US Election 2016

[BruceVC]

I'm curious Bruce. What firearms do you suggest should be banned?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/south-africa-a-country-at-war-as-rate-soars-to-nearly-49-a-day

 

GD I have extensive experience with illegal gun ownership due to the high murder rate in SA, also when you said earlier you think the world must get stuffed that is the expected response from most gun owners in the USA. Its a knee-jerk reaction because you think this is about other countries telling you about your own Constitution and what you can and cant do

 

No its not about that and I always felt people like Piers Morgan went about it the wrong way, can I ask you 3 quick questions

·        Forget Hilary Clinton was pushing this, I can understand how this must be annoying because its like she is pandering.

·        When you say you refuse to give up any guns is this something you have always believed?Think back to when you were in your twenties? How come now you suddenly have all these guns……do you not think the NRA has convinced you this is a Constitutional mandate? Maybe they said something like “ if we give in to this it’s the beginning of the erosion of our core US values ….

·        If there was NO chance of the Fed government ever attacking some stated would you give up some of your guns then?

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

The gun issue has been taken about as far as a great many Americans are going to allow it to go. The government can pass all the additional laws the evil and uniformed want, the SCOTUS can rule whatever way they want, but all it would accomplish is making outlaws out of tens of millions of gun owners out there who are generally good people, and pissing a quite lot of them off in no small way. The massive non-compliance reaction of gun owners and even many law enforcers to the  'NY Safe Act', among others have proven that people have had enough.
 
https://youtu.be/hxbvYWKhX48?t=26m33s (~2 mins here is about this issue, the interview overall is worth listening to.)

And here's Ms. Evil's trollish issue speaking some evil of her own:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/chelsea-clinton-now-scalias-gone/

Just about any additional laws put on the books designed to restrict or eliminate gun ownership within the U.S. is going to be met at the very least with a great deal of non-compliance.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

The gun issue has been taken about as far as a great many Americans are going to allow it to go. The government can pass all the additional laws the evil and uniformed want, the SCOTUS can rule whatever way they want, but all it would accomplish is making outlaws out of tens of millions of gun owners out there who are generally good people, and pissing a quite lot of them off in no small way. The massive non-compliance reaction of gun owners and even many law enforcers to the  'NY Safe Act', among others have proven that people have had enough.

 

https://youtu.be/hxbvYWKhX48?t=26m33s (~2 mins here is about this issue, the interview overall is worth listening to.)

 

And here's Ms. Evil's trollish issue speaking some evil of her own:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/chelsea-clinton-now-scalias-gone/

 

Just about any additional laws put on the books designed to restrict or eliminate gun ownership within the U.S. is going to be met at the very least with a great deal of non-compliance.

You see Vals its this type of post that just exacerbates the issue...you actually draw lines and create this impression a compromise is insurmountable

 

Its all about how its presented to gun owners, it must not  be forced down there throats  

[Guard Dog]

 

I'm curious Bruce. What firearms do you suggest should be banned?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/south-africa-a-country-at-war-as-rate-soars-to-nearly-49-a-day

 

GD I have extensive experience with illegal gun ownership due to the high murder rate in SA, also when you said earlier you think the world must get stuffed that is the expected response from most gun owners in the USA. Its a knee-jerk reaction because you think this is about other countries telling you about your own Constitution and what you can and cant do

 

No its not about that and I always felt people like Piers Morgan went about it the wrong way, can I ask you 3 quick questions

·        Forget Hilary Clinton was pushing this, I can understand how this must be annoying because its like she is pandering.

·        When you say you refuse to give up any guns is this something you have always believed?Think back to when you were in your twenties? How come now you suddenly have all these guns……do you not think the NRA has convinced you this is a Constitutional mandate? Maybe they said something like “ if we give in to this it’s the beginning of the erosion of our core US values ….

·        If there was NO chance of the Fed government ever attacking some stated would you give up some of your guns then?

 

 

First off, I have nothing to do with the NRA. I do not send them money, I do not read their magazines or pay attention to them in anyway. Suggesting that people think the way they do because the NRA is telling them to is one of the most condescending things I have read on this board... ever I think. Jesus Christ do you really believe our commitment to individual liberty is the product of us succumbing to propaganda? Do you really think Americans are that mindless? The NRA did not convince me that firearm ownership is a right. My parents and grammar school teachers did that when they taught me how to read. James Madison did that when he wrote the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution (which I quoted from in my previous post) and I read it. The Unites States Supreme Court did that in DC v. Heller when they asserted the 2nd Amendment did guarantee an "individual right" to own a firearm.

