• 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!

ban the fucking guns

MysteryMen said:
Well obviously, but that doesn't answer the question. If you're going to use a self-defense argument for guns, we should at least have some numbers of how many lives they are actually saving. Because the numbers on the other side--how many lives they are costing--is enormous. This should be a balancing thing, right?
Click to expand...

2&2's MO is not to answer or clarify. Like he didn't answer how background checks and "no fly-no buy" would "completely overhaul an entire national industry".
 
RJKarl said:
2&2's MO is not to answer or clarify. Like he didn't answer how background checks and "no fly-no buy" would "completely overhaul an entire national industry".
Click to expand...

That's because that isn't remotely what I said, and MM wasn't even talking to me. I was talking about overhauling the gun industry akin to what Obamacare did for the health insurance industry. The background checks and no fly no buy are relatively meaningless attempts to address the problem.
 
That's not the discussion. No one in Congress is talking about overhauling the gun industry. You are making up an issue that doesn't exist.
 
RJKarl said:
That's not the discussion. No one in Congress is talking about overhauling the gun industry. You are making up an issue that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'm addressing the one that should exist. The gun industry should be overhauled to actually address the gun violence problem, correct?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
what are you picturing when you say "overhauling the gun industry"
Click to expand...

Putting in more stringent acquisition and liability regulations, the effect of which would significantly reduce the number of guns (particularly handguns) available for public purchase and use.
 
Why is it "more stringent" to simply make EVERY purchase, transfer or gift of a gun/rifle. They are, by definition, in the secondary market.

What other areas of "more stringent" do you mean?

Why should guns be the only product that doesn't have liability regulations?
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
Why is it "more stringent" to simply make EVERY purchase, transfer or gift of a gun/rifle. They are, by definition, in the secondary market.

What other areas of "more stringent" do you mean?

Why should guns be the only product that doesn't have liability regulations?
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That's why I said to overhaul it I would put in tighter regulations and create liability. I'm pretty sure I was the first person on here years ago to suggest the concept of creating an insurance requirement, and thus an entire new industry, for gun ownership, as well as third-party liability for transferors when the gun is subsequently used in a criminal act. The way to get the reduction in guns in today's climate is to raise significant cost and barriers to entry around the guns without affecting the constitutional right itself, so you tighten the noose in a way that can't be directly challenged.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I agree with you. That's why I said to overhaul it I would put in tighter regulations and create liability. I'm pretty sure I was the first person on here years ago to suggest the concept of creating an insurance requirement, and thus an entire new industry, for gun ownership, as well as third-party liability for transferors when the gun is subsequently used in a criminal act. The way to get the reduction in guns in today's climate is to raise significant cost and barriers to entry around the guns without affecting the constitutional right itself, so you tighten the noose in a way that can't be directly challenged.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson would be so proud.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I'm addressing the one that should exist. The gun industry should be overhauled to actually address the gun violence problem, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. But do you honestly believe that Obama could have gotten anything close to a comprehensive overhaul of the gun industry through congress? Even if he hadn't spent political capital on Obamacare? I'm skeptical
 
jhmd2000 said:
Not necessarily. Some idiot abusing his right to free speech shouldn't cost me mine. Agree?
Click to expand...

These don't really parallel at all. Also the fact that some people can't be trusted with a particular thing is pretty much the reason that we have all laws that regulate things.
 
RChildress107 said:
Yes. But do you honestly believe that Obama could have gotten anything close to a comprehensive overhaul of the gun industry through congress? Even if he hadn't spent political capital on Obamacare? I'm skeptical
Click to expand...

If Obamacare was about guns instead of health insurance, why would the outcome have been any different? It needed to be enacted before anyone could know what was in it, so why would anyone have stopped it?
 
MysteryMen said:
These don't really parallel at all. Also the fact that some people can't be trusted with a particular thing is pretty much the reason that we have all laws that regulate things.
Click to expand...

It would be a travesty to treat one Constitutional right the same as another. The government has to be careful which rights and privileges it decides to trust the people with.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It would be a travesty to treat one Constitutional right the same as another. The government has to be careful which rights and privileges it decides to trust the people with.
Click to expand...

Huh? You realize that there are exceptions to all constitutional rights, mostly when exercising the "right" would harm another person. To take your free speech example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it's dangerous to other people. I'd be happy to apply the exact same reasoning to the Second Amendment. We can make restrictions on gun ownership when it would lessen the danger to others
 
jhmd2000 said:
It would be a travesty to treat one Constitutional right the same as another. The government has to be careful which rights and privileges it decides to trust the people with.
Click to expand...

That same Constitution that protected slavery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top