San Bernardino mass shooting...

[OptimusPrime]

it's completely irrelevant because banning gun ownership in the united states is not going to happen. There has to be reasonable ways to save lives without banning guns. The problem comes when people let the irrelevant idea that "they want to take our guns away" stop anything at all from being done.

There are lots of reasonable ways to save lives without surrendering your God given rights. No more gun free zones. No more gun free cities or states. Stop inciting radicalism by killing innocent people all over the globe and meddling in the affairs of other countries. Stop creating violent drug cartels that fight over territory because their product is illegal and they want to keep their monopoly. None of those would require anyone to give up their rights, and all of those would save countless lives.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Economics is a huge part of a solution, but no one here is ready for the government to relinquish it's stranglehold on the economy, nor cut off the Federal Reserve's silent theft of your wealth, so we may as well not even discuss that.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

A large number of people actually believe this is true, it's why the strawman always comes out in the first act of any discussion of steps which can be taken towards more responsible gun ownership.

Why do you say it is a straw man? I think there's probably a pretty good percentage of people who'd live to do that, only it isn't politically possible on a national level yet, so not many national pols advocate it.

The largest city in the country essentially banned not only the purchase but possession of all firearms by private citizens. It was theoretically possible to apply for and be granted a permit, but unless you were somebody really special, those applications were routinely denied.

How does a virtual gun ban get enacted and maintained in the largest city in the country if there wasn't the political will and support to do so?

D.C.'s was almost as bad, and that one was in place for nearly 40 years. Even more interesting is that efforts by some in Congress to repeal it always failed. So how did that survive all those years if there are no support for it at the city and national level?

There have been countless articles written advocating that the average private citizen not be permitted to own guns. Here's just one very recent sample:

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8739712?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Feel free to read the comments. The author clearly is not alone.

And the other truth is that the Heller decision finding that the Scond Amendment protected an individual right to own guns was a very narrow, 5-4 decision. If any of the Democrats win the White House, the first justice they appoint will reverse it.

So no, it's not a straw man, and in fact has already happened in boh the largest city in the country, and in the nation's capitol.

 

[AZ_]

Why do you say it is a straw man? I think there's probably a pretty good percentage of people who'd live to do that, only it isn't politically possible on a national level yet, so not many national pols advocate it.

The largest city in the country essentially banned not only the purchase but possession of all firearms by private citizens. It was theoretically possible to apply for and be granted a permit, but unless you were somebody really special, those applications were routinely denied.

How does a virtual gun ban get enacted and maintained in the largest city in the country if there wasn't the political will and support to do so?

D.C.'s was almost as bad, and that one was in place for nearly 40 years. Even more interesting is that efforts by some in Congress to repeal it always failed. So how did that survive all those years if there are no support for it at the city and national level?

There have been countless articles written advocating that the average private citizen not be permitted to own guns. Here's just one very recent sample:

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8739712?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Feel free to read the comments. The author clearly is not alone.

And the other truth is that the Heller decision finding that the Scond Amendment protected an individual right to own guns was a very narrow, 5-4 decision. If any of the Democrats win the White House, the first justice they appoint will reverse it.

So no, it's not a straw man, and in fact has already happened in boh the largest city in the country, and in the nation's capitol.

We're using the commentary of HuffPo articles as a resource now?

I think there are many people who would advocate for a gun free society in the same way they'd like beer to be free for all bar patrons.

I don't believe 2/3 of the GOP actually backs Trump's plan to block/deport all Muslims either. Sure, they're in support of it and it would be nice (in their eyes), but it doesn't tell you how much they support it or how active they are in trying to make it a reality.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Who's that asshole? Is he aware that to end slavery, we passed a Constitutional Amendment? Or does he think we just kind of changed the interpretation of the Constitution without an Amendment?

I hate it when people make that ignorant argument of "well, the Constitution said slavery was legal too, so we shouldn't be bound to anything else those 'dead white men' wrote in it." What the fuck, don't people take classes on government? If you don't like something the Constitution says, then amend it.

Pretty sure the point of his argument was that we needed to amend the Constitution to end slavery, which proves that it wasn't some infallible document that never needed to be changed. The fact that we can amend it at all is proof that not everything the founders wrote was some holy gospel, which is how some of you treat the second amendment.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Pretty sure the point of his argument was that we needed to amend the Constitution to end slavery, which proves that it wasn't some infallible document that never needed to be changed. The fact that we can amend it at all is proof that not everything the founders wrote was some holy gospel, which is how some of you treat the second amendment.

Personally, the Constitution doesn't mean a fucking thing to me. It wasn't written to govern me or to regulate me in any way. It was written to govern the federal government. If you amended it tomorrow to repeal the 2nd amendment I would still have the right to arm and defend myself.

But you people are so big on your laws, and as of right now the 2nd amendment is the law. Your scumbag representatives in government are supposed to follow the law. They sure expect us to do it.

 

[Jack Brickman]

But you people are so big on your laws, and as of right now the 2nd amendment is the law. Your scumbag representatives in government are supposed to follow the law. They sure expect us to do it.

I don't disagree that it's a law right now. I've said as much in this topic. I don't think it should be an amendment, but obviously right now it is.

