🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Aximili86]

Right up until the kid committed the shooting though, they had. There was nothing law-enforcement/psychologist-wise that would have flagged them as a problem, it completely came out of nowhere unlike the case with the Florida *****e last time.

Yes, the father should have ensured his kid couldn't get his hands on them. We should probably charge the father and make an example of him, even with all he's going through given what his dip**** kid pulled.

Thing is, you can only enforce said laws after-the-fact. There's no rational reason a sane person with no criminal record in the USA shouldn't be able to buy a simple shotgun. There's nothing that would have prevented this, no reason to investigate the kid prior to the shooting, they weren't on any authority's radar, for anything.

If you're seriously at "nobody gets to own a shotgun, because we don't know if you'll store it properly", you're basically out-of-whack with the majority of the country, even most gun control advocates.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Right up until the kid committed the shooting though, they had. There was nothing law-enforcement/psychologist-wise that would have flagged them as a problem, it completely came out of nowhere unlike the case with the Florida *****e last time.

Yes, the father should have ensured his kid couldn't get his hands on them. We should probably charge the father and make an example of him, even with all he's going through given what his dip**** kid pulled.

Thing is, you can only enforce said laws after-the-fact. There's no rational reason a sane person with no criminal record in the USA shouldn't be able to buy a simple shotgun. There's nothing that would have prevented this, no reason to investigate the kid prior to the shooting, they weren't on any authority's radar, for anything.

If you're seriously at "nobody gets to own a shotgun, because we don't know if you'll store it properly", you're basically out-of-whack with the majority of the country, even most gun control advocates.

That doesn't make sense. What about any of that has to do with giving access to a gun to a child? Access to a gun that does not belong to a person? Why aren't people responsible for the guns they buy? Also, are we just absolving these parents of the kid they raised and their responsibility as gun owners?

You make it law that people need to lock there guns up. If they don't, they go to prison. If weed can get you sent to prison, why not making a dangerous weapon available? Hell if we can charge someone as an accessory for driving someone to a crime scene, why not someone who gives someone access to a gun?

This is like the woman who was shot in her back by her little child because they didn't secure their weapons correctly. In the car. That should be illegal. That should get you sent to jail.

Beyond that, obvious, required gun safety courses should be mandatory. I want gun, so I get gun, should not be a thing. Every firearm purchase should come with training on the weapon. It should not be easier to buy a gun then to get a driver's license.

 

[Aximili86]

Hey, we agree on the father storing the guns irresponsibly. Make an example of him, throw him away for a few years and try to scare other parents straight.

Where do you jump from that to assuming everyone is guilty of that, though? What do you suggest? "People of sound mind and no criminal history can buy a shotgun, but we'll randomly inspect/search your house with no warning to check you're storing it right?"

That would work. But nobody in the public's going to stand for that, certainly not in Texas.

Again, man, more than half, probably more, of the kids at this school come from a home with gun-owning parents. There are measures you can take, storage laws and mandated safety courses and such, totally. It's not going to fix anything in a broad sense, though - most people who own already do this stuff, and it's extremely difficult to enforce for those who don't, and don't have any other reason the government should be looking into them as a problem.

You can go after red flags. There were just no red flags with this kid.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hey, we agree on the father storing the guns irresponsibly. Make an example of him, throw him away for a few years and try to scare other parents straight.

Where do you jump from that to assuming everyone is guilty of that, though? What do you suggest? "People of sound mind and no criminal history can buy a shotgun, but we'll randomly inspect/search your house with no warning to check you're storing it right?"

That would work. But nobody in the public's going to stand for that, certainly not in Texas.

Again, man, more than half, probably more, of the kids at this school come from a home with gun-owning parents. There are measures you can take, storage laws and mandated safety courses and such, totally. It's not going to fix anything in a broad sense, though - most people who own already do this stuff, and it's extremely difficult to enforce for those who don't, and don't have any other reason the government should be looking into them as a problem.

You can go after red flags. There were just no red flags with this kid.

When did I say that?

One of the major issues is associations like the NRA sell the idea of gun ownership. The idea of just owning a gun. Not the responsibility of owning one. They won't argue for making a gun harder to get, because that is how they make their money. It is like watching Trump with the deregulation environment stuff. These companies that benefit from it don't care that it actually hurts citizens. Why are people allowed to purchase a weapon without having to pass some test to show they understand the concept of being a proper owner of a gun?

 

[Aximili86]

You're just....

It's hilarious, man. The NRA runs a lot of these safety courses for god's sake. They encourage people taking these.

 

[Calvin]

I really really really hope they ban guns in the US before my kid is in middle school.

