Could you perhaps explain why you think that every single person in America shouldn’t have access to, say, a fully functional M134 Minigun?
Or do you think everyone should be able to purchase one?
And what would that be? Repeal of the 2nd like you’ve been suggesting? Good luck.
If you support penalizing a large group of otherwise law abiding folks because a small subset commit crimes, well I’m not into that.
No, I do not support any party. I support a cause and I will support those who support the cause.
Repeal and replace! Seriously, you can’t just say “No more 2A”, and have it at that, you need to come up with wording that explains what provisions of 2A are being repealed.
This is an opportunity to get enshrined rights that will make you happy, while getting rid of dead weight that causes social greif.
The Queen of May comes down to you and gives you full authorship over replacing 2A, you have any changes or suggestions to it?
Personally, I would kick it back to the states. “The federal govt will respect and assist in the enforcement of laws the several states choose to enact regarding firearms, but will make no laws of its own.” Or something like that.
Just like nukes or weapons of mass destruction, right? Most people would use them responsibly, but just because a few people might use their nuclear weapon irresponsibly doesn’t mean that we should prevent them from having one, right?
It doesn’t really matter what you are into. It matters what the voters around you are into. And they are not into having bullets go into them.
And what if one party supports one cause, and another party supports the other? Then you make a choice, as to which cuase you feel is more important to you. Given what you have said here, ISTM, that you feel having unfettered access to guns is more important than reducing the fatalities and injuries caused by guns.
This is just question begging. The goal is less killings, your method is fewer guns through gun control legislation. When people point out that fewer guns does not equate with less killings, you then challenge them to come up with their own version of gun control legislation.
Since the problem is not the guns but the killing coming up with solutions needs to be done without a reference to guns. We should be hiring more cops and using the ones we have smarter. The NRA supported Project Exile in Richmond Virginia which guaranteed longer sentences for criminals who had an illegal gun when they were arrested, that seems to have worked. Look at the example of Baltimore, which was hit by a 75% increase in shootings after the Freddie Gray riots, nothing changed in terms of guns or gun laws, what changed was how the police acted. Another example is the notoriously anti-gun city of Chicago. After their police cut street stops by 80%, the number of murders went up 58%. Which party has run Baltimore, and Chicago for 50 years? There is only one city in the top 10 of population that has a Republican mayor, San Diego. It also has the lowest homicide rate, less than one seventh the rate of Chicago.
As to making it harder for young people to find jobs, which party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour and destroy the low skilled job market once and for all?
Democrats had complete control of the federal government from 2008-2010 and did nothing about the drug war. Neither are drugs legal in any of the democrat run states.
I didn’t challenge. I asked. What would you do. You say that all the gun control advocates are ignorant about guns, and that we don’t know what we are doing when we pass legislation, so I ask, honestly, what should we do?
And every time I ask that, I get this same non-response. There’s nothing that we can do. I’m not sure that anyone has pointed out that fewer guns does not equate with less killings. If they had, I woulda asked how that works. We have other countries with fewer guns, and less killings. I am not sure I will just take your word for it that fewer guns will result in fewer people being shot with them, but we will progress.
IYHO
I agree wholeheartedly on the second part of that sentence. Training and reviews and more training. Maybe we need more cops too, but lets see what we can do with the ones we have first.
Hey, a form of gun control, and it worked. Huh.
Well, when the police do things to make the community mistrust them, then crime goes up. That’s a problem, but it is not a problem that I would blame on democrats, but on the police who abuse their communities.
And if any of these mayors had the ability to keep the guns from coming in from outside the city or state that they do not control, then maybe we’d see a bit fewer gun deaths. As it is, all you need to do to get a gun into chico is drive a couple miles to indiana.
[quote]
As to making it harder for young people to find jobs, which party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour and destroy the low skilled job market once and for all?
[quote]
That’s an interesting claim. I assume you are claiming that it is the democrats that wants to destroy the low skilled job market? I don’t think so. Now, democrats have been for increasing the MW, but to $15 federally, not many are behind that. And instantly, no one is behind that. An increase of $3-4 over 3 years, you could probably find many democrats behind that. I do not believe that a 3-4 hike over 3 years will destroy the job market as you claim.
