[quote=“asahi, post:259, topic:757469”]
N
The Senate republicans and gun rights advocates have supported the right of ISIS sympathizers to obtain guns. They have supported the right of Al Qaida sympathizers to obtain guns. They have voted to support the right of another Timothy McVeigh or Branch Davidian Cultist to obtain weapons of mass murder. /QUOTE]
Cite?
Oh right, because we all know that mass casualty shootings don’t occur in places gun lobbyists’ wet dream states like Texas, Colorado, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, or Florida – oh wait…
Oh well, I’m sure they’d never happen in places where people carry guns, like Fort Hood. Oh, wait…
Oh well, uh, er, I mean, if ordinary people were armed, like police officers, they’d be able to stop mass murderers, like the cops did at the abortion clinic in Colorado. Oh, wait…
Oh well, I mean, well, like, we know that we need people with guns to take out mad men with guns, like the people who wrestled Jared Loughner to the ground without firearms. Oh, wait…
Oh sure, blame the guy who inherited a half-baked invasion of a country that didn’t have ANY Islamic terrorism until it was invaded. How did the invasion of Iraq work out? You idiots had, what, 6-8 years to respond to one terrorist attack and root out Osama Bin Laden? Who killed Bin Laden, while we’re on that subject? Sure Bush killed Saddam Hussein, but was Iraq any better? Nope. What kinds of instability did his little invasion experiment lead to? The problem with conservatives is that they are not honest people. They lie. They make up their own reality. Conservatives are a bunch of liars who live in a make believe world and refuse to acknowledge ANY presentation of fact that refutes their little reality of superstition.
p.s. Moderators, I did not label any particular individual a liar, but I am tired of pretending that we have to accept an ideology based on lies as a legitimate one. It is not.
[quote=“DrDeth, post:261, topic:757469”]
No citation necessary. Stop disowning and disavowing your positions.
Irrespective of your stance you do understand that there is very different bar between regulating commerce on some random product compared to one that is codified as a basic right?
But I haven’t seen a single ban which would have restricted any of the people you listed above. Outside of the no-fly list I am unaware of any restrictions that are placed on people without having their day in court.
Unless you are going to make being muslim a felony and have the courts adjudicate every disgruntled war vet as insane those laws will never apply to the people commuting these crimes.
I guess we could try creating the Precogs from Minority Report or start sending people to jail for war crimes.
But this is how I know the people rallying for this haven’t thought it through…it is impossible to get a paranoid schizophrenic family member legally committed even when there is very concrete evidence that their life is at risk.
It absolutely isn’t going to happen to the typically middle class white male who goes on a shooting spree.
Codified as a basic right, with significant qualification. Compare the 2nd amendment and the first and get back to me. Oh wait, that’s right, you skip the part about a “well regulated militia” and assume that you have the right to own an AR-15. Well where in the 2A does it talk about an AR-15 or a Glock 9mm? It mentions arms? Well why not hand grenades? Why not suitcase nukes? Do you think your neighbor or the local home owners association president should have a nuclear bomb? Seriously, dude, stop arguing things you know you don’t agree with. I get that you like guns, but the fact is they’re regulated. You know it. We all know it.
Um how about having a longer waiting period? How about doing what, oh, most developed nations around the world do? Most countries have much tighter firearms controls than we do, and guess what…they’re still free and stuff.
Oh right, like those are the only types of mass murders we’ve had over the past 15-20 years. :rolleyes:
(post shortened)
Stifle what? 
Posting something you don’t agree with?
Meanwhile, Obama still can not admit that radical Islamic terrorism is radical Islamic terrorism. But he has said he doesn’t quibble with labels. Unless that label is “radical Islamic terrorism”.
Oh wow, so Obama’s problem is in how he labels things? What about the guy who, you know, spent $5-10 trillion on an invasion, based on lies…that years later has destabilized the entire Middle East? Did Obama do that? Heck even your own party’s nominee pretty much agrees with me.
Already established case law, not falling for the numerous fallacies here but to summarize.
