focused on the people, not the guns?

------------------------------------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Skywalker
I Feel Ya Sista... Not in that way
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:55 pm
Location: NC

Postby Skywalker » Thu Jun 23, 2016 8:11 pm

AliceElite wrote:
[spoiler]
This.

I think the constitution is silly. It's just silly. I work in politics and thinking that the constitution is some sort of nationality bible is absurd. You know what we call religious people who stick to every aspect of a bible? Orthodox. The world changes, and so should our rules of government.

Maine is probably going to have to amend our constitution to achieve a majority rule system in our state - where we frequently (like, 9 of the last 11 races for governor) see candidates win with less than 50% of voter support. I will be excited when we amend our constitution.

The second amendment is not infallible. The constitution is not infallible. Lets be clear - this is a document that was originally intended to dictate how rich white men would govern their country. This was not a document that was made with everyone in mind. We had to change it to give women the right to vote, to give people who aren't white the right to vote, we had to change it TWICE to deal with the issue of prohibition....This document is not the end-all-be-all of government.

I do not give any shits about our second amendment rights. If I care about anything, it's that in the declaration of independence I was given the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and that these are rights that no person gets to take from me. THAT is the document that defines us as a country. THAT is the document that we should care about, and yet, we routinely have people shouting "MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS" as they shoot us, taking our lives.

And the second amendment isn't EVEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS. The amendment that made alcohol illegal? We took that back - and we can, and should, take this back too, so we will all stop murdering each other. Civilized countries don't let their citizens routinely murder each other.

There is no good reason other than "Well, we want them" to have widely available gun ownership. Farmers want to hunt, protect their animals and crops? Okay, that's fair - there's a reason for that. You want to own a rifle because, I don't know, it's pretty? That's not a good enough reason to own an instrument of murder.


As a semi-unrelated aside, making abortion illegal is an interruption of my bodily autonomy - at that point, a corpse has more control over their body than I do over mine. They absolutely are apples and oranges, and comparing them is an injustice to both the fight for reproductive justice AND the fight for common sense gun laws.

On a personal note: I get people who are like "I HAVE RIGHTS!" Yeah, okay, you do. But the government is supposed to protect me. I deserve to be safe. I deserve to not live in fear. I live in an open carry city, and pride was this weekend. I'm pansexual - I have sex with men and women and nonbinary folx and trans men and women, and I am a part of that community. That community has become dangerous. That community has become risky. I actually and really feared for my life and the lives of my family and friends, and with 50 of my siblings in this community murdered and more injured, that is not an unreasonable fear. I was afraid to take my son out in public. AFRAID. I called people before i marched in the parade to tell them that I loved them. I called Isaac and said, "I don't think anything is going to happen, I hope nothing is going to happen, but know that I love you. Know that I'm so glad I met you and that you made my life bright and filled with laughter and joy." I told the father of my son that if he got so much as a bad feeling, to take our son home immediately, stay close to the car, and to leave me there if things got dangerous - I would find a way home, and I wanted Fox to feel safe. Can you imagine having to say that to your friends and loved ones? "If I die, know I loved you?" To prepare for that kind of loss?

This is not a theoretical or philosophical debate. This debate has real consequences, and the consequences are that a man died in a bathroom while texting his mother, telling her that he loved her, that he was in danger, and that he was scared. The consequences are that mothers are losing their sons. I can't imagine getting those texts from my son. I am crying, now at this time of writing. This is real and personal for hundreds of thousands of USAmericans.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that is worth this. Nothing. There is nothing valuable in upholding such a ridiculous mandate when it means that people around me are dying every day. There is nothing valuable in continuing to allow these people to commit acts of domestic terrorism. Nothing in our country is worth this. Literally nothing.

If it were up to me, and the only solution to this mass-murder issue was "dismantle the government and rebuild it from the ground up", I would fucking do it. What point is there in even having a government when we're just dying, daily, over things that are actually really simple fixes? The rest of the developed world has solved this fucking problem already why are we so god damned late to the table?

I am really tired and exhausted of this debate, because, for me, it's an easy fucking choice: continue to let our citizens be murdered, or take away the weapons of destruction. Shit's not hard, USAmericans are just fucking stupid.

[/spoiler]


+1

I have not been affected by gun violence, but I have seen others affected by it.

