Terrible gun control bill

[Ben Lamb]

Rahm and Saul's playbook Ben. Serious crisis/waste

Manufactured outrage is the currency of modern American politics. The first thing they teach you in lobbyist school is literally: Kids trump everything except dead kids.

That's kind of crass, but it's true. Regardless, the public looks at gun owners when we engage in these debates as heartless bastards with no empathy for the loss of life our hobby creates. It may be the playbook of radicals, but we don't need to be willing participants in allowing it to unfold as such.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Manufactured outrage is the currency of modern American politics. The first thing they teach you in lobbyist school is literally: Kids trump everything except dead kids.

That's kind of crass, but it's true. Regardless, the public looks at gun owners when we engage in these debates as heartless bastards with no empathy for the loss of life our hobby creates. It may be the playbook of radicals, but we don't need to be willing participants in allowing it to unfold as such.

My problem is that, as with all topics, I seek efficacy as a key reason to support govt action. I will not support government action on a topic just because I see a problem, I need to see effective govt action proposed that I reasonably believe will result in improvement, not action for action's sake or bills for mere political advantage.

In the present case, I am struggling to see most of these bills as actually changing any outcomes. The bulk of gun tragedies are caused by suicide and illegally possessed guns used in association with other crime (gangs, drugs, etc). So a bill that specifically targets suicide - such as 48h delay on first-time gun purchases of handguns and shotguns (primary suicide choices), increased psychiatric care funds, or red flag laws with proper due process provisions could get my support. Or a bill that funds a big crack-down/lock-up focused on removing guns from the possession of gang members and other criminals could get my support. But chasing the mythical AR ban is of very questionable efficacy - especially if they grandfather in tens of millions of guns and magazines as the OP's bill (and most of its ilk) does. This bill (and most of the dozens I have read) are political eye candy that make life more difficult on law-abiding owners while doing little to nothing to stop the bleeding. I have written many times to my representative proposing some reasonable and possibly effective steps, but on both sides they just continue to whip their respective sides into unproductive furries.

Like all constitutional rights there are regulatory limits - 2A is no different. But that doesn't mean the govt should ineffectively thrash around in performative "safety theater" at the expense of lawful gun owners/users. Gun violence is a real problem that needs real solutions. I do not believe either party is serious about actually solving the problem - they are both just riding the outrage waves to lock in votes and $$$ on both sides of the issue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My problem is that, as with all topics, I seek efficacy as a key reason to support govt action. I will not support government action on a topic just because I see a problem, I need to see effective govt action proposed that I reasonably believe will result in improvement, not action for action's sake or bills for mere political advantage.

In the present case, I am struggling to see most of these bills as actually changing any outcomes. The bulk of gun tragedies are caused by suicide and illegally possessed guns used in association with other crime (gangs, drugs, etc). So a bill that specifically targets suicide - such as 48 delay on first-time gun purchases of handguns and shotguns (primary suicide choices), increased psychiatric care funds, or red flag laws with proper due process provisions could get my support. Or a bill that funds a big crack-down/lock-up focused on removing guns from the possession of gang members and other criminals could get my support. But chasing the mythical AR ban is of very questionable efficacy - especially if they grandfather in tens of millions of guns and magazines as the OP's bill (and most of its ilk) does. This bill (and most of the dozens I have read) are political eye candy that make life more difficult on law-abiding owners while doing little to nothing to stop the bleeding. I have written many times to my representative proposing some reasonable and possibly effective steps, but on both sides they just continue to whip their respective sides into unproductive furries.

Like all constitutional rights there are regulatory limits - 2A is no different. But that doesn't mean the govt should ineffectively thrash around in performative "safety theater" at the expense of lawful gun owners/users. Gun violence is a real problem that needs real solutions. I do not believe either party is serious about actually solving the problem - they are both just riding the outrage waves to lock in votes and $$$ on both sides of the issue.

100% Dan. 100%

 

[jlmatthew]

I don't really know what anyone needs with semiautomatic rifles, especially high capacity weapons of war like the AR15. They'll literally blow the lungs out of the body.

Wonder why the Army didnt issue me an AR15? Sounds way more powerful than that pop-gun M-16/M4

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wonder why the Army didnt issue me an AR15? Sounds way more powerful than that pop-gun M-16/M4

Budget cuts?

 

[noharleyyet]

Budget cuts?

Those lobbyist yachts ain't gonna buy themselves.

 

[KB_]

Like all constitutional rights there are regulatory limits - 2A is no different. But that doesn't mean the govt should ineffectively thrash around in performative "safety theater" at the expense of lawful gun owners/users. Gun violence is a real problem that needs real solutions. I do not believe either party is serious about actually solving the problem - they are both just riding the outrage waves to lock in votes and $$$ on both sides of the issue.

Very well said. They simply dont care about anything other then making money. Both sides especially dont care about solving any real problems.
I mean come on how many government officials have gotten busted with insider trading lately? That is where their priority's live.

 

[noharleyyet]

You ain't gonna bank 10mil on 174K/year...even a Texas public school education can cypher the odds

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those lobbyist yachts ain't gonna buy themselves.

Here's how much the CEOs of America's top defense companies are paid

A list of defense industry giants and how much CEOs of these companies made.

www.cnbc.com

 

[noharleyyet]

Here's how much the CEOs of America's top defense companies are paid

A list of defense industry giants and how much CEOs of these companies made.

www.cnbc.com

Yea I get it, but was speaking more to congress's penchant for providing lobbyist apprenticeship programs while also receiving juicy stock tips.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yea I get it, but was speaking more to congress's penchant for providing lobbyist apprenticeship programs while also receiving juicy stock tips.

