People are absolutely looking at this the wrong way -- there is one simple thing that would change A LOT of shit that goes down in the U.S. and it has nothing to do with bump stocks, assault weapon definitions, gun bans, etc.:
Remove the special legal protections enjoyed by gun manufacturers, sellers and resellers. #plcaa #onebadapple #outofbusiness #libertariansolution
Next question?
That's what I've been saying for a while. If they had any idea back then of the level of destruction current weapons would create, I'm sure they would have put more limits in the amendment.Originally Posted by balki
I think we could still address #3 reasonably. There's no reason anyone should need more than a few guns. If you are truly using them for hunting or defense, there's no reason for a magazine larger than 10 rounds. If you need more than that to defend yourself, or you don't hit your target, something else is wrong that a gun isn't going to solve.
Yearly registration and increased taxes would help. Cigarettes get taxed for public health risks. It seems reasonable to me that guns be taxed the same way. With how much it costs to treat gun shot victims (There are 58 in critical care, and 317 have been discharged in Las Vegas). A weapon designed to kill living beings should not come free with opening a checking account. Or be sold to kids. It should be serious life defining decisions that costs more than a new TV.
These aren't unreasonable suggestions. It is just that one side of our legislation is beholden to the $$$ of the NRA.
Most Americans support gun control laws. But, the NRA doesn't and pays Congress to vote against it. And the do.
Imagine if we didn't allow our politicians to be bought and paid for. Maybe they'd actually vote for what the people wanted, instead of who paid them the most.
The amount of power the NRA has is absolutely ridiculous.
Before I start I want to re-focus the group as a whole. Do you want to look at this shooting as an outlier, or do you want to consider it for the summation of the discussion. I ask because it is a relevant point to consider. He was white, wealthy, had almost everything he could want, and decided to murder and harm as many people as possible in a very violent way. Compared to the other mass shootings, which had a motive that could be traced to a scenario where when can actually try to understand and address issues that are being over-looked (i.e bullying and Columbine, et al.). This is something that must be considered. His attack is very different from what has happened in the past.
I don't think they would. I say this because the purpose was created to be able to rise against the government. Before you jump to conclusions, think about the majority of our armed forces. Most of them are Right wing, anti-big government. Many of them have said on a regular basis they would stand against the Government if the government started to turn against it's people. I'll leave the open to interpretation because we would need to look at how many would actually have the balls to go against the government, and how many would actually think that the oppression of a group of Americans would necessitate the need to do so.
I will stop you right here. Kids cannot purchase firearms from dealers. Nor can an individual sell a handgun or handgun ammunition to a person under 18.I think we could still address #3 reasonably. There's no reason anyone should need more than a few guns. If you are truly using them for hunting or defense, there's no reason for a magazine larger than 10 rounds. If you need more than that to defend yourself, or you don't hit your target, something else is wrong that a gun isn't going to solve.
Yearly registration and increased taxes would help. Cigarettes get taxed for public health risks. It seems reasonable to me that guns be taxed the same way. With how much it costs to treat gun shot victims (There are 58 in critical care, and 317 have been discharged in Las Vegas). A weapon designed to kill living beings should not come free with opening a checking account. Or be sold to kids.
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/pol...n/minimum-age/ The issue you are getting into is trying to throw everything at the situation at once. Let's work on ONE thing at a time. The scenarios that happen most often in the shootings are not kids shooting each other. However, I understand what you are trying to say and do. Now, because Hunting is a huge past-time in the sticks across the US, and mostly because a lot of the families that hunt do so to help mitigate the cost of food. Also, because of the cost of living, most of these families spend time together in this exact reason. Dads are usually working long hours in a blue collar role and seldom get to spend time with the kids. They do so like this because this is how their family has done it for generations. I do not think this is the path you should even consider chasing, because you will simply be chasing your tail on it.
All of my guns I have purchased have cost more than any TV i have purchased (<600$) some are over 1500. Most of my friends who are gun owners have more guns that are well over 1500$ than guns that are under it. Does that suffice to fit your bill?It should be serious life defining decisions that costs more than a new TV.
I disagree here. Most of the people you know and interact with support gun control laws. However, if so many people were on your idea of the spectrum, why is Donald Trump our president? There are many more people that are very Pro-2nd than that aren't. I return to the saying, and not to say you are shallow/simple because I know you aren't “A shallow brook is noisy while a wide, deep river is silent and moves with majesty.”These aren't unreasonable suggestions. It is just that one side of our legislation is beholden to the $$$ of the NRA.
Most Americans support gun control laws. But, the NRA doesn't and pays Congress to vote against it. And the do.
