Again, I ask: Why are you concerned with *violent gun use rates *as opposed to violent crime rates?
If the gun death rate went down by 20% but the murder rate stayed the same, that wouldnt really be a improvement.
None of which you are actually working toward.
Deaths that would not have occurred without such a ready means to perform them don’t count? Sorry, your reason is that they undercut your position, not that it’s a diversion.
Fear of death or crippling injury is hardly irrational. The combination, again, of guns *and *assholes/idiots (not guns by themselves, that’s a strawman) is a very real risk.
While *you *deal with *your *fear of Bad Guys by carrying a lucky charm with you? Even though it’s one that has a good chance of getting YOU killed?
Also again, the total gun ban you’re punching is another strawman. Shouldn’t your need to resort to them tell you something?
Yes. In your minds. Thank you.
Yes. But whose fault is that?
How do you know? Actually I am quite politically active. I was a City Commissioner for decades.
Sure, which is why people buy guns to protect themselves.
So, what sort of ban or limits do* you *propose?
The Constitution guarantees that the National Guard (and, by reasonable extension, the entire military and the police; they were essentially the same when written) will be armed, and under the regulation of We The People via the government we have established as the tool for doing things together. Fine, no argument. We can also agree that some people want or need to hunt for meat, or protect livestock from predators. Those who like to punch little holes in paper with items that can’t do more than sting, sure, enjoy.
Any other claim for the ownership of a tool of death as a right has the burden of support. You’re misstating the grounds of the question. Now *you *tell *us *why anything more than that requires civilization accepting the inherent danger to life that is the purpose of these things.
As for the comment about “you” in regard to mental health, that was of course referring to the overall gun lobby, who indeed does nothing about what they say they’re in favor of in that regard. If you’ve personally done something, good for you and thanks. It especially was intended to point out that anyone who claims to want to keep the mentally ill from having guns, while both supporting the current administration’s efforts to permit it anyway, or supporting shall-issue policies in general, is lying.
No, actually, historically “the militia” was every able bodied (white) man, who owned their own gun and could be called up. The right to own your own gun is part of the right of a militia.
I am not part of the Gun Lobby. In no way do i support the NRA.
You already cant own guns if you are mentally ill. what are you talking about?
The NRA worked towards higher sentencing for use of a gun during a felony.
Shall issue? What’s wrong with that? You still have to pass a background check, etc. The deal with “shall issue” is that local governments, such as LA county wont be allowed to only issue CWP to celebrities or buddies of the Elected officials.
**But again- what "reasonable’ gun controls do you propose? **
I know your rule, and sometimes, it is even right on some very rare occasions. However in this case was actually asking you what your point was, as you didn’t give one. What kind of conclusion can I reach from you objecting to the requirement that people own gun safes, other than that you don’t think that people should be required to have gun safes?
You mean, asking to actually explain your position, rather than to just make a assertion and let it stand?
If people think that you are implying something with your statements, and that is not what you are implying, then it is your fault for being unclear, not the fault of others for trying to understand you.
In what way? In that I take what you said to its natural, conclusion?" That I ask you what you meant? That I tell you that what I am getting out of your posts is a certain implication, and I ask you if that is the implication that you are intending?
Just being defensive and getting angry that people ask you to elaborate on your meaning is a habit that I have noticed in your posts. It is a way of avoiding the discussion, but it is not productive in the slightest.
Until your accusation there, I had not thought that it was something that you were doing on purpose, but now that you have made such an accusation that borders on calling me a troll, I have to wonder how much of that is projection on your part.
And to imply that you never put words into other posters mouths would be an extremely disingenuous claim on your part.
See, here is how you would answer something like that.
No, it is not unreasonable to follow SCOTUS rulings and the constitution. However, it is entirely reasonable to voice an opinion that is not in agreement with the interpretations that SCOTUS has made of the constitution.
Had you actually believed that that was a belief of mine, now you would know better. I answered your question with candor and honesty, something that you seem to do your best to avoid.
[/quote]
So you’re saying that a hypothetical requires magic, and anything that represents a realistic scenario can’t be a hypothetical?
[/quote]
Once again, I assume that you are playing your little game again, but no, what I am saying is that, in the case that a hypothetical relies on unlikely or even impossible conditions, questioning those conditions is questioning the hypothetical, which is avoiding the entirety of the point of the hypothetical. It is a dodge, it is not an honest answer, and it is the opposite of productive debate.
This one is so counterfactual and absurd that I’m not even sure what it is that you are trying to imply here. You said that there were no democrats who were not for heavy gun control. I challenged that. Now you are saying something about true scotsman. I think that you are having trouble with logic while you are playing your silly little game here.
Well, you said anything not firearm related, and I misunderstood that to mean anything not firearm related.
I threw out “open borders” because that is something that right wingers think that us lefties desire, and that I know that you would never agree to.
Should we be going into true negotiation, then what I would really like is a UHC, because then, when I get shot by one of your buddies playing with his toys, I am not on the hook for potentially unlimited medical expenses.
By concentrating on the likely hood of the hypothetical, rather than the actual effects of it, you are dismissing it without a thought. You want to treat the contemptuous dismissal of a hypothetical on the grounds that it is a hypothetical as something other than mockery, then that’s all you.
It sounds like california is doing a bunch of stuff to try to get as much anti-gun legislation as the courts will allow to pass 2A muster. If 2A were a bit changed or reinterpretted, then it would actually be much easier to pass reasonable gun laws. What they can do isn’t enough to promote public safety, so they do everything they can, even though it’s not enough, and even though some of it causes more harm than good. Once again, it is the stubbornness of your own allies in this argument who cause you to suffer from the will of the voters of the state that you chose to reside in.