Also, I don't think guns should be banned either. I just don't think owning them should be a Constitutional right.

And you do realize that, if you live in any civilized country, you're going to be expected to follow laws, right? If you don't like it, buy yourself an island somewhere and live by your own code. As long as you live in a first world country, you're going to have to deal with laws. Live with it.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I don't disagree that it's a law right now. I've said as much in this topic. I don't think it should be an amendment, but obviously right now it is.

Also, I don't think guns should be banned either. I just don't think owning them should be a Constitutional right.

And you do realize that, if you live in any civilized country, you're going to be expected to follow laws, right? If you don't like it, buy yourself an island somewhere and live by your own code. As long as you live in a first world country, you're going to have to deal with laws. Live with it.

Yes master.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Pretty sure the point of his argument was that we needed to amend the Constitution to end slavery, which proves that it wasn't some infallible document that never needed to be changed.

Exactly who claims it should never be changed? As far as I'm aware, the nature of the argument has always been that if you want to change the meaning of the Constitution, the only correct way is via amendment. Given that the amendment process is actually spelled out right in the Constitution itself, argung that it goes against the Constitution itself to amend it would be absurd.

The fact that we can amend it at all is proof that not everything the founders wrote was some holy gospel, which is how some of you treat the second amendment.

Until it is amended, it is.

But let's be honest - when was the the last time a major political figure in either part argued for repealing the Second Amendment? That never happens. What they argue for is reinterpreting it to eliminate the individual right without an amendment.

So do you advocate repeal of the Second Amendment?

 

[Huber.]

White House Can't Name One Mass Shooting That Would Have Been Stopped By New Gun Law

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There is no nation wide waiting period. And there is also the likelihood that safety training would actually make people safer with their guns. While looking for the stat you asked for, I found a stat that shows 82 percent of teens who commit suicide with a gun us the gun of a family member. Knowing that should be part of the training.

Hey, here's an idea: we get PSA's for all sorts of things, but when was the last time you saw one for gun safety? How about advising people in PSA's never to keep their guns loaded around the house? Hell, I'd even go for the government subsidizing trigger locks. But we don't see that, and I could make a good guess as to why.

There is also this - Of those who attempt suicide by firearm, nine in 10 succeed. By contrast, only one in 50 overdose attempts result in death.

Maybe that's why the person tried those methods....in other words, the people most serious about taking lives choose guns. Pills are more likely to be chosen by those for whom an attempted suicide is more of a cry for help.

And this - in 19,392 people committed suicide with a gun in 2010.

This isn't a stat, but is an example

In April 2009, over a five-day period, two young men and an older woman in New Hampshire each bought handguns from Riley’s Sport Shop in Hooksett and within hours committed suicide.​

That came from this article from Harvard

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

That still doesn't prove that licensing would have prevented those suicides. I wouldn't dispute that it might in a few cases, but that doesn't justify - at least in my opinion - government training being the gatekeeper for owning a gun.

But to be honest, that's not an issue to which I'm strongly opposed as long as the training is relatively short and limited to safety. But it can't be so burdensome as to discourage buying, and you'd have to have a grandfather provision so that long-time gun owners wouldn't have to do it. Maybe phase it in based on age, with exemptions if you've served in the military.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't think anyone here would be against a nationwide handgun waiting period.

I'm not against it for first-time buyers. But if someone already has previously purchased a gun...what's the point? If they're bent on commuting suicide or doing something illegal, they've already got a gun. But it'd be a pain in the ass for gun collectors/hobbyists who would have to make two trips everytime they want to buy something.

 

[KI4MVP]

I'm not against it for first-time buyers. But if someone already has previously purchased a gun...what's the point? If they're bent on commuting suicide or doing something illegal, they've already got a gun. But it'd be a pain in the ass for gun collectors/hobbyists who would have to make two trips everytime they want to buy something.

that's one reason I suggested training and licensing instead of a waiting period. Once you get your license, you don't have to wait to buy again unless you've done something to have your license revoked with reasonable criteria for that which includes giving or selling guns you buy to people who aren't licensed. I do agree that once you already own a gun there seems little reason to make you wait to buy another one.

 

[Maximus]

I don't believe 2/3 of the GOP actually backs Trump's plan to block/deport all Muslims either

Deport all Muslims??? I dont think that's his actual plan. His plan is to temporarily ban muslim immigrants until we can review the vetting process and confirm it is safe to do so. No different than what Jimmy Carter did in 1980 when he prohibited Iranian immigration. Well, that was actually different, Carter also deported Iranian students. Don't remember the media or the Dems or GOP going crazy over that one.

 

[AZ_]

Deport all Muslims??? I dont think that's his actual plan. His plan is to temporarily ban muslim immigrants until we can review the vetting process and confirm it is safe to do so. No different than what Jimmy Carter did in 1980 when he prohibited Iranian immigration. Well, that was actually different, Carter also deported Iranian students. Don't remember the media or the Dems or GOP going crazy over that one.

Tough to conflate diplomatic sanctions with banning an entire religion, regardless of origin.

Though they say, "Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it."

Trying to compare media outrage to that of today is probably pretty dumb, though. It's wholly different when you have two sets of outlets continually producing biased content for one affiliation or the other. I know, I know....there is no conservative media bias, only liberal.