Gun Violence

Jaw said:
It's proof that the gnashing of teeth over high capacity mags and "assault rifles" is either dishonest or ignorant. The real goal is incremental castration of the Second Amendment.

My take is that Canada and Western Europe have lower murder rates due to less social unrest, superior lower income culture, and better economic policy.
Click to expand...

I guess I just wonder if that point about high capacity mags is somewhat undercut by the fact it shows guns are what we’re using to murder people at a higher rate than any country that we might want to be compared to.

I also agree there are a variety of reasons the murder rate is higher and that it’s not just guns. However, I don’t think there is ever a real action proposed and taken after these events to address underlying societal issues. We just have a gun debate and move on.
 
One side doesn’t want to address the underlying social issues. They just scream racism and end any real discussion.
 
thethe said:
One side doesn’t want to address the underlying social issues. They just scream racism and end any real discussion.
Click to expand...

Neither side wants to have a real discussion. The other side wants to complain about claims of racism and identity politics just as much.
 
mqt said:
Neither side wants to have a real discussion. The other side wants to complain about claims of racism and identity politics just as much.
Click to expand...

One sides core position is to continue to erode liberty

The other sides core position is to play defense.

The right never tries to expand gun rights. They are always playing defense and that is why they are losing
 
mqt said:
I guess I just wonder if that point about high capacity mags is somewhat undercut by the fact it shows guns are what we’re using to murder people at a higher rate than any country that we might want to be compared to.

I also agree there are a variety of reasons the murder rate is higher and that it’s not just guns. However, I don’t think there is ever a real action proposed and taken after these events to address underlying societal issues. We just have a gun debate and move on.
Click to expand...

My feeling on it is that there is room for compromise, but there's no trust for it. Plenty of the gun banners would just continue to whittle away any existing rights after some restrictions were put in place, plenty of NRA types would continue to fight for the lifting of any restrictions.

The flimsy court interpretations of the Second Amendment are to blame. I think an amendment to that amendment is necessary for any progress. Clearly and specifically state exactly what jurisdiction the federal, state, and local governments have, clearly state exactly what rights cannot be infringed on, state policy on mag capacity, suppressors, bump stocks, gun and ammo taxes, etc. Lay it all out there in a way that guarantees the other side isn't going to screw over each side.

For myself, I can't see what business it is of the feds in the first place, but I'm also one of those weirdos that didn't cross out the 10th Amendment of my Constitution.
 
sturg33 said:
One sides core position is to continue to erode liberty

The other sides core position is to play defense.

The right never tries to expand gun rights. They are always playing defense and that is why they are losing
Click to expand...

Lol

Other than literally just giving guns away

What way can they expand gun rights?

They say mental heath is the reason for shootings and get rid of checks for that

Their position is at odds of what 90% of people want in this country

Freedom, liberty, communist, tyranny etc

You really only use like 9 words man. It’s like you cosplay your position as if you live in th 1700’s Lol
 
goldfly said:
Lol

Other than literally just giving guns away

What way can they expand gun rights?

They say mental heath is the reason for shootings and get rid of checks for that

Their position is at odds of what 90% of people want in this country

Freedom, liberty, communist, tyranny etc

You really only use like 9 words man. It’s like you cosplay your position as if you live in th 1700’s Lol
Click to expand...

Allow out of state purchases
Allow online purchases directly to consumer
National Constitutional carry
Remove background check fees
Remove the silly lead bullet ban
Stop selling used brass at a loss to China to jack up US ammo costs
Remove NFA tax on suppressors
Remove SBR classification
Remove ban on full auto production and imports

I have to be missing some low hanging fruit but that's a decent start.
 
Of course, that's all pretending that the 2A was intended to guarantee the right to only guns, despite the fact that it says arms, and that several of the delegates owned cannons.
 
Jaw said:
Allow out of state purchases
Allow online purchases directly to consumer
National Constitutional carry
Remove background check fees
Remove the silly lead bullet ban
Stop selling used brass at a loss to China to jack up US ammo costs
Remove NFA tax on suppressors
Remove SBR classification
Remove ban on full auto production and imports

I have to be missing some low hanging fruit but that's a decent start.
Click to expand...

ok

i guess they could do these things to make sure gun problems and our insane fetish for guns gets worse

but they are things they could do to expand gun "rights" i guess
 
Jaw said:
Of course, that's all pretending that the 2A was intended to guarantee the right to only guns, despite the fact that it says arms, and that several of the delegates owned cannons.
Click to expand...

no doubt

we should be able to get an rpg with no background check

freedom and liberty
 
The second amendment is pretty clear. While there's explanation as to it's reasoning, the amendment itself is pretty explicit that people have the right to keep an bear arms. It's not an absolute right as no right is absolute but it is a clear limitation on government and that must be respected.

However, there is a method of changing that. The Constitution could be amended to allow Congress the power to greater regulate or ban firearm ownership. The problem is that this idea isn't popular enough to succeed yet.

One of the problems in our country is people don't want to go through the difficult process to get their way. They want a quick and simple victory. They want the SCOTUS to issue a ruling or a statute to be passed based on a simple majority. This sentiment completely ignores the other consequences. I always strongly caution people not to be quick to give away rights they don't care about because if they allow the Government the power to take the right they don't care about, the power can be used to take away rights they do care about.

Do the difficult thing. Change minds, build coalitions, look for compromise. A measured, well considered step rarely errs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
striker42 said:
The second amendment is pretty clear. While there's explanation as to it's reasoning, the amendment itself is pretty explicit that people have the right to keep an bear arms. It's not an absolute right as no right is absolute but it is a clear limitation on government and that must be respected.