My own heart broke when I read that text message, it was posted to Facebook. When I read it, I had no idea what it was in connection to, the person who posted it posted no details, but I cried. I cried a lot because it was a simple message, but I can just image how scared that person was hiding in that bathroom.

As a person who is currently helping raise two wonderful children. I did not think there would be a day that I had to go over what to do if there is an active shooter in her and his schools. I did have active shooter training when I was taking elementary ed classes. The cop who was giving us the run down of what we should do broke down in the middle of it after he realized that his own wife could be a victim of a school shooting because the high school campus where she worked was not locked down like Fort Knox. He stood in front of a group of women and one guy crying. He also told us, that if an active shooter was happening on our campus, and by the grace of God we managed to get the gun from the guy, shoot to kill. On top of that start yelling as soon as you see cops that you are a teacher with your hands raised so a cop does not accidently shoot you or the students that you are with because they are in a different mindset. I understand that. Let us think about this for a minute, we have to train teachers in what to do if a madman decides to bring a gun to school and do the unthinkable. Then we have to go forth and then run drills in schools, we are teaching kids what to do in an active shooter is on campus. For some it is locking the classrooms up, for others, it is running for safety.

I am just hoping that we can finally get to a day in this country where such training is not required. Where I do not have to see a police officer break down because he is scared for his wife, because she is a teacher. That got to me, it really did. Even after two years and I think at that moment, and the overall feeling in the room, a group of women and one man decided to take on a gunman and possible death to protect those who was in charge. The state police who was also there said that he should not have to be giving this presentation to future teachers. It was just and odd feeling in that classroom that day, because on the walls was colored work made by students from working with student teachers, there was information on how to use smart boards, it is a learning environment for future teachers.. and it had somehow been tainted that day. After that, the whole attitude of those learning how to teach had somewhat changed because we now know that death is a possibility in a profession where death should never be a possibility.
Image
User avatar
Charmosa
God
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Postby Charmosa » Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:27 pm

Well I've been away a while and happy to see all this discussion! It was much more than I expected. I'm really glad to hear your side. It does make a lot of sense and I agree that a complete reworking would be ideal. However I don't think that will be the first move made. Not pro gun side's fault, not anti gun's fault. Just regular old cheap government practices. So while the bandaid solution is pretty bad, it's a little bit better than bleeding everywhere. Like, look at the roads. At least where I live the roads go to shit constantly. Roads can be made of different kinds of materials. Asphalt, varying types of concrete, hemp... hemp would actually last the longest but it costs more upfront. Same with concrete with more steel mixed in. But every time it's the cheapest asphalt or concrete. The kind that has to be redone almost every year, costing more in the long run in both materials and labor (and pollution). So what do we do in the meantime between pavings? Ask for them to at least fill in the potholes. The bandaid method again. It's like our country is terminally shortsighted. Solar power is still not very widespread because of the upfront cost, but it has grown. Maybe the middle ground in the gun issue is for a state to step up and do everything you suggested. Enforce existing laws, put forth a meaningful and thorough mental health plan. Both sides should get behind it. Push it. Once one state has some results it could catch on. Like gay marriage. Anyway, it's really tough to find a workable middle ground when our shitty government officials make it easy to write off the other side. Any proposal from the opposing viewpoint could be dismissed as impractical. Like I'm doing for your suggestion on mental health. Like some conservatives do for Universal healthcare or renewable energy. It's not incorrect. It is pretty accurate that anything getting passed, funded, and maintained is pretty slim. Especially when the only thing that greases the political machine is money, not the people's will. It's a corrupt system that will probably only change with little baby steps on the county and state level. That just also happens to be the one hardest to get people's involvement in. The whole thing makes my head want to explode. Anyway, good read and I agree with your ideals on fixing the cause first, I just also would like a bandaid to hold us over on the way. We need to keep talking about this until we fix the cause. We shouldn't only talk about it after a tragedy.
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby cerrodepedro » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:19 pm

I thought I'd revive this discussion with some social media flavor. I noticed that in the killing of Alton Sterling, a lot of cop apologist people are eager to point out that the gun he had (and never brandished) was illegally acquired, not registered. And doing a Venn diagram, you'd see a lot of those cop apologists also be huge advocates for eroding every possible regulation on firearms. They would point out the clause, "shall not be infringed," rather enthusiastically. Throw that in with the fact that the NRA advocated for gun control in reaction to the Black Panther Party and modern advocacy for firearm rights doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, BECAUSE of groups like the Black Panther Party, BECAUSE Martin Luther King, Jr., started to push for a more radical approach to justice, I still believe there should be a right to bear arms in the USA, even if it exists with some degree of regulation. My reaction to all of these killings wasn't that I wanted firearm regulation, though that is something I would like to see, but more just anger at injustice, be it expressed from homophobia, transphobia, or racism.
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Re:

Postby Corgimom » Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:38 am

Feydakin wrote:Also, something that I'd like to point out regarding the proposed "assault rifle" ban. It's a load of bullshit. Take a look at this picture.