Can you demonstrate that waiting periods work? Can you demonstrate that restricting lawful ownership of arms by civilians has a demonstrated effect on random acts of violence. If it is so cut and dry you should have lots of scientifically sound cites.
Why not repeal the 2nd vs. codifying the restriction of rights without the ability to defend oneself in court. Why risk our right to assembly or speech or association because you want to pass an ineffective feel good law.
Nothing you are doing is going to block mass murders anyway…but your arguments compassion and fear is false. 12,942 people were murdered in the US in 2015 compared to 869 people in the past 50 years of mass shootings.
People don’t care about homicide or suffering, they care about fear. These cosmetic do nothing laws are purely based in this selfish desire to mitigate irrational fear. People want to feel safe themselves while ignoring the ugly truth.
If anything elects Trump this year it will be gun control driving the disenchanted moderate republicans to the polls. Unfortunately it is also fear whom drives their actions too…
And for those more fair-weather anti-LBGT violence debaters,
Until this year this had been the most deadly attack, note the weapon.
The pity is that no one cares unless there is a body count as these attacks are way more common than they should be.
The discussion should be towards ending violence but most vocal heterosexual americans co-opt these tragedies to argue for laws that ban scary looking things because it is hard to tackle the real problem.
[
The same $200 tax stamp applies to full-auto weapons as well, as I understand it. And an interesting aside - the requirement for the tax stamp for full auto weapons was introduced in (IIRC) 1934, and basically doubled the price of a Thompson SMG from $200 to $400.
From what I can work out, $200 in 1934 was worth about what $3,750 nowadays - ie, a really large sum of money. I’ve always thought it was interesting that the price of that Tax Stamp was never adjusted for inflation.
Established by politically tainted case law, such as the kind that equates unlimited campaign cash as “speech”…but we’ll proceed. Irrespective, my concern and premise in any debate over guns is not limited to what the framers of the Constitution may or may not have meant. The Constitution itself is flawed and needs to be replaced with an entirely new one – it’s just that we as a nation just don’t have a government with the integrity or brains required for such heavy lifting. Even so, the “right” to keep and bear arms is not something that is even remotely absolute. Government most certainly has the right to impose limits, just as it has done numerous past, a fact which is also supported by case law.
And “arms” can be regulated. But since we’re talking about arms that can be carried, what about portable explosives? You’re saying the law should allow that?
Uh, you might want to go do your research on that one. It is a federal crime to possess controlled explosives – not to mention they probably break the local statutes and ordinances in thousands of communities across the U.S. Live grenades, specifically, have been illegal since 1968. Maybe less consumption of NRA propaganda is in order.
Not falling into your trap about debating specific piecemeal measures, the country of Australia is the one example that gun rights cultists don’t want to talk about. Because Australia, which is culturally not all that dissimilar to the United States, is a country where many people like guns, and yet accept that there is a need for sensible and systematic regulation. And their homicide rates after the regulation dropped.
Your absurd argument seems to be that since mass murders will still occur, we should not attempt to make them more difficult. Wow, now that is intellectual heft right there. I guess we should adopt this approach to everything and have no laws about anything. :rolleyes:
So apparently a lot of people have nothing more important to vote for in 2016 than being able to buy AR-15s and lots of ammo. It’s good to know that conservatives have their priorities straight.
But to your point, I think conservatives are going to have to accept that their time of manipulating the political system is running out. The demographics aren’t really looking good. They may survive 2016 and 2018, but beyond 2020, the “right” to tote an AR-15 is going to get some serious challenge, and unlike now, the NRA won’t be able to do diddly to stop it either. Ordinary people are fed up. Just like they’re getting fed up with a lot of conservative policies. Actually, I’d argue that a lot of conservatives, particularly Trump voters, are also fed up with conservative policies, or at least the consequences of those policies. They’re just unfortunately not educated enough to make the connection yet. But as the national elections of 1932, 1936, and 1940 (and 44), and the California elections the past few years, eventually, even the most loyal conservatives have a eureka moment or two.