But you’re trying to interpret it in a way that is indistinguishable from “gang”.
Then you could help yourself by pointing out where you differ from them. Until then, though.
Sure you can. What are YOU talking about?
To the extent one is actually done. How much is that? Does it screen out the mentally ill, for instance? Hint: We’ve already established that it doesn’t.
I think you know better.
There are none that you would consider reasonable, are there? I did already try to engage you in a discussion of what valid reasons there *are *for gun ownership, but you won’t go there.
I support Constitutional gun control measures. Which I have mentioned several times in this thread, alone, not to mention many times elsewhere.
If a Judge, after a hearing, says you are mentally unfit , you can’t own or buy a gun. Your cite even admits this. What was attempted was to rule that anyone who accepted SocSec disability for mental issues couldn’t own a gun. And that was fiercely opposed by the ACLU, as they want, as do I- adequate due process.
Yes, the system does screen out those who-after adequate due process - are adjudged mentally ill. Just because you file for SocSec disability you are not : who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.
Here’s what I would like to see- a ban on bump stocks. A requirement that if you sell more than three guns a year, you have to use a cheap, easy background check. And that said background checks be very easy to get- any police station for a fee of $15, and the buyer signing a form saying he consents- comes back with a yes/No in minutes. If you sell less than three gun, you must photocopy the identification of the buyer and keep for three years.
I have many times posted what are valid reasons for gun ownership- hunting, self defense, target shooting, collecting , olympic sports, needed for your job (security, etc), cowboy action shooting, etc.
But for the third time:what "reasonable’ gun controls do you propose? YOU.
Do you not understand the simple idea that if most guns are banned, gun manufacturing would plummet, and only enough guns for those who are still lawfully able to own them would be produced? Over time, the guns already owned by others who are now in illegal possession of them would would wear out and the ammunition for them would be reduced and eventually be gone. It would of course be illegal for them to purchase additional ammo.
And for the last and final time, yes, I am aware that this is a silly hypothetical in today’s America. And yes, I am aware of the 2nd amendment. Which reminds me, BTW, that you never responded to my post about why it has to be that the 2nd amendment can never be repealed, that in effect, it was handed down by God to the Framers. In any case, the whole purpose of this line of argument is to convince people that one possible way that we could address the issue is to stop with the ridiculous idea that we can own any time of gun we want, and in any number, and that instead it is sensible to at lease consider that we ban guns to a much larger degree than has already been done.
It’s a right under the context that a well regulated militia is the best security of a free state. Under this original intent, it’s a constitutional right. It’s unfortunate that many just parrot the truncated version from NRA and ilk.
If most guns are banned, yes, manufacturing would plummet, which would cause issues for Police and security. No company would stay in business just making guns for the police.
Guns last for hundreds of years and ammo is good for at least 50. And reloading ammo means the brass can last for a hundred+ years.
Because, in general, it is political suicide and impossible to try and get a large enuf majority to get rid of anything from the Bill of Rights.
So what you’re saying is that getting more guns manufactured for police won’t be a problem because the guns they already have should last for hundreds of years?
Sure, assuming that individual police officers last for hundreds of years.:rolleyes:
I have no idea what the fuck you mean by that statement. Are you assuming that when the officer dies his firearm is buried with him?
Most police officers buy and own their own firearms.
I want to preface this with noting that I’m a gun owner (3 rifles, 6 pistols, 3 shotguns), and not a particularly liberal sort.
Can anyone explain to me why licensing gun owners is such a terrible idea? We require licensing to own/operate a whole host of other dangerous equipment and tools- cars, heavy equipment just to name a couple, and require licenses for all sorts of other activities that aren’t dangerous.
Seems to me that 100% of the opposition is basically slippery slope type stuff along the lines of “If licenses are required, that opens the door for making them effectively impossible to get.” or some variant on “If I get licensed, then the gubmint will know I have guns!”
I’d think that some kind of *national *will-issue license for gun ownership that would require longer background checks (not instant), and periodic renewal and re-checking, when combined with VERY tough penalties for unlicensed possession, and enhanced mental illness reporting requirements might go a long way toward mitigating a lot of the gun violence (non-suicide) that we see these days.
You dont need a license to own a car. Just to drive on public streets. Just like you shouldn’t need a license to own a gun, just to carry it in public. I have no problems with a CCW permit being required to carry a concealed weapon. Tha is indeed a “license”.
First - comparing firearms licensing to cars, heavy equipment, etc. is not on point. Those items are not constitutionally protected. A better comparison would be requiring a licence to practice religion, or to exercising free speech.
Second - A license that is issued and can be denied is like a permission slip. People shouldn’t need permission to exercise their rights.
Third - What you propose - national will issue or something like it - this isn’t something that is on the table. No one on the gun control side who has political power offers compromises, only additional restrictions. Why would people agree to the increased administrative burden and hassle of periodic renewal and re-checking, longer background checks, etc.? These seem like things that can easily be abused to deny people. And there is nothing wrong with a slippery slope argument. Each additional restriction makes further restrictions easier, so it makes sense to curtail those as early as possible.
Fourth - The downside of licensing is the potential misuse of the information. Some people don’t like gun owners, so the information could be used to discriminate, or confiscate. At some point if the amount or type of firearm owned crosses a line where folks think there isn’t a justifiable need, then other restrictions could be imposed. What would you offer to mitigate these risks or assuage these concerns?
What utter nonsense. Police need guns, and the market would supply them.
Most?