Image

On top is your typical .223 varmint rifle, functionally identical to the firearm on the bottom, a typical Smith & Wesson AR-15. Now the only difference between these two firearms is frankly aesthetics. The pistol grip is pretty much personal preference, doesn't make the gun do more damage, shoot faster, nothing. The sights looks scary I guess, but again, gun isn't more dangerous. Flash suppressor, again, doesn't make the gun more dangerous. Telescoping stock doesn't make the bullets do more damage or come out faster, or make you not miss... None of the customization that you put in an AR-15 does anything to make the firearm more "deadly". And yet, because of these arbitrary things that don't make the gun any more deadly, some people want then banned. The gun on the top, perfectly fine to own. The gun on the bottom, functionally identical, must be stopped at all costs. How does this make ANY sense at all? How can this be seen as anything but political smoke and mirrors? No sane, rational person can look at this and say that it makes any sense whatsoever.


Not sure this is apples and apples since the AR15 seems to be really easy to convert to fully automatic.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby cerrodepedro » Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:51 pm

Wouldn't a typical varmint be blown to pieces by a .223, or have I been without firearms in my life too long to remember?
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Feydakin » Sun Jul 17, 2016 2:13 am

cerrodepedro wrote:Wouldn't a typical varmint be blown to pieces by a .223, or have I been without firearms in my life too long to remember?


Not really. You can see in this pic the difference between the rounds. Most people would consider a .22 more suitable for small varmints, so compare those. The projectile isn't really much bigger, but the charge is. It's easier to see the difference when you're holding them in your hands...

Image

Trust me, it takes way more than one .22 bullet to take out something like a skunk, groundhog or possum unless you hit it in the head.
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby cerrodepedro » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:39 pm

Oh yeah, I saw that and thought "dude go with the 22!" Also I sincerely love that "Hold up!" meme. At least as far as political leaders go, the motives behind firearm law, whether it regulates or de-regulates, I feel, have always been disingenuous.
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Corgimom » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:48 pm

I know the NRA current party line is that regulations will lead to loosing the right the bare arms and I understand that occurred in other cases but The US has been known to learn from history.

When we talk about gun violence I have certainly been affected by it. My mother had a long term boyfriend come after her with a gun when I was 6-7 She shot and killed him. We moved to FL once the legalities settled down. My closest cousin was murdered in a random whim murder when I was 19. I have been held at gun point more than once and shot at a couple of times. I think every form of gun violence is in the family mix.
By all the 'personal reasons for wanting change' I should be one the ban wagon.

Still I think am American enough to fully support the gun ownership with a mental health exception. Most people don't know that the number 1 cause of gun death is suicide. I have long believed the only gun solution that makes sense is licensing after a mental health examination.

I just ordered shotgun shells to kill a tree. I'm just a little crazy.
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Feydakin » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:14 pm

"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Re:

Postby Feydakin » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:29 pm

Corgimom wrote:Not sure this is apples and apples since the AR15 seems to be really easy to convert to fully automatic.


Not really easy but 100% a felony... in every state.
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Feydakin » Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:33 pm

Regarding these "loopholes" and what they actually are that the left keeps harping on about... aka they aren't what they say they are. Shocker.

"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
cerrodepedro
Words. I kill them.
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Location: Intermountain West

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby cerrodepedro » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:13 pm

Corgimom wrote:Most people don't know that the number 1 cause of gun death is suicide.


I wish this could be said more often. Regardless of regulations, testing (for a variety of reasons I fear 1984-level shit even though obviously we're already indexed and controlled), etc., this is why I will never own a firearm. Neither anyone living with or close to me nor me should have any kind of access to it, and we're all sufficiently intelligent to break into a safe, even if it would serve as a mild deterrent, which in many cases is all the deterrent anyone really needs. It is also a reason why it's important to scream loudly that no one should be expected to wield a firearm in order to feel safe when we're talking about the kind of society we want to use public influence to work toward.