 

[squeekness]

Not likely.

 

[Herofan]

I find it interesting and unfortunate that there's a lot of hostility to the idea that gun ownership as a constitutional right generally shouldn't be restricted, like that's a crazy and heartless attitude, when words and speech (including not just direct incitement) can and do also lead to violence and yet free speech is also a legal right (more than in other countries) and there are also people passionate about protecting it even though it can and does have some negative effects.

I don't like the idea of either First or Second Amendment rights being restricted, let alone banned, yet doing so to reduce violence is a pretty strong consideration and argument (doesn't mean it should win).

 

[DeadPresident]

About as crazy and heartless as trying to save innocent lives by amending an amendment written back when firearms weren't able to fire multiple bullets per second and there weren't 300m of them in circulation.

 

[Teelie]

So Herofan thinks it is okay to yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic because it protects free speech. Or to incite people to attack and kill other people because it should be acceptable without limits to do or say whatever we want. And commit libel or slander against someone else because we don't like them.


You will notice none of those is legal (it actually is a crime to incite violence under the right circumstances or yell fire in a theater) but he also ignores that whole "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment that does not give free reign to just own a gun, any gun, and do whatever you want with it like some kind of perverted Constitutional right to be a mass murdering *******.


Regulation does not equal banishment. Unless you're a gun rights nut activist. Then suddenly any attempt to make reasonable gun laws is code for ban them all.

 

[Aximili86]

Yeah, that's taking it too far Herofan. Nothing's ever 100% absolute.

 

[Mike5575]

Yeah, that's taking it too far Herofan. Nothing's ever 100% absolute.

Agreed, but unlike the 1st amendment, people are actively calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, banning all semiautomatics, and stripping 18-20 year olds from a constitutional right. With that sort of radicalization, It's not that suprising that some on the pro-gun side would feel emboldened and more resistant to even the most moderate of gun control measures. It's not fear mongering, but it's how politics work. The NRA isn't the reason people are buying more guns. It's the Democratic Party.

 

[MaceB]

Agreed, but unlike the 1st amendment, people are actively calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, banning all semiautomatics, and stripping 18-20 year olds from a constitutional right. With that sort of radicalization, It's not that suprising that some on the pro-gun side would feel emboldened and more resistant to even the most moderate of gun control measures. It's not fear mongering, but it's how politics work. The NRA isn't the reason people are buying more guns. It's the Democratic Party.

This sounds like an admission that you know that common sense gun regulations would work, but you oppose them as a Fu** you to your political enemies. I don't think so many people would recommend repealing the 2nd amendment if ammophiles were actually more interested in protecting the country than eliciting those sweat, lovely liberal tears from their enemies. We can chicken and egg this thing all day.
But it shouldn't matter. Common sense gun regulations could save lives, meanwhile, limits on our rights already happen under the 1st amendment. As a gun owner and a patriot, you should call your senator and support gun regulations.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, he's right on the bit about the public buying more guns every time this stuff heats up, that's not just Cletus NRA Guy.

 

[Mike5575]

This sounds like an admission that you know that common sense gun regulations would work, but you oppose them as a Fu** you to your political enemies. I don't think so many people would recommend repealing the 2nd amendment if ammophiles were actually more interested in protecting the country than eliciting those sweat, lovely liberal tears from their enemies. We can chicken and egg this thing all day.
But it shouldn't matter. Common sense gun regulations could save lives, meanwhile, limits on our rights already happen under the 1st amendment. As a gun owner and a patriot, you should call your senator and support gun regulations.

No, you misunderstand. The whole point of one side doubling down is out of fear that future gun control laws would lead us further down a slippery slope with our rights being chipped away, bit by bit. I do think that's where many on the left wants to go, but I am not against MODERATE gun control laws. I see nothing wrong with safe storage laws or even requirements for individuals going through weapon safety training. But, telling someone who is old enough to join the military that they can't buy a gun?? That's not moderate. That's extreme. At 18 hears old, an individual has the right exercise any individual liberty except for buying a handgun. This has been a reality since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, 50 years later, some states have passed legislation which violates a constitutional right for millions of young Americans.

 

[Herofan]

About as crazy and heartless as trying to save innocent lives by amending an amendment written back when firearms weren't able to fire multiple bullets per second and there weren't 300m of them in circulation.

Though I don't like the idea of changing the Constitution to reduce rights, openly wanting to and trying to amend the Second Amendment is different and a lot better than arguing it should just be ignored.