However, there is a method of changing that. The Constitution could be amended to allow Congress the power to greater regulate or ban firearm ownership. The problem is that this idea isn't popular enough to succeed yet.

One of the problems in our country is people don't want to go through the difficult process to get their way. They want a quick and simple victory. They want the SCOTUS to issue a ruling or a statute to be passed based on a simple majority. This sentiment completely ignores the other consequences. I always strongly caution people not to be quick to give away rights they don't care about because if they allow the Government the power to take the right they don't care about, the power can be used to take away rights they do care about.

Do the difficult thing. Change minds, build coalitions, look for compromise. A measured, well considered step rarely errs.
Click to expand...

mental illness is a pretty large loophole that the states and the federal government could avail themselves of in a more comprehensive manner
 
nsacpi said:
mental illness is a pretty large loophole that the states and the federal government could avail themselves of in a more comprehensive manner
Click to expand...

Mental illness is absolutely something that the government could address. The first step would be actually working to fix the mental healthcare system in the US. It is messed up. But the government could also very likely take mental illness into account with gun ownership. You have a fundamental right to freedom of movement but people are locked up all the time due to mental illness. For their own safety and the safety of others. The same likely could legally be done with gun ownership.

But that brings us to our next hurdle, the radicalization of American politics. A relatively small, targeted piece of legislation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (more for their own safety than the safety of others given suicide numbers) is something that shouldn't be that controversial. The problem is the political parties have radicalized to the point that compromise on an issue like gun control is tantamount to heresy.

An attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would be met with cries of it being the first step to banning guns or cries that every gun owner will be declared mentally ill or that conditions like anxiety or minor depression would result in loss of guns. So let's say the enterprising legislators try to put in some language strengthening gun rights for non-mentally ill people. The attempt at that compromise would be met with cries that strengthening gun rights is moving in the wrong direction. That it will cost lives and stronger action needs to be taken.

It never ceases to amaze me how short sighted people are. If people actually worked together to address one issue at a time in a steady, incremental way, you'd end up far, far better off than the partisan tug of war that leads nowhere we currently are seeing. But everything is a zero sum game these days.
 
striker42 said:
Mental illness is absolutely something that the government could address. The first step would be actually working to fix the mental healthcare system in the US. It is messed up. But the government could also very likely take mental illness into account with gun ownership. You have a fundamental right to freedom of movement but people are locked up all the time due to mental illness. For their own safety and the safety of others. The same likely could legally be done with gun ownership.

But that brings us to our next hurdle, the radicalization of American politics. A relatively small, targeted piece of legislation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (more for their own safety than the safety of others given suicide numbers) is something that shouldn't be that controversial. The problem is the political parties have radicalized to the point that compromise on an issue like gun control is tantamount to heresy.

An attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would be met with cries of it being the first step to banning guns or cries that every gun owner will be declared mentally ill or that conditions like anxiety or minor depression would result in loss of guns. So let's say the enterprising legislators try to put in some language strengthening gun rights for non-mentally ill people. The attempt at that compromise would be met with cries that strengthening gun rights is moving in the wrong direction. That it will cost lives and stronger action needs to be taken.

It never ceases to amaze me how short sighted people are. If people actually worked together to address one issue at a time in a steady, incremental way, you'd end up far, far better off than the partisan tug of war that leads nowhere we currently are seeing. But everything is a zero sum game these days.
Click to expand...

It's like immigration and other issues. Do you want it as a political football or do you want to do something constructive.
 
Yeah, when you say "help" people with mental illnesses you know thats going to go terrible right? The two best steps they could take to combat mental illness are to stop flooding the news with the name and picture of the killer and to stop mass incarcerating people for BS. Neither of those things will be their "solution" to the problem. They will pour gasoline on the fire then blame lack of funding as the reason the problem gets worse.
 
striker42 said:
Mental illness is absolutely something that the government could address. The first step would be actually working to fix the mental healthcare system in the US. It is messed up. But the government could also very likely take mental illness into account with gun ownership. You have a fundamental right to freedom of movement but people are locked up all the time due to mental illness. For their own safety and the safety of others. The same likely could legally be done with gun ownership.

But that brings us to our next hurdle, the radicalization of American politics. A relatively small, targeted piece of legislation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (more for their own safety than the safety of others given suicide numbers) is something that shouldn't be that controversial. The problem is the political parties have radicalized to the point that compromise on an issue like gun control is tantamount to heresy.

An attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would be met with cries of it being the first step to banning guns or cries that every gun owner will be declared mentally ill or that conditions like anxiety or minor depression would result in loss of guns. So let's say the enterprising legislators try to put in some language strengthening gun rights for non-mentally ill people. The attempt at that compromise would be met with cries that strengthening gun rights is moving in the wrong direction. That it will cost lives and stronger action needs to be taken.

It never ceases to amaze me how short sighted people are. If people actually worked together to address one issue at a time in a steady, incremental way, you'd end up far, far better off than the partisan tug of war that leads nowhere we currently are seeing. But everything is a zero sum game these days.
Click to expand...

Before I got to the next to last paragraph, I was thinking of a psych professional I once saw questioned about mental illness and guns.
What should we do, he was asked.
Simple, he says. Don't allow mentally ill people to purchase guns.
Then the interviewer asks how do we determine who is mentally ill?
Simple again, he says. Anyone crazy enough to want to own a gun is obviously mentally ill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top