Junebug
Well-known member
No, really. I don't get your point.
..
No, really. I don't get your point.
On another thread I made these common sense ideas for gun laws. How many agree:
Background checks must be made on every sale, gift or transfer of ownership of a gun, rifle or other firearm
This particular incident failed at this point. How does a guy with 3 FBI interviews related to terrorism not at least get a second look at the point of sale? 90% of folks come of clean initially and are ok, but this guy somehow didn't? Not enough focus is being placed at the point of sale in this case.
Registering of every gun
Nonstarter, plus no relevance as a crime-fighting tool.
Banning all clips, magazines or other devices that have a capacity of 12 (could be 15) rounds
A cosmetic issue, but I have said before that a 100 round drum really doesn't serve much of a purpose. I would put the cutoff at 15, personally.
When buying a gun, you must take a safety course
If the intent is to stave off criminality, this does nothing. If the intent is to teach dumb people to be smart with guns, I question its effectiveness. No.
A maximum number of guns purchase law with exceptions for licensed security companies and antiques
To what exactly? One at a time? One a month?
Any semi-automatic weapons must be manufactured with barriers to keep them from becoming refit to become fully automatic
That wasn't an issue here, and to my knowledge hasn't been an issue with any of the mass shootings, except maybe the one in France, and that I'm not sure about. Fully automatic weapons are not a problem and are already regulated.
Allowing the sale of smart guns
Allowing is fine. Mandating is not. And again, not an issue here.
Banning military style weapons (why does a citizen need a 50mm sniper rifle?)
50 cal, not 50 mm. And since it is the only weapon you specify here as needing banning, I'll just say I have no problem with it being added to the list of regulated firearms. But again, not a problem in this case.
Registering ammo purchases as well as products to make ammo.
No. Ridiculously onerous to both stores and any kind of government registry and serves no legitimate purpose.
You blamed *their extremist ideology. Then you said some nonsense about not excusing terrorism. Point is, this event wasn't an act of war, and is not an excuse for you 'murican red asses to send troops abroad to die.That's why I blamed extremist ideology. Did your reading glasses break this morning?
For the ban-guns crowd, what changed in our culture since 1789 that has the caused the fear of not-having-guns (1789) to be overtaken by the fear of having guns (2016)? I am trying to figure out for myself whether---at a practical level--- we tackle the "mass" first (in terms of stifling access to technology) or the "shootings" part (where to even begin)?
You blamed *their extremist ideology. Then you said some nonsense about not excusing terrorism. Point is, this event wasn't an act of war, and is not an excuse for you 'murican red asses to send troops abroad to die.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Yes, let's ban guns and be more like France, because it worked well for them.
Umm basically everything? Our culture now looks pretty much nothing like our culture in 1789. I don't have time to write the novel that it would take to make a complete explanation, but here's the most obvious:
In 1789, we had just escaped from 100+ years of rule by an oppressive British government. There was naturally a distrust of government power, people didn't want standing armies, so in lieu of that, they relied on individual gun owners that could be called upon to form a militia if there was a need for self-defense.
Now, we've lasted almost 250 years without ever needing gun owners to stand up against government overreach because our government is not oppressive and we have a massive standing army so there's no need for militias.
The real question is how can anybody say that our "culture" is similar enough to the culture in 1789 so as to make it smart to abide by arcane rules suited to that time period (and that's if you can even say that the Founders would have wanted the situation we have today, which is far from clear).
Well I think what you said was fucking stupid, so I guess we're at an impasse because we both think what the other is saying is fucking stupid. Why don't we just leave it at that?He was clearly influenced by the ideology of ISIS, hence him claiming as such. Idk what your act of war bullshit is about. I just responded to something fucking stupid you said.
Slow down, champ. The question is a jumping off point, not a refutation. No one is arguing that nothing has changed since 1789. Deep breaths, and point by point, deal?
1. 1789: "There was naturally a distrust of government power,...." I'm willing to argue that all but the highest office in the land (including governor's offices in Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey) might be a clue that what "was", still "is" in 2016.
2. Guns are amoral. They don't distinguish between public and private overreach. The old man in South Chicago who can't keep his deadbolt from getting kicked in by junkies isn't worried about being forced to quarter redcoats in his Chiraq abode. Your limitation of a gun's utility to defense from the government might not solve his problem.
3. Nobody is saying that. Read the thread.
Since then revolution, has a citizen ever used a gun to stand up against the Federal government's policies and/or actors and was subsequently vindicated?
maybe you missed this question:
Well I think what you said was fucking stupid, so I guess we're at an impasse because we both think what the other is saying is fucking stupid. Why don't we just leave it at that?
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
religion tells you do to things and does nothing to discourage pursuit of the logical conclusions of its narrative. the only thing that prevents it is laziness
Gun control needs to be accompanied with the demilitarization of the police.