• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slaughter in vegas

Was this not close enough? Obama did nothing

"During the first two years of Obama’s Presidency, Democrats held the legislative and executive branches but still faced a 5–4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But 2 of those conservatives were fairly moderate, leading to narrow rulings in favor of preserving Obamacare and legalizing gay marriage, for example."

I'll copy my previous post:

"Not all hard to believe with the NRA having 9 figures at their disposal to beat those who vote against them.

There won't be meaningful federal gun reform until there is campaign finance reform."
 
Bolt action has a capacity of one. For your future reference.

I'm aware of that. The capacity part referred to shotguns.

I've hunted with these guns before.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I'm all for restrictions on guns in general. Extremely strict background checks, taxes, ect. Would love to see it. Needs to happen now. But I believe that it's a mental health issue as well. Progress needs to be made on both fronts. There's many factors that play into this. Take this playable level from Call of Duty for example, that almost every 12-22 year old boy owned a few years ago. How the hell does this make it into a game? And how do we allow this to be okay?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NMnnMRWJ-0

Haven't seen the old Tipper Gore argument in a while.

Video games don't kill people. Your precious guns do.
 
So, again, why didn't it happen when Obama had a Congressional majority?

I imagine because some vulnerable Dems in the Senate refused to go along with it but I admittedly don't know the specifics. There are some issues where inaction can't be placed squarely on Republicans. Gun control isn't one of them.

If Dems were to regain New Deal or Great Society era levels of control are you suggesting gun reform wouldn't be part of the agenda?
 
Was this not close enough? Obama did nothing

"During the first two years of Obama’s Presidency, Democrats held the legislative and executive branches but still faced a 5–4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But 2 of those conservatives were fairly moderate, leading to narrow rulings in favor of preserving Obamacare and legalizing gay marriage, for example."

They knew they still didn't have the votes, too may southern democrats. Fucking shame though.
 
Was this not close enough? Obama did nothing

"During the first two years of Obama’s Presidency, Democrats held the legislative and executive branches but still faced a 5–4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But 2 of those conservatives were fairly moderate, leading to narrow rulings in favor of preserving Obamacare and legalizing gay marriage, for example."

Um no. That same Supreme Court decided Heller and McDonald in 2008 and 2010 respectively. Describing the court as anything but conservative, especially in regards to gun control, is nonsensical unless it's an admission that conservatism had gone off the rails.
 
I also don't think it's strictly a party lines issue - although guns rights are certainly pushed more heavily by conservatives and Republicans. It's more of an issue of ingrained culture. People who grew up with guns and own guns, even most responsible gun owners, recoil when they hear someone talk about "gun control" as if it's a personal affront. That's why any movement needs to come to the forefront now because this is a multi-generational problem that could take decades and decades to see any meaningful reform.

And people can say "well it's a mental health issue too!" all they want, but if access to guns are heavily restricted then mentally ill people wouldn't be able to acquire them as easily. There are mentally ill people in every country and America still is far and away the world leader in shooting deaths.
 
just saw 'urgent traces being run by ATW on guns found at the crime scene"

for reference:

Inside the Federal Bureau Of Way Too Many Guns

That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It's kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog. They can use pictures of paper, like microfilm (they recently got the go-ahead to convert the microfilm to PDFs), as long as the pictures of paper are not searchable. You have to flip through and read. No searching by gun owner. No searching by name.

“Okay?” Charlie's tapping a box of Winston Reds. His smile is impish, like he's daring you to say what needs to be said: This is a fucking nightmare.

“You want to see the loading dock?” We head down a corridor lined with boxes. Every corridor in the whole place is lined with boxes, boxes up to the eyeballs. In the loading dock, there's a forklift beeping, bringing in more boxes. “You go, ‘Whoa!’ ” he says. “Okay? Yeah, but a million a month?” Almost 2 million new gun records every month he has to figure out what to do with. Almost 2 million slips of paper that record the sale of a gun—who bought it and where—like a glorified receipt. If you take pictures of the gun records, you can save space. “Two million images! You know, it's 2 million photo shots. I've got to have at least seven machines running 16 hours a day, or otherwise, right? I fall behind. And to fall behind means that instead of 5,000 boxes in process, there's maybe 5,500 tomorrow, you know?
 
Just make owning a gun require the owning of insurance. Since one factor for against single payer is the loss to the insurance agencies this can make up the difference. Then let the insurance agencies take care of the rest, mentally ill, damn hard to get that insurance, no yearly training, damn that premium will be high.
 
So just to make sure where you stand - handguns, ok. Video games, not ok.

Handguns in the hand of citizens who have a clean record and have been thoroughly checked for mental disorders or red flags and legally purchased the handgun are ok. Video games that don't have playable scenes where kids walk into an airport as Russians and gun down a thousand innocent people or scenes closely related to that story line are ok.
 
Then he worded it quite ambiguously if that was his intent. It can certainly be read as both.

Save the density, it was clear enough.

Regardless, now you know the intent. Any real disagreements or are we just nitpicking grammar?
 
Just make owning a gun require the owning of insurance. Since one factor for against single payer is the loss to the insurance agencies this can make up the difference. Then let the insurance agencies take care of the rest, mentally ill, damn hard to get that insurance, no yearly training, damn that premium will be high.

I've always liked this idea when it's come up before and IIRC it has some bipartisan support on here. On the flip side, the NRA would still be against it, most elected Republicans would, most people who own guns likely would still oppose it, and it would get sued to the Supreme Court as unreasonable infringement on the Second Amendment.

Not saying these reasons are good enough to justify not pushing for mandatory gun insurance, just noting the challenges it would assuredly face.
 
Back
Top