So Herofan thinks it is okay to yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic because it protects free speech. Or to incite people to attack and kill other people because it should be acceptable without limits to do or say whatever we want. And commit libel or slander against someone else because we don't like them.

I already suggested and meant to outright say that direct incitement, pretty unique and exceptional, shouldn't be protected and of course it isn't, nor should falsely causing panic. Sure, libel and slander are another exception although the U.S. has a higher burden for proving speech is libel or slander than Europe does (or Trump would want).

he also ignores that whole "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment that does not give free reign to just own a gun, any gun, and do whatever you want with it like some kind of perverted Constitutional right to be a mass murdering *******.

Scalia is (was) vilified as an unreasonable radical for saying that it did give a right for handguns for self-defense to not be banned while also agreeing that it did not protect a right to have any gun, guns not in common use for defense were not protected from being prohibited.

Regulation does not equal banishment. Unless you're a gun rights nut activist. Then suddenly any attempt to make reasonable gun laws is code for ban them all.

The post two before mine was hoping to ban guns in the U.S.
More broadly Democrats often bash the Supreme Court for overturning handgun bans and praise Australia's gun policy, in general or particularly its mandatory buybacks, so yes not all control laws are bans but many proposals are for direct confiscations or bans.

 

[MaceB]

The post two before mine was hoping to ban guns in the U.S.
More broadly Democrats often bash the Supreme Court for overturning handgun bans and praise Australia's gun policy, in general or particularly its mandatory buybacks, so yes not all control laws are bans but many proposals are for direct confiscations or bans.

You might be referring to my post? Anyway, I didn't ask for us to ban guns. I asked us to reinstate the Assaults Rifle Ban, because it worked... that's true... But banning a certain kind of gun is not the same as banning guns.
You basically just admitted the point by arguing that a ban on a military grade weapon is the same as banning all guns. It's not... you just want to force us into that black versus white thinking. I can be in favor of the 2nd amendment.. as the framers intended it... AND believe in the Assault Rifle Ban at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive IMO.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Agreed, but unlike the 1st amendment, people are actively calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, banning all semiautomatics, and stripping 18-20 year olds from a constitutional right. With that sort of radicalization, It's not that suprising that some on the pro-gun side would feel emboldened and more resistant to even the most moderate of gun control measures. It's not fear mongering, but it's how politics work. The NRA isn't the reason people are buying more guns. It's the Democratic Party.

This wasn't a constitutional right until the 70s.

 

[Aximili86]

Guns weren't, or semi-autos?

Guns generally speaking were pretty clearly protected in the 70s. They also tried a ban in the 90s, which the FBI themselves say didn't work.

 

[MaceB]

Guns weren't, or semi-autos?

Guns generally speaking were pretty clearly protected in the 70s. They also tried a ban in the 90s, which the FBI themselves say didn't work.

You mean the Assault Rifles Ban? It most certainly did work. Mass shootings went down during the time of the ban, and gun violence skyrocketed after it's removal. Where is this quote from the FBI you speak of? I'd wonder about the date.

 

[Aximili86]

They literally said at the time there was no point keeping it in place because it wasn't having an effect.

And hell, gun crime in general is down since that period, after the ban too. It's been on the downward curve anyway, even though there's like another half the guns circulating around on top of what there were in the 90s.

 

[MaceB]

They literally said at the time there was no point keeping it in place because it wasn't having an effect.

And hell, gun crime in general is down since that period, after the ban too. It's been on the downward curve anyway, even though there's like another half the guns circulating around on top of what there were in the 90s.

This is why I wanted to hear a date. Because, 15 years later, the facts are out. What do we know now? Well, mass shootings went down and gun violence went up after the ban's removal. Having time to collect the facts isn't a bad thing.

https://www.statista.com/chart/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
"Gun massacres fell 37 percent during the ban period and in the ten years after it lapsed in 2004, they went up an alarming 183 percent. "

It's clear that the Ban was effective to a degree.

 

[Aximili86]

Depends which way you take that data. "Gun massacres" the way the government measures it is anything over 3 people. So murder-suicides are in this, gang shootouts, the works.

And okay, so using your position - there was a spike in the overall gun violence soon after the ban was lifted in the mid-90s. Gun crime's still down overall now though from what it was then, and we don't have an AR ban anymore.

Facts are facts, but interpretation and lack of omissions of anything counter is important too. The FBI literally says gun crime overall is less now than it was in the late 80s and early 90s. The ban was in effect back then, it's not now.

It's more than the ban, it's a social thing.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Perhaps this would be easier if we allowed the CDC to study gun violence?

Thanks, NRA.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, why exactly does the NRA try and keep them from doing that again?