You’re correct, protecting my constitutional rights is the most important issue for me this election.
Or the political winds shift like they do every generation or so and the Republicans stage a comeback… Remember how many people though the Democrats were finished in 1984? Even if voters don’t get tired of Democratic polices, the problem of middle class job evisceration is not going to go away on it’s own. The voters do want change. Obama ran on a platform of “change” and was more business as usual. Clinton is at least not promising anything more than business as usual. This could cause a split in the Democratic party when the next Sanders comes around promising to actually do something about the problem instead of being part of it. Either the Republicans take advantage or the mainstream Democrats are pulled to the right to pick up votes for them.
Trump probably won’t win no matter what but if Hillary were running against Romney this year, there are enough swing states that would swing to Romney based on guns (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) that all he would need is to take any other state that Obama took in 2012 to win the election. Many of the states that voted for Obama have pretty deeply ingrained gun cultures, if hypothetical Romney took Pennsylvania, he wouldn’t even need Virginia. but as it is, I doubt Trump has any chance short of A Hillary perp walk.
You mean “suspected radical Islamists” right? Heck, we can’t even say that because we don’t really know why they are on the no fly list.
With that said, it is no compromise to say I want to take away all your gun rights but lets compromise and only take away some of them (with no assurance that you won’t come back for the rest of them whenever you are able). If there was some ironclad assurance that licensing and registration would be the last word we ever hear from gun control folks, things would be different but the gun control side doesn’t even pretend that they would drop the issue after they get what they are asking (and they ask because they can’t force these restrictions upon us, they just don’t have the votes, if they did, they wouldn’t bother asking) for this time so there is NOTHING being offered in compromise.
Is it really lying if they believe what they say?
I think you meant “thought crimes”
Fort Hood was a gun free zone to most of the people there. Orlando was a gun free zone. If you’d clarify which other events you’re talking about above, we can check on those too. But really, it’s myopic to focus on mass shootings when they are a small portion of the number of firearm homicides and injuries.
I was thinking more of the cartoon contest in Texas where two armed gunman pulled up and began firing, and were immediately killed.
Of course it happens, just like the Oregon shooter who was pepper sprayed and tackled (pretty awesome display of a cool head and bravery) but when there is an active shooter, how do you think the situation is resolved most of the time? People with guns - primarily police. There’s several instances when police encourage those who are armed to intervene.
But really, what I was hoping for was a response to this:
Sure, and what is your point? There is still a difference between some random item in the stream of commerce and items that are covered by the second amendment. Depending on the level of scrutiny we attach to the second amendment (and it seems to me that it would have to be at least intermediate scrutiny) you would have to make a case that banning AR-15s furthers some important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
Preventing death is obviously an important government interest and regulation of firearms is substantially related to that interest when 2/3rds of all murders are committed using firearms. It is hard to make a case that banning AR-15s furthers that interest. YMMV
How would that longer waiting period have prevented any of the rare events (mass shootings) you are talking about?
No, but that’s what’s on the no fly list, right?
We can say it, but we probably shouldn’t – especially since the United States has a lot of troops in the Islamic world, uses their airbases, their airspace, the ports of call, buys their oil, and sells lots of American stuff to them in return. What Obama calls Muslims is not germane to the discussion anyway. Just another Sean Hannity talking point.
Oh another slippery slope argument. The government’s tracking fertilizer – what’s to keep the government from outlawing farms? Seriously, if you’re worried about that, maybe what you’re really worried about is a functioning democracy. Tyranny doesn’t happen because Jimbo can’t buy an AR-15. It probably happens because people in a democracy start tolerating and supporting ideas that aren’t democratic. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about restricting AR-15s or registration of guns, any more than it’s undemocratic to restrict the use of tanks or registration of cars. On the other hand, fabricating a voter fraud crisis and using it to endorse vote suppression…that’s very, very undemocratic. And very, very dangerous.
That’s interesting and all - in the same way a monkey juggling while riding a unicycle is interesting. But it’s not responsive to the subject that you brought up. That being compromise. Still nothing to offer on that front?