 

I bought my first firearm when I was 21, the youngest legal age to buy one. It was a Ruger Blackhawk .44M. I still have it to this day. I have bought many more since. Different guns for different purposes. Some for hunting, some for target shooting, some for personal defense. One because it was an antique and looks great mounted on my office wall.

 

To answer your last question, as it stands right now there is virtually no chance the US Government and it's citizens will ever take up arms against each other so no I would not give up my private property if virtually no change became definitely no chance. As I posted before, it's not about that anyway. That is one small part of a big whole.

[Guard Dog]

 

You see Vals its this type of post that just exacerbates the issue...you actually draw lines and create this impression a compromise is insurmountable

 

Its all about how its presented to gun owners, it must not  be forced down there throats  

 

It IS insurmountable. If you would like to understand why re-read the first two paragraphs I wrote in post 218.

[Meshugger]

I'm curious Bruce. What firearms do you suggest should be banned?

 

The ones that makes an armed resistence possible of course. 

[Valsuelm]

 

The gun issue has been taken about as far as a great many Americans are going to allow it to go. The government can pass all the additional laws the evil and uniformed want, the SCOTUS can rule whatever way they want, but all it would accomplish is making outlaws out of tens of millions of gun owners out there who are generally good people, and pissing a quite lot of them off in no small way. The massive non-compliance reaction of gun owners and even many law enforcers to the  'NY Safe Act', among others have proven that people have had enough.

 

https://youtu.be/hxbvYWKhX48?t=26m33s (~2 mins here is about this issue, the interview overall is worth listening to.)

 

And here's Ms. Evil's trollish issue speaking some evil of her own:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/chelsea-clinton-now-scalias-gone/

 

Just about any additional laws put on the books designed to restrict or eliminate gun ownership within the U.S. is going to be met at the very least with a great deal of non-compliance.

You see Vals its this type of post that just exacerbates the issue...you actually draw lines and create this impression a compromise is insurmountable

 

Its all about how its presented to gun owners, it must not  be forced down there throats  

 

 

Real simple here for you:

 

For tens of millions of people who own guns, all the compromising on 'shall not be infringed' that they're ever going to swallow, has already occurred. Only the truly uninformed and evil folks think more gun control is needed, or will ever be accepted. Additional compromise is insurmountable. Additional efforts by the government (especially the Federal government) to further infringe upon the right to bear arms will only serve to further de-legitimize that government in the eyes of millions of armed people.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

 

 

I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!

 

 

The public had access to more powerful weapons than those issued by the army back in the day when the declaration of independence was a quite new piece of paper, completely legally of course.

 

So things haven't changed that much, relatively speaking.

 

 

 

But the objective situation matters a great deal.

 

In 1776 you murder a child for walking on your lawn and now you spend half an hour reloading while all your armed neighbors get a shot at you or have time to alert the authorities. In 2016, you murder half the room before the remaining half pulls their own assault rifles out, with enough shots between them to kill you and perhaps wound a couple more with some misfiring.

 

The purpose behind the 2nd Amendment is self defense. You can absolutely protect yourself with a pistol, rifle or shotgun. An assault rifle is, quite frankly, a terrible weapon for self-defense. You're at far greater risk of hitting someone you didn't intend to hit, or if you're shooting at an intruder in your home, you'll now have several holes in the wall behind him while you're also paying more for the use of the weapon itself. Why not just use a damned pistol?

 

People who buy assault rifles are either those that want it for recreation or those that are truly nutty. I'm sorry, but recreation doesn't hold a lot of value in the face of deadlier mass shootings.

 

 

I am no legal scholar so I cannot say what the amendment says in spirit or what precedents there are, my interests lies more in keeping the state from getting a monopoly of violence. Also there is the part where you should draw the line on what is "too powerful", while easy to say for nuclear missiles and grand explosives it is much more difficult for the terms "arms" or "firearms". Finally there 3D printing and what that will bring.

[BruceVC]

Okay, you both seem a little defensive. Its not worth debating this point unless you wanted to at least consider giving up your guns 

 

 

And to be honest I feel a little tired now as I worked last night so you both would  overwhelm me ...you guys win 

[Guard Dog]

Okay, you both seem a little defensive. Its not worth debating this point unless you wanted to at least consider giving up your guns 

Give up our guns? That is what you call a compromise?

[BruceVC]

 

Okay, you both seem a little defensive. Its not worth debating this point unless you wanted to at least consider giving up your guns 

Give up our guns? That is what you call a compromise?

