Biden going after semi-automatics?

[Decourcy]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

Not sure if background checks are all that important. Might help some, but, as I've said many times the person who buys that gun will not live forever. The gun he buys will live on for generations who will inherit the gun.

Here, you get a background check when you get your licence, not when you buy a gun. And the licence needs renewing every 5 years. No licence? Can’t legally own any gun, even if inherited.

Ive explained our system before, including that as a restricted licence holder, I actually go through a background check every. Single. Day.
Restricted license owners are statistically the least criminal group in the country. So of course we get a bit pissed that we are the group our government has chosen to target with its new legislation

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

jayzus tom.

taking gun violence seriously, measuring its effects, trying to do something about it, is not pandering or ignorance.

i was referring to the actual measures being proposed in the current culture-war environment.

oregon ballot measure 114 is a perfect example. written by people actually ignorant of current law. written by and for emotional impact rather than practical application or effect.

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

Yeah, so you don't know either . . . I'd start by criminalizing bad parenting. If your kid is fat, jail. If your kid sucks in school, jail. Children need a bill of rights, like the right to grow up in a household that is loving and supportive and if a parent can't provide that, work camp to pay someone else to do it. Awwww fu34, I forgot, this is America, land of the freedom to raise sh177y people. This country sucks giant moose wang.

I suppose those kids would have prefer to have been aborted, had they the choice.

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

the clinton era assault weapons ban had zero effect on any forms of gun violence
because the ban was entirely meaningless - this has been well studied
manufacturers simply removed the cosmetic features described in the ban and continued selling the same guns less items like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and folding stocks; folding stocks remained available through the aftermarket as did high capacity magazines

there was a decrease in violent crime rates during the clinton administration but that decrease is attributable to better economic conditions

Let us not forget how making something illegal allows the crooks to get more money.

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

You can buy an AR for less than $400

When they're illegal, they'll cost a good deal more; perhaps $800.

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

Or you can start holding shi77y parents responsible for their spawn . . . which is against freedoms . . . . so yea, nothing of significance changes. And I can promise, if the Dems try to ban semis, they will not only fail, but will lose at the voting booth. Which will have a negative effect on education because Republicans like their citizens dumb as a box of rocks, and education and a good economy, which the Republicans also suck at, are our only hope to combating all of this nonsense.

Maybe '****ty parenting' comes from the family needing several jobs to make ends meet. Maybe constant worries about money contribute to bad parents. Any WANT to be a bad parent?

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

In your estimation; what's possible in this polarized political climate?

Nothing worthwhile will get enough support in congress.

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

It's a good damn thing the US Constitution wasn't ever amended to include the God-given right to automobiles.

The thing that needs to be done, is for someone like the president—not Biden because he's already well on the record for wanting sensible gun legislation—but for a subsequent president or someone else equally highly visible and in an election affecting position, like a Senate majority leader or Speaker of the House, to say out loud, publicly, that wanting to make such legislation is "just too hard because there are too many guns already and too many people like having them whether they use them or need them or just like them, and," and this is the key part—"people should just shut up about it and stop whining about a handful of kids in schools getting wasted on a frequent, almost regular basis. Just quit whining about kids and church-goers dying of gunshots because, after all, they're all going to die eventually anyway, and they're such a small part of the electorate. So let's talk about something important instead, like stopping people from murdering unborn babies."

The point of being publicly so callous would be to cause even more hot outrage from the general public, enough to swell up and overwhelm the real and unspoken limits to gun legislation. To make it so everyone in federal office just can't go to work without encountering seriously angry parents and other concerned citizens hounding them about a genuine effort to make substantial changes.

Whoever led the way in this calculated outrage baiting would be a sort of stalking horse and be willing to leave office in disgrace and sacrifice a reasonable legacy. (But he or she would be a hero.) Thus pointing the way forward for the rest of gun lobby kowtowers and big donor suckups, and leaving them only one option for ending that boiling outrage.

The country, according to polling, is in favor of the kind of legislation that other, more civilized countries enjoy, by a significant majority. If we didn't have such a dysfunctional system of special interest money in government, it would already be done. Even though there are three times [ninety percent of statistics on internet forums are just made up no the spot to make a point] as many guns in private hands in the US than there are citizens, the actual gun owners are in the minority. So fixing the school shooting problem, by in large part vastly reducing the availability of guns—as well as seriously legislating enough social and economic changes to obviate the usual reasons for gun violence—what we really need, is more of those citizens, the ones who would be stirred up to the point of actually going out and voting their conscience, and their righteous outrage.

My question: The 2nd Amendment begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the maintenance of a free state.........

WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO REGULATE THAT MILITIA?