Why would any of these people go out and get these jobs that don’t manage to pay their rent, much less any other living expenses, when they can sling drugs or perform in other illegal activities for far more compensation?
For 2 (really a few months between franken being sat and kennedy dying) years, and you say that during these 2 years, 7 years ago, is the reason for all the drug problems today. Nothing about the 80’s and nancy’s thousand points of light? Nothing about “just say no”? And your claim that the Obama admin did nothing against the drug war is also fallacious in that Obama, by executive order he allowed states to implement their own drug policies where it came to marijuana. The current administration with Mr Sessions is looking to reverse that.
So, your attempts at throwing the drug war on the democrats have failed, along with your attempts at painting democrats as the ones who are preventing inner city poor people from turning to crime.
ETA: You also claimed that drugs were not legal in democrat (sic.) run states. What’s california?
It’s a personal rule of mine, that anyone who tries to use examples of WMDs or nukes when talking about gun policy cannot be taken seriously. My mistake, won’t happen again.
A common tactic to avoid admitting being wrong.
NVM
Yeah! You could kill 13 people with sarin gas. Nobody in their right mind would allow something that can kill that many people in a few minutes into the hands of almost anybody.
Nice attempt at deflection.
In fairness to Bone, unless i’m misremembering, he advocates for the availability of arms to civilians can be limited to what a policeman has available. Not every single machine capable of spitting out a projectile. Apologies if I am wrong, Bone.
You are very much missing the point. The government has to explain why they shouldn’t, and then the citizens decide if the case is strong enough.
The government might be able to do that, and the process of how the citizens decide Yes or No is not straightforward, but that is part of living in a Constitutional republic.
If you would like to argue the case, go ahead. But that is no different from any other gun control proposal. The burden of proof lies with the State.
Regards,
Shodan
He can speak for himself. He has chosen to say nothing of the sort. If he believes there are weapons that civilians should not be able to own casually, he has not said where he draws the line. His only expressed position is derision and deflection, although he always has the opportunity for clarification rather than continue to appear reflexively absolutist about guns.
That’s one common theory of constitutional principle, but it’s not governing, despite your obvious wishes.
The General Welfare clause. Live it and love it.
In fairness to bone… if he had rejected that one part of my argument, I would have agreed. It was a little flippant, in response to the idea that if someone is law abiding and responsible, nothing should be denied them. I was pointing out that some things are denied to everyone, no matter how law abiding and responsible they are. Though, I still would like to know what the limit is of what kind of weapon would be the most powerful that he would allow.
He used that as an excuse to deflect from my questions of what changes, if any, he would make to 2A in order to both protect his right to a gun, and to protect my right to not be shot. (Seems he should at least be up for clearing up the comma confusion) He also used it as a way to deflect from where I see hypocrisy in his position where he claims to support causes that he agrees with, but when those causes conflict, he chooses guns over the other causes, which, to me, means that he supports guns over any other cause.
I’m talking about penalizing a group for the actions of a subset, and you bring in nukes. Lack of nukes is not a penalty, and it’s not even in remotely the same league, much less the same sport. That’s not a serious rejoinder. If you think it is, then we’re essentially speaking a different language. As for deflection, hardly. I’ve engaged in discussion about firearm policy all over the boards for many years. I’ll have any serious conversation pro or con. But if that’s not of interest, if folks want to have non-serious discussion, I’m not interested. I typically don’t engage with non-serious people.
Do you understand the current SCOTUS jurisprudence regarding firearms? Have you read Heller? Do you understand how “arms” are defined? If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, then I would expect an understanding of why introducing nukes is not an indication of an interest in serious discussion.
So sure, if you want to engage in hyperbole then that’s your prerogative. Good luck.
The State is going to have to do a lot better than that.
Regards,
Shodan
Compromise middle ground proposal: Bump stocks become NFA items while suppressors, SBS, and SBRs are treated as regular firearms.
That is me reaching across the aisle.
I for one would like to hear more about this right not to be shot; could you point me to where this right is in the Constitution or its Amendments, maybe a statute, case law or an executive order?