From a purely practical point of view, the "good guy with a gun" argument has its limits, and frick, according to not just liberal news sources but also organizations like the NRA, most folks agree that about 300 million firearms exist in the USA. Geopolitically that makes US American firearm legislation a very unique thing. It makes you actually wonder how much very responsible and trained and mentally normal firearm ownership decreases your individual chance of dying by violence, stacked against a choropleth map of estimated (with statistical adjustments since sampling methods and success and biases vary widely by region) firearm ownership versus a histogram of firearm ownership by major urban center.
Once was lost and now am lost; was blind but now I smoke
Image
Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Re:

Postby Feydakin » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:48 pm

Corgimom wrote:Not sure this is apples and apples since the AR15 seems to be really easy to convert to fully automatic.


Also, mechanically they are the same gun. If you strip down an AR-15 (or whatever) to it's core components, with none of the arbitrary "scary black rifle" stuff that make it bannable under the "assault rifle" ban, it still can be converted with an illegal third party kit or method... which is still a felony even if you do it with a .223 rifle that doesn't have those "assault rifle" components.
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Corgimom
3 hours later...
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:23 am

Re: Re:

Postby Corgimom » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:23 am

Feydakin wrote:
Corgimom wrote:Not sure this is apples and apples since the AR15 seems to be really easy to convert to fully automatic.


Not really easy but 100% a felony... in every state.


Am I mislead that a person planing a mass murder event could care less about that law? Am I wrong that the only manufactured component needed to make that conversion is a high capacity magazine?Image
Image Image
Image
est 1953


Image
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Re:

Postby Feydakin » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:40 pm

Corgimom wrote:Am I mislead that a person planing a mass murder event could care less about that law?


Which is a compelling reason why more laws don't work... why "gun free zones" do nothing but disarm law abiding people and make them easy targets, etc...

Corgimom wrote:Am I wrong that the only manufactured component needed to make that conversion is a high capacity magazine?


Yes, that is incorrect... it takes a fairly significant rebuild of the gun in most cases, that usually only a skilled gunsmith can do. It takes tools, parts and fabrication. You CAN get the parts, but you MUST have a Class 3 Federal Firearms License to do the conversion or to own the firearm. Here is the list of requirements to get said license... http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Class-3-Firearms-License

As you can see, it's a long, expensive process that digs pretty deep into the persons background and keeps strict track of everything that they own and sell... not nearly as easy as Liberals want everyone to believe.
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Charmosa
God
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Charmosa » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:14 am

Has anyone watched the newest David Cross standup on Netflix? He did a good (and vivid!) bit on gun control. It was filmed in April, before Orlando, so you know it's something he had thought a lot about instead of a knee-jerk reaction to the biggest mass shooting we've had (so far). I'd be curious if something like a stand up act would give any reconsideration to one's stance. I know talking to Feydakin on the forum and with a few IRL friends who are pro-gun has caused me to re-evalute my position and has given me knowledge and perspective I wouldn't have had otherwise. I still feel like something should be done, but what that something is has changed a lot and will probably continue changing if I keep educating myself on the issue.
User avatar
Feydakin
Blissfully Oblivious
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:48 pm
Location: Right Here
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Feydakin » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:46 pm

It's chilling to me how much most Liberals trust the government and want them to "take care" of them... like scary, almost cult-like. I wish that I could feel that way a little, at least trust them, but my gut, my head and my heart tells me to trust myself and trust the fact that we're supposed to be taking care of ourselves; each other on a micro level (state) yes, but I am a big fan of pulling ones self up by your bootstraps and relying on yourself as much as possible. I just don't trust the people in power. Not the politicians, not corporations, none of them. Look, probably some really ridiculously high percentage of legal firearm owners are just regular people, no threat to anyone, that just want to shoot for sport, hunt for food, and most importantly protect their families from whoever might try to harm them. People like me that believe in the Second Amendment believe that self preservation via the ability to arm ones self adequately is a basic human right. Our forefathers did as well, which is why it's the second amendment, right after the most important ones like freedom of speech. The Second Amendment is there so we can protect the First Amendment, from ALL threats, foreign AND domestic.

Here's a video I wanted to post a while ago but I didn't want to spam the thread too much. ;)

This is only a tiny microcosm of the populace, but it IS indicative of the overall ignorance of people. If you don't understand the issue on it's most basic level, then you shouldn't be able to vote on it...

