Someone asked the question as to why we have mass shooters, and then complained of a circular discussion. That’s because when you ask the question why, about human behavior, you have hundreds of reasons. That begging for a circular discussion and it’s why I rarely ask ‘why’ someone did something and expect something concrete and exact. The ‘why’ of human behavior is theoretical. I could interview and assess 50 mass shooters and I would have 50 reasons why they did it, because they are all unique individuals. We could find themes and commonalities, and I’m all for creating larger societal interventions based on those. I’m guessing you would see similar themes with mass shooter as you would with other violent people.
Some have an agenda when they ask why, which is to deflect away from gun control. To me, that’s disingenuine. The idea that people will kill no matter what the gun laws are is bullshit. The more you look into ‘why’, the more you will realize that the ease and depersonalization guns make killing people provide, the more killing with guns happens.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable? On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
yeah well its time to adjust it ammended or what ever can be done at this point what else do you feel should be done about the giant gun problem in America ? think about it Paul Ryan is implementing a program to teach grown ass men on what is proper behavior towards women because of all the allegations that have mushroomed in this country yet 20 people can get shot up in a church and nothing happens how can that be ok ...
In the immediate aftermath of Newtown, on December 20, 2012, President Barack Obama
established a Task Force on Gun Violence under the leadership of Vice President Joseph R.
Biden. On January 16, 2013, the White House released a document entitled: Now Is the Time: The
President’s Plan to Protect our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence.
6 This plan included 18 legislative proposals and 23 executive actions.7
Several of those legislative
proposals included the following:
• require background checks for private firearms transfers at gun shows and any
other venue, or “universal background checks”;
• strengthen and reinstate a ban of semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines
of over 10 rounds (cartridges);
• increase penalties for gun trafficking;
• reexamine and strengthen restrictions on armor piercing ammunition;
• Senate confirmation of Minnesota U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones as Director of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF);8
and
• repeal an ATF appropriations rider and strengthen that agency’s authority to deny
importation permits for 50-year-old military surplus firearms that fall under the
regulatory definition of “curio or relic.”9
Other legislative proposals primarily consisted of requests for additional funding to
• maintain 15,000 police officers on the streets of the United States, otherwise
known as the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program10 ($4
billion);
• train state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers in responding to
shootings ($14 million);
• allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to conduct additional research on
the possible nexus between video games, media images, and violence ($10
million);
• expand the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)11 from 18 to all 50 states; • improve incentives to encourage states to provide the FBI with prohibiting
records on individuals who fall under the definition of “mental defective” ($50
million); and
• improve school security ($230 million).
The Administration’s 23 executive actions, under the plan, range from directing the Attorney
General to work with U.S. Attorneys to ensure that firearms-related criminal cases are prosecuted
to directing the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.12 The Administration
periodically updated a report chronicling its progress in implementing these executive actions.13
This report does not focus on the President’s plan in its entirety. Rather, this report provides an
overview of federal firearms laws as a basis for examining the three most salient legislative
proposals included in the President’s plan. Those proposals would have (1) required background
checks for intrastate firearms transfers between unlicensed persons at gun shows and nearly any other venue, otherwise known as the “universal background checks” proposal; (2) increased
penalties for gun trafficking; and (3) reinstated and strengthened an expired federal ban on
detachable ammunition magazines of over 10-round capacity and certain “military style” firearms
commonly described as “semiautomatic assault weapons,” which are designed to accept such
magazines. This report also briefly examines counter-proposals designed to increase both open
and concealed firearms carrying privileges under certain circumstances.
Its all with extensive footnotes (I didn't copy because I was afraid it'd be too long)and is well researched with data. Now, please tell me where it "goes too far" or is politically untenable. Remember, Obama was president and Mitch McConnell openly stated that, "his party's number one goal was to see thjs president fail." Since Newtown, how many people have been killed in mass shootings? Please be specific when responding and spare me the fables, parables and homilies about your personal experiences, upbringing or other deflections from fact based debate.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
If I bought a gun for $1000 and was told that I couldn't sell it or get back something from what I paid for it I'd be pissed, so yeah I don't see it as being a good thing.