 

 No, much stricter and effective gun control ownership laws and a TOTAL ban on automatic rifles 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Okay, you both seem a little defensive. Its not worth debating this point unless you wanted to at least consider giving up your guns 

Give up our guns? That is what you call a compromise?

 

 No, much stricter and effective gun control ownership laws and a TOTAL ban on automatic rifles 

 

We have restrictions on ownershipand automatic weapons are already illegal.

[Amentep]

Amentep you are one of those people who always seems to make a reasonable point in way that I find generally makes sense 

 

But you cant be seriously suggesting tighter gun controls and banning certain guns wont make a real  difference..its been proven, its not even a reasonable debate?Dont believe what the NRA tell you 

Yes, I am suggesting that. Because the problem is (as they always are) bigger than any single "magic bullet" solution can ever manage to solve.

 

Making things illegal only affects the people who care about the legality of what they're doing. In the case of mass shootings, the fact that homicide is already illegal wasn't a deterrent; it is highly unlikely that making it also illegal to have a gun would have any significant effect.

 

Solving the problem of mass shootings is only possible when society as a whole starts looking at the multiple factors that lead people to the point that mass death seems to be a logical choice, and working back from that trying to mitigate those factors.  "Magic bullets" need not apply.

[Hurlshort]

I have my moments where I would like to see some changes in the way gun ownership works in this country, particularly after a tragic event like Sandy Hook.  But at the end of the day, it is simply unfeasible both logistically and culturally to put any serious restrictions on guns in this country.  Instead I'd like to see better education and awareness, and I think a group like the NRA should be at the forefront of that.  But they seem to spend more time on political posturing.

[BruceVC]

I have my moments where I would like to see some changes in the way gun ownership works in this country, particularly after a tragic event like Sandy Hook.  But at the end of the day, it is simply unfeasible both logistically and culturally to put any serious restrictions on guns in this country.  Instead I'd like to see better education and awareness, and I think a group like the NRA should be at the forefront of that.  But they seem to spend more time on political posturing.

Guys this is the reality of  gun control in the USA and its dismal ...if someone like Hurlshot isn't so keen to get involved then lets just leave it 

 

Its a sign not to get involved if the Californians wont take the initiative 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Amentep you are one of those people who always seems to make a reasonable point in way that I find generally makes sense 

 

But you cant be seriously suggesting tighter gun controls and banning certain guns wont make a real  difference..its been proven, its not even a reasonable debate?Dont believe what the NRA tell you 

Yes, I am suggesting that. Because the problem is (as they always are) bigger than any single "magic bullet" solution can ever manage to solve.

 

Making things illegal only affects the people who care about the legality of what they're doing. In the case of mass shootings, the fact that homicide is already illegal wasn't a deterrent; it is highly unlikely that making it also illegal to have a gun would have any significant effect.

 

Solving the problem of mass shootings is only possible when society as a whole starts looking at the multiple factors that lead people to the point that mass death seems to be a logical choice, and working back from that trying to mitigate those factors.  "Magic bullets" need not apply.

 

 

 

I'm not convinced the only viable reason for wanting stricter gun control is that it would prevent mass shootings, though.

[Guard Dog]

And you would be correct aluminiumtrioxid. Let's look at this logically. Let's accept the premise for the moment that the folks in governments do not care a whit about crime, or gun violence as a public safety issue altogether. Just throw that out for a moment. Why would they try so hard to disarm the citizens then? If it's not for the citizens safety then why?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Amentep you are one of those people who always seems to make a reasonable point in way that I find generally makes sense 

 

But you cant be seriously suggesting tighter gun controls and banning certain guns wont make a real  difference..its been proven, its not even a reasonable debate?Dont believe what the NRA tell you 

Yes, I am suggesting that. Because the problem is (as they always are) bigger than any single "magic bullet" solution can ever manage to solve.

 

Making things illegal only affects the people who care about the legality of what they're doing. In the case of mass shootings, the fact that homicide is already illegal wasn't a deterrent; it is highly unlikely that making it also illegal to have a gun would have any significant effect.

 

Solving the problem of mass shootings is only possible when society as a whole starts looking at the multiple factors that lead people to the point that mass death seems to be a logical choice, and working back from that trying to mitigate those factors.  "Magic bullets" need not apply.

 

 

 

I'm not convinced the only viable reason for wanting stricter gun control is that it would prevent mass shootings, though.

 

alum dont even start down this road, our US friends are very defensive

 

By the way you and  I could be inextricably  linked as both our governments lack common sense ...they want to buy all the nuclear technology from Russia 

Are you aware of why this is a terrible idea for both our countries ?