"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond"Image
ImageImage
User avatar
ink
God's Fountain Pen
Posts: 2159
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:22 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ink » Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:18 pm

some interesting facts...

did you know that the black panther party was founded to protect the people and police the police within the black communities in the 60's?
originally called the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.
http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/black-panther-party-founded
https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/

there was structure, they were organized and there was an agenda..
The party was one of the first organizations in U.S. history to militantly struggle for ethnic minority and working class emancipation — a party whose agenda was the revolutionary establishment of real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines.


https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/unknown-date/party-rules.htm
check out rule #5, #7 and most notably, #16

We Want An Immediate End To
Police Brutality And Murder Of Black People.
We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people should arm themselves for self- defense.

^^ that was #7 of the 10 point program


Throughout their decline, several women sustained the organizations community programs until 1981, when the Oakland-based program closed. In 1997. The Black Panther Party Research Project (BPPRP) was created to locate sources and develop finding aids to assist researchers and the general public with uncovering information about the BPP, one of the twentieth century's most controversial, yet least researched organizations.


..so basically, i just wanted to add a bit of context to Feyd's comment, that the mis-trust of government bureaucracies and its operations has been going on for a long time now.. they essentially sabotaged the Black Panther Party, because they challenged the government and its corruption by taking back power for the people. to me, the parallels are quite similar. something to think about.. destroying the 2nd amendment is not a new concept. think critically, look a bit past the veil, there is one.. :hmm:
we are, what we allow to occupy us..





Image
User avatar
Charmosa
God
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby Charmosa » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:27 pm

I would like people to be more involved in their local elections. To open more polling stations, talk about more local issues and the candidates and their positions. For local newspapers and news stations to spend less time on national and more time on local, so that the info on what needs to be done and who is running and how they plan to handle it is easily accessible. Then make it easy to register and vote. That way, slowly but surely, the government will be filled with people you feel like you can trust. Because it's the people you actually voted for.

No where did I suggest taking away the 2nd amendment. No where has anyone suggested taking away the 2nd amendment. That whole concept is a lie. It annoys me when that is brought up as a debate point, because it's just a distraction (and actually mentioned in that standup I just posted about).

That video did not reflect the common sense gun laws that have been proposed (sending the guy who owns a shotgun on his way saying they don't need him there? Really?) And I'm not saying the laws proposed under common sense actually make sense. A lot of them wouldn't be very helpful, I've learned. But that doesn't mean scrap everything and keep things exactly the same when it comes to guns. It means do more research and write better legislation. (Here's Hill's current and vague version of common sense: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/g ... revention/)

There are rules and legislation blocking research on gun violence: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

I don't trust the government trying to block science. Trying to refuse to give the people what they want. How can people educate themselves on the issues when all we have to go on is how people feel on the matter? Why can't we run a little science through this issue and then talk about it? Some non-biased research would be nice.

The UK doesn't have a perfect government by a long shot, but they manage to keep gun violence extremely low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_ ... ed_Kingdom
And everybody and their mums have guns in the country over there. I'm not suggesting a total overhaul to imitate this policy, since there's a lot different about how our governments work and what they provide. But steps in that direction would be nice, starting with our police force and their access to firearms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_us ... ed_Kingdom

British police have used America as an example of why they choose to keep their officers unarmed (because it doesn't prevent officers from being shot). http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19641398

Partly why I think many Americans (and the Black Panthers) carry guns is fear of the government and the police. And the right to protect themselves from that. Gun control should start in the government first. Lead by example. Get some single payer healthcare, don't give every damn rookie in a uniform a gun, and I think restrictions on gun ownership for the people would be met with better acceptance. But we need more research. We need to be open to change and we need to be educated.
User avatar
ink
God's Fountain Pen
Posts: 2159
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:22 pm

Re: Firearm Control Legislation Discussion

Postby ink » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:38 am

Charmosa wrote:
No where did I suggest taking away the 2nd amendment. No where has anyone suggested taking away the 2nd amendment. That whole concept is a lie. It annoys me when that is brought up as a debate point, because it's just a distraction (and actually mentioned in that standup I just posted about).


i see.. my apologies. i thought that this is what this debate was ultimately about.
i'll just excuse myself from this debate lol /who
we are, what we allow to occupy us..





Image

Return to “C&D”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests