Gun Control - A what-if scenario

[atilla]

Afraid of something that can't and will never exist? That makes sense. It makes as much sense as believing in a world as real as Middle Earth and mocking anyone who lives in reality. It means you're off your rocker, so rather than continue this nonsense...

it will never exist because of the people like you who quite possibly would do fine in the world who are afraid of trying to make it happen, who still run to the government for protection and security, the people like you are not actually the enemy, but you are in love with the enemies of freedom.

a freedom enema would be awesome, you should try it.

 

[Periphery]

it will never exist because of the people like you who quite possibly would do fine in the world who are afraid of trying to make it happen, who still run to the government for protection and security, the people like you are not actually the enemy, but you are in love with the enemies of freedom.

a freedom enema would be awesome, you should try it.

Yes, I am actively stopping your magical fantasy land from happening. Actually, your dream is more in line with what socialists want...interesting...

Time to get a grip, and time for me to stop going in circles.

 

[atilla]

Yes, I am actively stopping your magical fantasy land from happening. Actually, your dream is more in line with what socialists want...interesting...

Time to get a grip, and time for me to stop going in circles.

how is it in line with what socialists want? i've been called an anarchist quite a few times on here... but socialist is a new one.

because i would be happier without the state micro-managing my life i'm a socialist?

lol wut.

 

[beriky]

I would say yes with a caveat: Eliminate tax stamps for SBRs, suppressors, SBSs, eliminate import restrictions and reopen the machine gun registry. Then, I'd gladly sign up for a license and/or background check. Essentially, we could own anything we wanted.

 

[teaser452]

Everyone here agrees with this. The point is, if you refuse to compromise, you don't necessarily get everything you want. Look at Mass, do you see our laws going away any time soon? I don't. So refusing to compromise gets you nothing in Mass.

Compromising is what caused us to be in this situation in MA. Common sense gun laws restricting the second amendment. There can be no compromise on The constitution and the black letter law.

 

[atilla]

Compromising is what caused us to be in this situation in MA. Common sense gun laws restricting the second amendment. There can be no compromise on The constitution and the black letter law.

MA and elsewhere! federally even.

FOPA86 was supposed to be good for gun owners, yet reagan at the last minute allowed congress to slip in just the tip in the form of the hughes amendment and FOPA86 ended up being one of the worst pieces of anti-gun legislation in american history.

THANKS, REAGAN.

 

[wahsben]

Until the next shooting when they use the registry to demand you turn them all in and if you don't they know where you live and what you own.

I would say yes with a caveat: Eliminate tax stamps for SBRs, suppressors, SBSs, eliminate import restrictions and reopen the machine gun registry. Then, I'd gladly sign up for a license and/or background check. Essentially, we could own anything we wanted.

 

[wahsben]

The govt. does not belong in gun control, in fact they are specifically restricted by the 2A from infringing upon the RKBA. We can have govt. just a constitutional one instead of a criminal one.

Yeah I forgot if you're for anything other than a no government world you're a "state fellator". That's insanity. Sorry, some of us live in the real world not in fantasy land where we think non-existent hypothetical universes exist.

 

[endus]

I was reading a good writeup by a professional thinker re: VW and he brought up a really good point. Most people today don't really understand how things work. Do you really *know* how a diesel engine works, or why diesel cars get better mileage? It's not because they are more efficient, it's because diesel is more energy dense, and volume(mpg) is not an accurate way to compare a diesel vs gas engine wrt energy efficiency.

The application to the gun discussion (and lots of other subjects) is that the world has become much more complex than many people's ability to comprehend in a detailed and meaningful way, yet people still want to think they understand things. Consequently, they apply models and information that is not only inadequate, but is actually inaccurate.

Yes.

What's funny is, guns really are pretty simple machines, but like we saw in Zappa's recent thread....people can't even change a tire now.

But I agree completely. I think the stock market and finance in general are an excellent example of this. People argue about them, but boiled down to a very simplistic model that they can understand. I do it too, for sure, I couldn't hope to understand all the trash they've thought up over the years.

Computers, which I do understand, are the same way. The rhetoric in congress about computer security is so cringe-worthy.

 

[endus]

Except that you WON'T satisfy people who think that background checks work, specifically becase they DON'T work.

I've said it repeatedly on this forum and I'll say it again. Our government is DELIBERATELY not doing it's job, which is to keep KNOWN violent people removed from from free society. By instituting a background check system (which by definition only works to flag those people the government ALREADY KNOWS are a danger to society), the government is telling it's people FLAT OUT that it is unwilling to do it's job. The people of this country need to understand this, and to demand the government REMOVE THESE VIOLENT PEOPLE FROM SOCIETY, UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY ARE NO LONGER A THREAT TO FREE PEOPLE!!!

It's so simple, and yet very few people understand that we aren't even having the right debate. It should be about STOPPING VIOLENT CRIME, and not about guns at all.

Now with regard to stopping people who suddenly "snap' but have no prior record of violence, there truly is no way to prevent this from happening in the first place. It is simply a risk that is inherent in a liberty-loving free society. That said, the damage caused by such individuals can be minimized when law-abiding citizens have the means to shoot back and aren't legally restrained from doing so.

I agree about targeting violence, but what I don't see is how that is simple. They've incarcerated a retarded amount of people at this point. Targeting gangs hasn't worked. For mass shootings, there isn't really a way to address it criminally.

I posted this after reading an article on what they are doing, "threat assessment" teams that attempt to intervene early on. It sounds like it may not be a bad solution, as long as they do not overreach. The goal seems to be to get people into mental health services and otherwise divert them from violence, so not overreaching is at least possible. What's tricky is the long term...its hard for those teams to continue to intervene as the person gets older.

