• 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

You could easily ban guns using strict interpretation of the constitution, don't the conservative justices love that shit.
 
Sounds like no good solutions. Might as well close up the thread and move on. Prayers only actual actionable response.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Oh good grief. If you seek to regulate something, knowledge of it helps. That goes for banking, business, or guns. If you want to be persuasive, knowledge is key. The left in this country and many on this board want to gut the Second Amendment-- ban guns outright. They will have to do so via SCOTUS fiat because for all their hyperbole, even they know that they are restricted in what they can do. When it comes down to it, about all they can legally do is offer up things like magazine restrictions and cosmetic restrictions on scary looking weapons, which they've done before. They can also harp on about background checks, which are already the law of the land and aren't even an issue. So if the left wishes to continue to take that approach, they shouldn't expect to find a friendly ear. If they are going to frame it as "sensible gun control" then they're going to piss people off even more. Nobody is saying the right is completely rational on gun control, but at least they know their product. The best course of action is to find avenues of agreement, even if it only amounts to little stuff. I know, that dreaded C word of compromise. It's all or nothing in DC these days, so if you don't get everything you want, you get nothing at all. Politicians are shit. I'm sure we can agree on that much.

I continue to believe that the biggest hurdle is mental health screening, and that's an issue due to medical privacy issues and laws, something that must be dealt with independent of guns. Not sure it would've done anything in this case, but it would have in several other incidents.
Click to expand...

Then why isn’t your party solving the problem?
 
Deaconblue said:
Eight years ago:

In the 111th Congress, the current party alignments are 263 Democrats in the House of Representatives (including five Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and 178 Republicans. The Senate has 58 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats; and 40 Republicans.Dec 23, 2009

Why did nothing happen then?
Click to expand...

Well thanks to those Democrats, getting shot by Paddock won't be a preexisting condition that will prevent them from getting insurance. The victims also won't have to deal with lifetime caps.
 
Ok, so why does anyone need to be able to buy a bump stock, which is what was used here to make the guns almost full auto? Why should this be legal?
 
Better said that there is not a winnable problem, at this time. It is too embedded in American culture and too much money being distributed in government. Having said that, regulations need to be re-structured and enforced. Currently they dropped just about all regulation when Trump came into office. It is also a part of the market that reeeeeeaaaalllly doesn't like to be regulated. Good luck with any sort of strict standards.

I like and own multiple guns. I don't hunt. I was in the military. The idea of having guns for safety, it is not really true. Even people trained every day, as their job, make mistakes with guns. The average user would more likely do more collateral damage in high stress situations or just lose it in a fight. Guns, guns, guns...what can you do?
 
MichDeac25 said:
Ok, so why does anyone need to be able to buy a bump stock, which is what was used here to make the guns almost full auto? Why should this be legal?
Click to expand...

bump stock should be illegal no question

the problem is, if you make the bump stock illegal, here's the work around: "Gun users can achieve a similar, though less controlled effect by sticking their finger through their belt loop or simply by holding a stick between the trigger and the trigger guard."

so that effectively to make automatic firing weapons unavailable, you need to ban semi-automatic weapons
 
DistrictDeacon said:
50% of private firearm transactions are done without a background check. Which is certainly an issue.
Click to expand...

This is like that hand sanitizer that says "Kills 99.9% of germs most of the time" or something like that. Private firearm transactions entail transactions which are already illegal, dealer to dealer sales, as well as inherited guns and "I'll trade you this Glock for your Sig" type deals. I once sold a Walther to an old man with 2-3 pistols already in his belt, so sales like that too. Not really a big deal in the large scheme of things, but I tell you what. Make it easy for folks to do private transactions with a background check and I'll sign on, even knowing full well that 100% background checks aren't the ultimate goal of those clamoring for them. I know this flies against what is commonly understood to be the case, but the NRA was on board for background checks back when they were first proposed too. What they didn't approve of was the wait when the ability existed to make them instant or maintaining a registry of the names. They made them instant, forbade a registry, and they were passed.
 
thatguy2016 said:
bump stock should be illegal no question

the problem is, if you make the bump stock illegal, here's the work around: "Gun users can achieve a similar, though less controlled effect by sticking their finger through their belt loop or simply by holding a stick between the trigger and the trigger guard."

so that effectively to make automatic firing weapons unavailable, you need to ban semi-automatic weapons
Click to expand...