Also You aren't modifying anything, now maybe that's just semantics with describing something so I can let that slide.
The bill bans EVRYTHING but a shotgun or a bolt action.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
so 30,000 deaths per year don't matter because of the "percentage".
my calculator doesn't even go to the decimal place where the rest of the world is.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable? On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
I have an honest question here. On decreasing the avoidable mortality rate, what do people here think should be the government's primary mandate?
1. Decrease the avoidable mortality rate (including all causes of avoidable death) 2. Decrease the self-affected avoidable mortality rate (i.e. personal health-driven avoidable death, such as smoking or poor eating habits) 3. Decrease the harmed-by-others avoidable mortality rate
My personal opinion is that it's a government's obligation to look at its general population, and decrease the mortality rate across the board, indiscriminately. This should then be prioritized by impact, for the simple fact that there are insufficient resource (and insufficient knowledge) to tackle all catalysts for avoidable mortality.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable? On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable? On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
I'm just playing along with you.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over.
The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable? On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
I'm just playing along with you.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over.
I'm exhausted with this mental fitness... Since you don't recall and I have no idea and we both don't seem to care I agree to "move on" too, lol.
Thread integrity:
What Finestein wants is exactly what gun owners do not, an all out ban.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 sons may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
Thanks for making 22,500 gun deaths seem so insignificant with the .00857142857143% of all deaths citation. I love it when people minimize tragedy. My calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to put the Vegas deaths in perspective.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's buying guns more often than I buy peanut butter!
The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable? On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
I'm just playing along with you.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over.
I'm exhausted with this mental fitness... Since you don't recall and I have no idea and we both don't seem to care I agree to "move on" too, lol.
Thread integrity:
What Finestein wants is exactly what gun owners do not, an all out ban.
an "all out ban". really? it's a:
-ban on NEW sales of automatic weapons and anything that can make a non-auto act like a semi-auto or auto -all weapons (HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF THEM) legally obtained up to this point can remain in the system, just can't be transferred to another human. not sure why that's a sticking point.
I fail to see how this is unreasonable in any way shape or form. if the claim that gun owners want reasonable regulations, what is a reasonable regulation in your eyes?
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
I am guessing it is to prevent someone from stockpiling an arsenal in a very short period of time.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
I am guessing it is to prevent someone from stockpiling an arsenal in a very short period of time.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.
I don't expect everyone too. But to people who hunt, hunting season is a big deal to them, and a big father-son tradition. Some people take weeks off of work and school to go on a hunting trip. Personally I don;t hunt, but if that is your thing and a father-son thing the dad looks forward to every year, I completely understand wanting to get something special for the occasion.
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
87% of American
83% of gun owners
69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
65% of Americans
59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
79% of Americans
69% of police chiefs
61% of gun owners
59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people. The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale. Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion. I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time? You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
Yeah one a month is really really dumb. In new jersey I can purchase only one handgun a month but can buy as many rifles or shotguns as I want lol. It's another example of feel good legislation.
"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws us democracy is like the model T ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it now other countries do it better than we do
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.
how did I contradict myself?
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.