That gets into questions about mental healthcare in the U.S. which I would totally discuss, but it's a thread for another time.

 

[endus]

People don't live in reality apparently. For simply being realistic they get angry and foam at the mouth.

That's the other thing I'm interested in, and I have to say I have actually been impressed by the thread.

I get second amendment absolutists and I don't think they're "wrong", but I also think that what they want is, in all practicality, a pipe dream even if the SHTF and we had a new libertarian government. I just don't think it would last long, unfortunately.

I think what a lot of people in this thread are saying, though, is that 1.) They see absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust the left or willingness from the left to actually try to come to a compromise they will stick to, 2.) That the left won't even talk intelligently about the subject, and you really can't go any further under those circumstances, BUT 3.) Were 1 and 2 somehow magically fixed, compromise is not completely unthinkable. For most people it would involve more wins for pro-gun than I mentioned, but it's not unthinkable.

 

[wahsben]

A compromise is when all parties involved give up something. Tell me what are the antis giving up?

Why do you think people compromise? If they could get everything they wanted, nobody would compromise.

 

[Rider]

A compromise is when all parties involved give up something. Tell me what are the antis giving up?

They give up not taking more this time around.

 

[wahsben]

They've incarcerated many people for minor crimes and there are many that have committed major crimes that get short sentences or no sentences because of plea bargaining. Take the known gangs off the street. Allow people the ability to defend themselves instead of making them worry about prosecution after defense of themselves or others from violence. Dangerous/violent people should be removed from society either through incarceration, institutionalized or by receiving justice from their intended victim/s.

I agree about targeting violence, but what I don't see is how that is simple. They've incarcerated a retarded amount of people at this point. Targeting gangs hasn't worked. For mass shootings, there isn't really a way to address it criminally.

I posted this after reading an article on what they are doing, "threat assessment" teams that attempt to intervene early on. It sounds like it may not be a bad solution, as long as they do not overreach. The goal seems to be to get people into mental health services and otherwise divert them from violence, so not overreaching is at least possible. What's tricky is the long term...its hard for those teams to continue to intervene as the person gets older.

That gets into questions about mental healthcare in the U.S. which I would totally discuss, but it's a thread for another time.

 

[Billsail]

As lively as this discussion has become, lets face it, they will never "compromise". This thread is moot.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Yeah, no kidding. People in this thread think there will be some kind of compromise or negotiation? They're insane. Anti-2A fanatics aren't going to offer jackshit, they're going to demand more and more laws every chance they get.

And why the f^&* should we compromise? We put up with decades of horseshit laws being passed and now we're winning. Let's keep challenging existing laws and gaining more ground.

The anti-2A crowd can kiss the hairiest part of my ass. Weebs doesn't negotiate.

 

[wahsben]

That's why we should tell them to go *&&^ themselves.

They give up not taking more this time around.

 

[Rider]

That's why we should tell them to go *&&^ themselves.

The silly thing about this topic is that the left is framing this as the common sense folks(them) vs the 2A Extremists(TM). But it is really quite simple The people who are paying attention are not dumb enough to negotiate with someone in bad faith. Unlike Obama, who is generally viewed as pathetic and weak by everyone (not a liberal American) we on the 2A side know better than to engage in a negotiation we can only lose. Only an idiot would negotiate a nuclear weapons deal that ensures that your enemy gets the thing you are trying to prevent. And only an idiot would agree to give up some rights in exchange for , um, giving up other rights.

I reckon I should stop posting in this thread. It seems most of what I am saying is falling on deaf ears, or else is preaching to the converted.

 

[Come and take]

I can't believe members voted yes on this.

Damn Fudd's.

 

[bigblue]

Where's the FUDD b Gone spray?

 

[wahsben]

Yup, if the approximately 80 million gun owners would just tell the antis to go screw we wouldn't be where we are today. Unfortunately there are too many that believe in so called reasonable restrictions. There is nothing reasonable about giving up your rights.
Also there is no common sense in leaving all the firepower in the hands of criminals, madmen and tyrants.

The silly thing about this topic is that the left is framing this as the common sense folks(them) vs the 2A Extremists(TM). But it is really quite simple The people who are paying attention are not dumb enough to negotiate with someone in bad faith. Unlike Obama, who is generally viewed as pathetic and weak by everyone (not a liberal American) we on the 2A side know better than to engage in a negotiation we can only lose. Only an idiot would negotiate a nuclear weapons deal that ensures that your enemy gets the thing you are trying to prevent. And only an idiot would agree to give up some rights in exchange for , um, giving up other rights.

I reckon I should stop posting in this thread. It seems most of what I am saying is falling on deaf ears, or else is preaching to the converted.

 

[fishgutzy]

Gun laws only restrict the law abiding. Criminal in MA don't care about mag limits or permits.
In fact, due to MA's well known non reciprocity with other states, criminals know that their safest targets are people driving cars with out of state plates.
I'd be screwed if I ever drove into MA with any of my firearms. Add to that my NC plates making me a target.
In the absence of constitutional carry nation wide, any 'reciprocity' bill would have include making it legal for my to carry or otherwise possess any firearm/magazine in any state that is legal in my home state regardless any state level regulations where I travel.
My brother-in-law from MA can carry concealed in my home state because my state recognizes permits from all states regardless reciprocity. And if he wants to carry any on my "illegal large capacity" firearms while visiting, he can. But I have to go unarmed to MA.