Nah, you can formulate a law to ban the sale or fabrication of any device used to facilitate or simulate automatic fire (and define it as, say, more than 1 round per second). Wouldn't apply to somebody popping off rounds with their fingers or belt firing. People have been bump firing for a long time because the mechanics of a semi-auto fire allow for it. Now if you made DAO the law of the land for all future semi-auto sales, I would think that would eliminate a lot of bump firing.
 
there really should be a national registry; the state knows about every car or house I own; they should know about every gun

I don't see how a national gun database is restricting anyone's right to keep and bear arms

obviously we're 350,000,000 guns behind in that regard so hard to see how we will catch up

A registry might have been of some use in this case; assuming a red flag went up when $100k was wired to the Philippines, that would have been a handy cross-reference
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Oh good grief. If you seek to regulate something, knowledge of it helps. That goes for banking, business, or guns. If you want to be persuasive, knowledge is key. The left in this country and many on this board want to gut the Second Amendment-- ban guns outright. They will have to do so via SCOTUS fiat because for all their hyperbole, even they know that they are restricted in what they can do. When it comes down to it, about all they can legally do is offer up things like magazine restrictions and cosmetic restrictions on scary looking weapons, which they've done before. They can also harp on about background checks, which are already the law of the land and aren't even an issue. So if the left wishes to continue to take that approach, they shouldn't expect to find a friendly ear. If they are going to frame it as "sensible gun control" then they're going to piss people off even more. Nobody is saying the right is completely rational on gun control, but at least they know their product. The best course of action is to find avenues of agreement, even if it only amounts to little stuff. I know, that dreaded C word of compromise. It's all or nothing in DC these days, so if you don't get everything you want, you get nothing at all. Politicians are shit. I'm sure we can agree on that much.

I continue to believe that the biggest hurdle is mental health screening, and that's an issue due to medical privacy issues and laws, something that must be dealt with independent of guns. Not sure it would've done anything in this case, but it would have in several other incidents.
Click to expand...

I have some gun knowledge, I own a shotgun and two long guns. They are with a friend because I have young children in the house.

I also don't want to ban all guns. I want to ban handguns, though. And these military style guns that are not used for hunting. It's not rocket science, let's not pretend that 'understanding' firearms takes an advanced degree. Some guns are used for hunting and home-defense, and some are ridiculous military style guns that are interesting devices, I guess, but that the general asshole population can't handle and should be heavily restricted if not banned. Perhaps gun clubs with strict regulation can provide individuals a controlled place to shoot a target or whatever gets their rocks off.
 
DeaconSig said:
I think that bastardized Christianity sold by charlatans has convinced a significant percentage of the population that they can be a good christian, rich, and Charles Bronson at the same time, as well as the fact that we shouldn't worry about things like Las Vegas because they are punishments from on high for things the liberals have done.

Is that most Rs? Probably not. But it is a significant percentage of motivated voters and donors on that side of the party. If it wasn't things would have changed.
Click to expand...


I'd agree that a nation that seems to care more about access to guns than to health care is wrongly considered a Christian nation.
 
ConnorEl said:
I'd agree that a nation that seems to care more about access to guns than to health care is wrongly considered a Christian nation.
Click to expand...

Jesus healed the sick and admonished the guy who pulled out a weapon and cut off a guard's ear in self-defense. Jesus even healed the dude's ear.

So I have a tough time believing Jesus wants us to care more about our guns than healing the sick.
 
22140945_10212106489072236_8359872008021564218_n.jpg
 
thatguy2016 said:
there really should be a national registry; the state knows about every car or house I own; they should know about every gun

I don't see how a national gun database is restricting anyone's right to keep and bear arms

obviously we're 350,000,000 guns behind in that regard so hard to see how we will catch up

A registry might have been of some use in this case; assuming a red flag went up when $100k was wired to the Philippines, that would have been a handy cross-reference
Click to expand...

If you have a searchable database of registered weapon owners, it'd be easier to cross-check criminal histories, mental health histories, and ultimately that would make it tougher for people to purchase weapons. So we can't do that.
 
WakeandBake said:
I have some gun knowledge, I own a shotgun and two long guns. They are with a friend because I have young children in the house.

I also don't want to ban all guns. I want to ban handguns, though. And these military style guns that are not used for hunting. It's not rocket science, let's not pretend that 'understanding' firearms takes an advanced degree. Some guns are used for hunting and home-defense, and some are ridiculous military style guns that are interesting devices, I guess, but that the general asshole population can't handle and should be heavily restricted if not banned. Perhaps gun clubs with strict regulation can provide individuals a controlled place to shoot a target or whatever gets their rocks off.
Click to expand...

Those military style guns of which you speak are, in most cases, basically the same as your (or common) rifles. They just look “scary.” They have the same capabilities, same ballistics, fire the same rounds, etc. That’s exactly what ELC is talking about. It’s fine that you don’t know that, but the condescending drivel is a bad look when you clearly don’t. This, right here, is a reason why progress is so difficult on this front. As Ive said all along, I’m for heavy reform but that’s never going to happen when you’re dealing with clown shoes bullshit like, “BAN ALL THOSE FULLY SEMI AUTOMATIC MILITARY ASSAULT GUNS! THE DIPSHIT REDNECKS DONT NEED EM!” Before you call for the outright ban and seizure of someone’s property, insult their intelligence, religion, and way of life, please know what you’re talking about.
 
Still hoping jh chimes in on which policy points the Pubs have scored in the last ten years or so that has benefitted society. Feel free to answer about republicans only, not democrat failures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top