Would you consider that a worthwhile trade to enact your agenda?
I think the same thing has happened many times before. In the immediate aftermath of a major shooting, there’s a feeling of “we need to do something about this”. But enacting laws takes time. Gun control opponents lay low until that feeling fades and then reassert themselves later to block legislation.
Or, conversely, gun control advocates lay low until there is a sensational tragedy then they come out of the wood work to try and capitalize on it and gather as much political hay as they can, milking it for every concession they can while the public is still angry and shocked over the event and riding on emotion. Sort of like Bush after 9/11.
No. In a country where reasonable gun control is considered equivalent to killing someone’s entire bloodline nothing’s going to change.
The term mentioned earlier was draconian gun control, not reasonable.
On this issue, people think draconian rules are reasonable, and other people think reasonable rules are draconian. How do you solve that?
I ask this with sincerity, not snarkiness: What are the reasonable controls you propose? I’m not the first person introducing this, not even in this thread. What should change?
“Draconian” is not an answer. What would you change, and answer in the context of second amendment protections. I ask that not because I’m a second amendment “gun guy.” (I’m not–I don’t own any guns.) I ask because that’s reality, in that restrictions can exist but can’t amount to a ban, not according to SCOTUS.
So, what should have been in place?
You mean like, inserting anti-gun amendments into unrelated items? Say it aint so! HR 3762, amendments right after the San Bernardino attacks, included two. The first was from Feinstein that wanted to circumvent due process and include anyone on the terror watch list as a prohibited person for NICS. That failed, 45 yes to 54 no. The second was from Toomey that reintroduced the failed Machin-Toomey bill from 2013. That failed 47 yes to 50 no. Note that the Toomey bill got 6 fewer votes than it did in 2013.
I don’t see anything changing. I expressed some of my confusion and frustration over in GD. I don’t see what meaningful restrictions can be imposed without either a rewriting of the 2d Amendment, or a Supreme Ct which is willing to read it narrowly. I wouldn’t hold my breath for any in the near future.
Moreover, I don’t see what regulations would be effective. There are already some 400 million guns out there. There is simply no likelihood that we will confiscate a significant portion of those.
And unless we get rid of the 2d Amendment, I’m not sure how we meaningfully restrict folk from buying any number of guns - which can then be sold/stolen and misused.
And I don’t know that I want our society to toss a ton of gun owners/users into jail to replace the drug offenders who may be released. IMO, our justice system does not need additional mandatory minimums. But, that is something that CAN be done. And a lot of folk benefit from pandering as being “tough on crime,” so it might be a gooid idea to buy stock in private incarceration firms! :rolleyes:
And I am not in favor of what I consider the two most likely changes - either increasing the number of weapons carried, or further restricting civil liberties under the guise of protecting against guns. I readily acknowledge that I am thrilled (and surprised) to have not seen an increase of shootings by concealed carry folk. Good on you all. But my personal opinion is that I do not feel as tho my personal safety is enhanced through the proliferation of guns in every social arena. Sorry to all you intelligent and responsible gun owners (the majority.) But I prefer my chances of only some isolated nutcase coming into my grocery store with a gun, as opposed to having a number of my fellow shoppers and store employees packing.
And I take all this Patriot Act bullshit seriously. I, for one, am not comforted by the intrusions and inconveniences that have become customary under the ostensible goal of protecting us against terrorism. But that is a lot easier to do than repealing an amendment. Those of us who value our privacy only have a penumbra in our favor! 
People (myself included) like to talk as tho they care, but generally fall short of actually changing their lives in any significant way. Look at all the progress we’re making re: global warming. Humans (myself included) tend to be lazy, selfish creatures, wishing any sacrifice to be made by others. Nothing significant is going to change. Instead, we’ll just get used to the idea that there is some chance (pretty small) that you will be the victim of random gun violence. Once the frequency of shootings gets to a certain level, it will just become background noise.
If reasonable people compromise with reasonable people, the result is somewhere in the middle where it belongs.
If reasonable gun control advocates try to compromise with lunatics who are opposed to tightening gun control for the mentally ill, and they try to remain reasonable, the result is too far toward lunacy. So, until I see the gun lunatics show any sign of being grown ups, I would say start working on as draconian rules as possible to get to the middle.
At some point we have to accept that people without a criminal background are legally entitled to guns, and sometimes these people turn into mass murderers.
This is the price of living in a free society. It’s not worth trading that in, to most Americans.
The muslim gunman had an argument with his college NICHOLAS THALASINOS which was a very religious far-right zionist from Israel.
A few days before he was killed Nicholas wrote this:
I have owned guns for over 40 years. I agree with reasonable gun control laws.
My guns generally gather dust for most of the year, until summer when i enjoy target shooting. I represent 10s of millions of of legal gun owners in the USA.
Why should I be demonized because of wackos who use guns?
And it really pisses me off when reporters or congress critters dont know shit about guns.
If you are gonna rag guns, at least know how they fucking work!
It’s not “automatic assault weapons” or “90 millimeter pistols” or like I heard today, they also had a .22 “long rifles”. come on! Not to forget what California state senator Kevin de Leon said about semi-auto rifles “has the ability with a .30 caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within a half a second."
Talk about complete lack of knowledge and bullshit. We can have a conversation but we dont need the bs
I see this a lot in my Facebook feed. Gun owners on the defensive feeling persecuted.
I don’t get it. The “melt down all guns and criminalize ownership” opinion is fringe at best and in a climate where even the “reasonable” gun laws you claim to support cannot pass, do you really think they’re gonna be coming for your guns?
I don’t know why you guys are so defensive about this. But part of the reason that shit doesn’t change is because the NRA prays on that slippery slope paranoia. Why are you (and so many like you) buying into that nonsense?
I have no paranoia that the gov is gonna take my guns, and the reasonable gun laws are already passed. What other “shit” would you prefer to be passed?
Because totalitarians don’t want that the common people should posess the means of self-defense. This is a common thread that unites them.
Left, right, commie-nazi fascist whatever, they all agreed (or agree) on that. Insert the name of your favorite mass-murdering dictator in the last century - hundred million dead (not counting the wars mind you).
The demonization of the NRA doesn’t make any sense. If the government was concerned about terrorism - they would be encouraging civilian firearms ownership and training, the borders would not be wide open to millions of illegals. It’s difficult to take them seriously.
I agree, eliminate the gun show loophole, uh, outlaw 30 rd magazines, we would agree on a lot of things but one thing im not is defensive
that was for stamos
the thing is, as a law abiding gun owner your proposals to me are kinda ridiculous, why cant i have a 30 round mag,for my ar 15, it will never be used for mayhem, who are you outlawing?
Two radical, fanatical, Muslims created pipe bombs in their pipe bomb factory in order to murder civilians. Nope, nothing has changed.