Edited April 22, 2016 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

And you would be correct aluminiumtrioxid. Let's look at this logically. Let's accept the premise for the moment that the folks in governments do not care a whit about crime, or gun violence as a public safety issue altogether. Just throw that out for a moment. Why would they try so hard to disarm the citizens then? If it's not for the citizens safety then why?

 

I'm not sure that the government is really all that committed though.  The Assault Weapons Ban expired and has not been able to get back through the senate.  The background checks are the big new thing, and those are facing plenty of resistance within the government itself, so who knows how it will end up looking under new leadership?

[Guard Dog]

 

And you would be correct aluminiumtrioxid. Let's look at this logically. Let's accept the premise for the moment that the folks in governments do not care a whit about crime, or gun violence as a public safety issue altogether. Just throw that out for a moment. Why would they try so hard to disarm the citizens then? If it's not for the citizens safety then why?

 

I'm not sure that the government is really all that committed though.  The Assault Weapons Ban expired and has not been able to get back through the senate.  The background checks are the big new thing, and those are facing plenty of resistance within the government itself, so who knows how it will end up looking under new leadership?

 

Whatever happens the House will probably not change. So even if the Senate does there is little chance of anything new coming down the pipe no matter who is in the WH. As for background checks this is a red herring if ever I say one. Eight states require a background check on any class of firearm purchase, all but 11 require one on everything other than shotguns, and all 50 require one for a handgun. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

And you would be correct aluminiumtrioxid. Let's look at this logically. Let's accept the premise for the moment that the folks in governments do not care a whit about crime, or gun violence as a public safety issue altogether. Just throw that out for a moment. Why would they try so hard to disarm the citizens then? If it's not for the citizens safety then why?

 

 

Never particularly understood the paranoia about this, really.

 

I mean, let's, for a moment, assume that owning guns would give you a fighting chance against trained soldiers who are most certainly better equipped and spend way more of their time practicing the fine art of murder (in-between kicking puppies and preparing to dastardly unleash those skills on the unsuspecting populace at the behest of the Government). Let's assume that you can take a few of them down before getting splattered all over your living room, and this would give the government pause because training those people is super time-consuming and expensive, not to mention that the subset of soldiers willing to turn their guns on their fellow citizens must be significantly smaller than the entire army, thus replacing them might be an issue (especially since enlistment rates are unlikely to skyrocket once it becomes public knowledge that you may or may not be asked to gun down your countrymen).

 

Now, for the million-dollar question: if fear from losses incurred by armed citizens is the limiting factor on the government's ability to order the army to murder those citizens, what exactly is stopping them from just assassinating those armed citizens with drones?

[Bartimaeus]

But that isn't what Guard Dog asked, or really even hinted at, at all. If it's not for public safety/crime control, what reason does the government have for disarming its citizenry? Guard Dog might have his reasons for not wanting the government to disarm him and the rest of the U.S., sure, but that has no relevancy to why certain members of the government do want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S. - unless those reasons are why the government want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S. in the first place, which you're saying they're not, anyways. So why do it?

Edited April 22, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

But that isn't what Guard Dog asked, or really even hinted at, at all. If it's not for public safety/crime control, what reason does the government have for disarming its citizenry? Guard Dog might have his reasons for not wanting the government to disarm him and the rest of the U.S., sure, but that has no relevancy to why certain members of the government want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S.

 

 

I fail to see what reason they might have other than "to make an armed insurrection harder".

 

And, well, it's not like GD hasn't shared with us his bonerific fantasies about his heroic last stand against the forces of an illegitimate government ordering its army to fight its citizens.

[BruceVC]

But that isn't what Guard Dog asked, or really even hinted at, at all. If it's not for public safety/crime control, what reason does the government have for disarming its citizenry? Guard Dog might have his reasons for not wanting the government to disarm him and the rest of the U.S., sure, but that has no relevancy to why certain members of the government do want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S. - unless those reasons are why the government want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S. in the first place, which you're saying they're not, anyways. So why do it?

No Barti, you Americans don't need so many guns ....we have a much, much higher murder rate and not everyone in  SA is armed 

[Namutree]

 

But that isn't what Guard Dog asked, or really even hinted at, at all. If it's not for public safety/crime control, what reason does the government have for disarming its citizenry? Guard Dog might have his reasons for not wanting the government to disarm him and the rest of the U.S., sure, but that has no relevancy to why certain members of the government do want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S. - unless those reasons are why the government want to disarm him and the rest of the U.S. in the first place, which you're saying they're not, anyways. So why do it?

No Barti, you Americans don't need so many guns ....we have a much, much higher murder rate and not everyone in  SA is armed 

 

Think there might be a connection?