Comments
Some have an agenda when they ask why, which is to deflect away from gun control. To me, that’s disingenuine. The idea that people will kill no matter what the gun laws are is bullshit. The more you look into ‘why’, the more you will realize that the ease and depersonalization guns make killing people provide, the more killing with guns happens.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
www.headstonesband.com
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
In the immediate aftermath of Newtown, on December 20, 2012, President Barack Obama established a Task Force on Gun Violence under the leadership of Vice President Joseph R. Biden. On January 16, 2013, the White House released a document entitled: Now Is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence. 6 This plan included 18 legislative proposals and 23 executive actions.7 Several of those legislative proposals included the following: • require background checks for private firearms transfers at gun shows and any other venue, or “universal background checks”; • strengthen and reinstate a ban of semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines of over 10 rounds (cartridges); • increase penalties for gun trafficking; • reexamine and strengthen restrictions on armor piercing ammunition; • Senate confirmation of Minnesota U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF);8 and • repeal an ATF appropriations rider and strengthen that agency’s authority to deny importation permits for 50-year-old military surplus firearms that fall under the regulatory definition of “curio or relic.”9 Other legislative proposals primarily consisted of requests for additional funding to • maintain 15,000 police officers on the streets of the United States, otherwise known as the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program10 ($4 billion); • train state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers in responding to shootings ($14 million); • allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to conduct additional research on the possible nexus between video games, media images, and violence ($10 million); • expand the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)11 from 18 to all 50 states; • improve incentives to encourage states to provide the FBI with prohibiting records on individuals who fall under the definition of “mental defective” ($50 million); and • improve school security ($230 million). The Administration’s 23 executive actions, under the plan, range from directing the Attorney General to work with U.S. Attorneys to ensure that firearms-related criminal cases are prosecuted to directing the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.12 The Administration periodically updated a report chronicling its progress in implementing these executive actions.13 This report does not focus on the President’s plan in its entirety. Rather, this report provides an overview of federal firearms laws as a basis for examining the three most salient legislative proposals included in the President’s plan. Those proposals would have (1) required background checks for intrastate firearms transfers between unlicensed persons at gun shows and nearly any other venue, otherwise known as the “universal background checks” proposal; (2) increased penalties for gun trafficking; and (3) reinstated and strengthened an expired federal ban on detachable ammunition magazines of over 10-round capacity and certain “military style” firearms commonly described as “semiautomatic assault weapons,” which are designed to accept such magazines. This report also briefly examines counter-proposals designed to increase both open and concealed firearms carrying privileges under certain circumstances.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42987.pdf
Its all with extensive footnotes (I didn't copy because I was afraid it'd be too long)and is well researched with data. Now, please tell me where it "goes too far" or is politically untenable. Remember, Obama was president and Mitch McConnell openly stated that, "his party's number one goal was to see thjs president fail." Since Newtown, how many people have been killed in mass shootings? Please be specific when responding and spare me the fables, parables and homilies about your personal experiences, upbringing or other deflections from fact based debate.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.
www.headstonesband.com
Also You aren't modifying anything, now maybe that's just semantics with describing something so I can let that slide.
The bill bans EVRYTHING but a shotgun or a bolt action.
I wouldn't stand behind that bill at all.
Sorry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/one-gun-the-rapid-cycle-of-gun-violence/?hpid=hp_hp-visual-stories-desktop_no-name:homepage/story&utm_term=.69530a393cdc
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
my calculator doesn't even go to the decimal place where the rest of the world is.
www.headstonesband.com
Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
Sources: CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (2008); Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (2008); Mayors Against Illegal Guns (2009); National Opinion research Center (2003); American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2006); Violence & Victims (1993)www.headstonesband.com
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1. Decrease the avoidable mortality rate (including all causes of avoidable death)
2. Decrease the self-affected avoidable mortality rate (i.e. personal health-driven avoidable death, such as smoking or poor eating habits)
3. Decrease the harmed-by-others avoidable mortality rate
My personal opinion is that it's a government's obligation to look at its general population, and decrease the mortality rate across the board, indiscriminately. This should then be prioritized by impact, for the simple fact that there are insufficient resource (and insufficient knowledge) to tackle all catalysts for avoidable mortality.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over.
Thread integrity:
What Finestein wants is exactly what gun owners do not, an all out ban.
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 sons may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
-ban on NEW sales of automatic weapons and anything that can make a non-auto act like a semi-auto or auto
-all weapons (HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF THEM) legally obtained up to this point can remain in the system, just can't be transferred to another human. not sure why that's a sticking point.
I fail to see how this is unreasonable in any way shape or form. if the claim that gun owners want reasonable regulations, what is a reasonable regulation in your eyes?
www.headstonesband.com
You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.
www.headstonesband.com