[John Smith]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

Taylor.

oops

[WI-Tom]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

jayzus tom.

taking gun violence seriously, measuring its effects, trying to do something about it, is not pandering or ignorance.

i was referring to the actual measures being proposed in the current culture-war environment.

oregon ballot measure 114 is a perfect example. written by people actually ignorant of current law. written by and for emotional impact rather than practical application or effect.

What specific objections do you have to that law? I wasn't familiar with it, but Wikipedia says this:

nder the new law, purchasing a firearm requires a completed criminal background check, no different than before it’s passage, and paying for a permit (of a maximum amount of $65) from either the county sheriff or police where the buyer resides. Buyers also have to pass a gun safety education course that demonstrates they know how to properly store and handle a gun. Permits are issued per person, not per gun, and are valid for five years. Law enforcement will have the ability to deny a permit to those they subjectively believe to be a danger to themselves or others, while those denied a permit are able to appeal in court at extra legal expense.^[2]

Additionally, the law makes the purchase, sale, or possession of any magazines holding more than ten rounds a Class A misdemeanor. Current owners of high capacity magazines are able to keep them legally, but use is limited to their property or other private property such as a shooting range.^[4]

Do you think any of these regulations are unreasonable? If so, which ones? Why?

Your entire objection seems to be that trying to enact gun control legislation will "deepen our cultural divide." But, news flash: that divide is not going to be magically healed by ignoring the ongoing national health crisis/epidemic of gun deaths.

So the choice seems to be:

1. Rely on gun owners and right-wing voters to just, I guess, be reasonable. And not use their AR-15s and semi-auto weapons to kill dozens of people. Because God knows we better not make them mad or "pander" to the people who want to end gun deaths, right? That would only "deepen our cultural divide" and we can't have that. Even if thousands of kids need to be murdered every year instead.

2. Treat gun deaths as the epidemic they are, and deal with them through legislation. And if voters don't like it, be willing to take the political consequences.

You like option 1. I like option 2. There don't seem to be many politicians with the courage or moral compass to back option 2, so you probably win. Hurray.

I wonder: if we could rewind to February 2020, would you be advocating that government NOT try to require masks or vaccines? After all, those things sure enough "deepened our cultural divide" which I know you just don't like.

Tom

[Breakaway]

can't remember the last time we locked our doors
couldn't even tell you where the keys to the house are

Ditto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

tom, your characterization of the "seeming" choice between two positions is sufficiently lame that i have no interest in actually reading to the end of your post.

[WI-Tom]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

tom, your characterization of the "seeming" choice between two positions is sufficiently lame that i have no interest in actually reading to the end of your post.

What else is new? I think it's your sweeping characterization:

anything proposed is driven by pandering (by and for the dedicated martyrs of the left) and marked by ignorance.

that is "lame."

Even lamer is your attempt to deny it by saying "No, no, it's only Oregon 114 I was talking about!"--and then avoiding the simple questions I asked about Oregon 114: Do you find any of its requirements unreasonable? If so, why?

But what it comes down to seems painfully clear, whether you like the way I word it or not:

1. Prioritize avoiding all risk of "deepening the cultural divide" by attempting reasonable gun control measures.

OR

2. Prioritize reasonable gun control measures to prevent tens of thousands of gun deaths per year, even if it means "deepening the cultural divide" (which I'm not sure can BE any deeper than it already is, but whatever).

But, when challenged, you won't (can't?) defend your position. And are probably offended that I pointed out the moral/ethical implications of your position.

Yep. "Lame" sums it up pretty well so far.

Tom

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

Even lamer is your attempt to deny it by saying "No, no, it's only Oregon 114 I was talking about!"

except that is not what i said either. why rephrase inaccurately?

why would i bother reasonong with somebody who does that so consistently. i wouldn't.

[Decourcy]

Re: Biden going after semi-automatics?

What else is new? I think it's your sweeping characterization:



that is "lame."

Even lamer is your attempt to deny it by saying "No, no, it's only Oregon 114 I was talking about!"--and then avoiding the simple questions I asked about Oregon 114: Do you find any of its requirements unreasonable? If so, why?

But what it comes down to seems painfully clear, whether you like the way I word it or not:

1. Prioritize avoiding all risk of "deepening the cultural divide" by attempting reasonable gun control measures.

OR

2. Prioritize reasonable gun control measures to prevent tens of thousands of gun deaths per year, even if it means "deepening the cultural divide" (which I'm not sure can BE any deeper than it already is, but whatever).

But, when challenged, you won't (can't?) defend your position. And are probably offended that I pointed out the moral/ethical implications of your position.

Yep. "Lame" sums it up pretty well so far.

Tom

What you fail to see is that your number 2 will do nothing to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, but wil: deepen the divide, drive up gun sales of all types, and make the real gun nuts nuttier. Also of course give reason for a persecution complex.