Again, I disagree. The people who are voted into power push their agenda. Diane Feinstein is a great example, her people elect her over and over, and she continues the anti-2nd move. Because her agenda is anti-gun. Tom Coburn on the other hand was elected and is very Pro-Gun, probably the most pro-gun in Congress. He has said repeatedly that he will continue to fight for gun rights.Imagine if we didn't allow our politicians to be bought and paid for. Maybe they'd actually vote for what the people wanted, instead of who paid them the most.
I hope my points don't sound as attacks, because they are not meant as such.
Other than he fits the typical 'quiet' guy profile, this shooting is rather strange.
Have you guys seen the conspiracy theories coming from the right?
It is kinda odd how an accountant can be so wealthy and high rolling so frequently at various casinos...
It's just very difficult for me to believe this is the work of a single loner.
This is indeed very different what mass shootings of the past.
Eager to find out what really happened there... and does 2nd amendment really make any difference in this attack?
Which is exactly why guns are the problem.
(also, "re-focus the group"You're cute. You know that's our M.O.)
"The military favoring Republicans may be largely a myth — mostly based on an unscientific poll done through the Military Times that favored senior officers and NCOs."
"It is true that the upper echelons of the military tilt right. My own research confirmed that about two-thirds of majors and higher-ranking officers identify as conservative, as previous studies found. But that tilt becomes far less pronounced when you expand the pool of respondents. That is because only 32 percent of the Army’s enlisted soldiers consider themselves conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and the remaining 45 percent are self-described moderates. These numbers closely mirror the ideological predilections of the civilian population."
I also believe it's a myth that republicans are anti-big government. There is nothing in their actions that represents that notion. They only suggest it in order to appease the more Libertarians in their base. They never actually act on it.
But, in regards to the original comment. Our country didn't have a sufficient military (or police force) in 1791. At the time the amendment was put in place, it was considered to be everyone's duty to protect their own. It was a different day and age. IMO, the whole 2nd amendment needs to be updated. I know I'm dreaming, but things change. And we need to change with the times.
You know what I mean.
G&A Basics: How to Choose Your Child’s First Gun
I know what you mean about hunting. I went a few times myself. And I'm perfectly fine with hunting. But, I did not take 45 guns, or an AR-15 with 934857193847 rounds of ammo. As with everything there needs to be a compromise. There's no need for the kind of firepower available to people (i.e. Vegas).
And I would imagine most of your friends are nice, sensible people. But, the fact that someone with a grudge could go to a gun show with a few hundred $$$ and walk away the same day with something meant to end another beings life is not something I take lightly.
Common sense gun laws are very different than anti-2nd amendment.
Polling shows that nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members "support requiring background checks for all gun sales." You can support the 2nd amendment and common sense gun laws. It's not all or the other, like some people would have you believe.
My point is that Congress doesn't represent the people as much as who pays them to vote a certain way.
I.E. "Coburn, one of the Senate’s most vocal pro-gun voices, has received $26,500 from gun rights organizations over his career. This total places him near the middle of the pack in terms of career receipts from the gun lobby."
The other problem is that the country is so divided now that if the left suggests anything regarding gun control, the right jumps all over it as "stripping our 2nd amendment rights!!!"
They don't, and I know that you are among our more level-headed members.
Yeah, I think the original wording was left intentionally vague. Having no Federal taxes and thus having no funds with which to support a military and little law outside of population centers it was important that average citizens be prepared. Doubly, at the time, we had just called on citizens to fight off the British. To then write up a document that demanded everyone hand in or limit their weapons? Not. Gonna. Happen. Even if the Founding Fathers magically knew AK47s were in the pipeline in 1791 there was no way they could have written laws to limit gun ownership. People wouldn't have gone for it, it was completely unenforceable, and it would have been wholly unsafe.
We lack the courage to do it. It's that simple.
Straya did it. UK did it. (Guns still legal for farmers, hunting etc) we just don't have the courage or the backbone to do it.
And everyday the ERs have people in them for GSW or related, inflating the cost of our healthcare. you go into the ER with a GSW you go straight to the front of the line at triage. People with other medical issues are getting sidelined to treat gunshot wounds so we can keep stroking our egos.
I wouldn't say stroking our egos... This is some sort of religion for these folks, a cult like fanatical religion. There will not be an event that changes their minds, they will not give up their guns... they've been convinced that they need their guns... for protection, that a good guy with a gun, can stop a bad guy, that they are protecting themselves from a tyrannical government, that they are protecting the United States from foreign invasion... and you know what... it all sounds pretty ridiculous... and yet these are core beliefs as humans.... I just don't know how these people will change their minds.
Never easy to change minds, but trends can certainly change
Smoking was not only addictive but also considered very cool and fashionable... so it was not very easy to change the minds of smokers back in the days...
After enough blood shed due to the spray of these '2nd hand' bullets, I'm pretty sure eventually the tide will change... or I hope... sooner or later, people should cease to think being a coward mass shooter is something they should emulate...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