“Peoples do not judge in the same way as courts of law; they do not hand down sentences, they throw thunderbolts; they do not condemn kings, they drop them back into the void; and this justice is worth just as much as that of the courts.”
― Maximilien Robespierre

 

[Sytes]

M.A.D. = Republican vs Democrat in our two party controlled America.

Both parties believe if they give an inch the other will take a mile, thus stuck in a self inflicted quagmire. These ridiculous anti law abiding citizen bills are not cannon fodder. They are specifically set to keep their rally cry booming over the naïve constituents who, as our President, believe a "9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body".

If you think this is simply posturing, I disagree, as in California:
9th Circuit Court (Surprising - however a bullhorn it boomed) Lee wrote this about California's intent to force a ban on "LCM", Large Capacity Magazines.
“But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster”... “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self- defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.”

I'd say, using Ben's comment about a seven year young child, ugly politics pawn children though it jolts one side while the other has their rally cries to counter or divert. Chess game that does not end.

Would a lead ball from December 15th, 1791 (or today) rip through a human - destroy a lung? A 19 round magazine of a 1779 pea shooter, such as the Girandoni, or the Ferguson breach loader of 1777, or the Puckle Gun of 1718 shine a light that multi round firearms were a production of invention and design during the decision to ratify our Bill of Rights.

Boss Party Politics know they're stuck with each other and ally to assure a third party does not emerge... All the while the rants of both extremes tug at their coat tails. A third party would be a healthy move from the pork like bacon that may cause America to have a heart attack. I know, not a popular opinion on Hunt Talk and elsewhere as the Red and Blue must maintain their status to ensure their seats are maintained. A vote for Independent is a vote for the other party...

Vote for your party. Life of our afflicted two party system.

 

[VikingsGuy]

M.A.D. = Republican vs Democrat in our two party controlled America.

Both parties believe if they give an inch the other will take a mile, thus stuck in a self inflicted quagmire. These ridiculous anti law abiding citizen bills are not cannon fodder. They are specifically set to keep their rally cry booming over the naïve constituents who, as our President, believe a "9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body".

If you think this is simply posturing, I disagree, as in California:
9th Circuit Court (Surprising - however a bullhorn it boomed) Lee wrote this about California's intent to force a ban on "LCM", Large Capacity Magazines.
“But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster”... “California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self- defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.”

I'd say, using Ben's comment about a seven year young child, ugly politics pawn children though it jolts one side while the other has their rally cries to counter or divert. Chess game that does not end.

Would a lead ball from December 15th, 1791 (or today) rip through a human - destroy a lung? A 19 round magazine of a 1779 pea shooter, such as the Girandoni, or the Ferguson breach loader of 1777, or the Puckle Gun of 1718 shine a light that multi round firearms were a production of invention and design during the decision to ratify our Bill of Rights.

Boss Party Politics know they're stuck with each other and ally to assure a third party does not emerge... All the while the rants of both extremes tug at their coat tails. A third party would be a healthy move from the pork like bacon that may cause America to have a heart attack. I know, not a popular opinion on Hunt Talk and elsewhere as the Red and Blue must maintain their status to ensure their seats are maintained. A vote for Independent is a vote for the other party...

Vote for your party. Life of our afflicted two party system.

I don't think the polarization comes from two parties, as compared to 3 or 5 or 10. Isreal and Italy clearly show that more parties do not always result in better and more moderate governance.

Along the lines of Ezra Klien's discussion in, Why We Are Polarized, it is driven by two current features of American democracy. The first is that we have come to view political identity as inseparable from personal identity thereby raising every partisan question to the existential level. Adding parties just adds some additional detail to how you frame that identity but it does nothing to reduce the existential crisis caused by exposure to the ideas of "the other". A middle third party would become just as rigid and intractable as the other two, as compromising the middle ground with either left or right would be a forbidden act, and now we really would have gridlock.

The second feature is that with low turnout and tight elections it is voter turnout, not voter opinion, is what is driving election wins and losses today. If the democrats want 5% more votes next cycle they are more likely to get it by motivating 5% more folks on the left to actually show up and vote than to shift their policies toward the middle to grab 5% of the "moderates". Until either we have much higher voter turn out - sufficient turn out that makes ebbs and flows of voter engagement too small to bother with; or one party drifts so far from the "mainstream" of voters that they lose far more moderates than they can replace via increased turnout of the "true believers" and they are force to reset their political positions and coalitions to regain a winning portion of society.

Unfortunately, both of these factors reward extremist and alarmist political tactics. The fear of the other has to be so great that a voter has an existential crisis and then runs out to vote.

So, a few simple solutions - solutions that do not require 3rd parties, suppression of 1A, adding states, suppressing votes from the working poor, etc, . . .
(1). Refuse to participate in tribal us/them discussions from one side - view both sides of issues and find solutions that are not us vs them - realize very very few issues are existential to your person - tune out the partisan/tribal battle cries and think like an understanding and compassionate individual - and encourage those around us to do the same. (2) Encourage full voter turnout on both sides - voting should be simple and verifiable - too often it is neither - quit supporting both parties' attempts to make voting work for their partisan voters and work towards making the vote a basic and simple patriotic act of every American. (3) Actively engage in the local party precinct activities and work to ensure that rational middle ground folks are put on the party ballots. (4) Stop splitting your ticket - vote one way or the other and encourage the opposing side to adapt - the solution to finding a middle ground is not alternating votes on one person's ballot every other slot - it helps create gridlock without sending signals to the parties about how to adapt their message to garner moderate support.

 

[Sytes]

Fair points, VG. I disagree (Agree with a few points made) however, I understand your opinion.

62 percent say third political party is needed in US

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. needs a third major political party because the GOP and Democratic Party “do such a poor job representing the American people,” accordin…

thehill.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fair points, VG. I disagree (Agree with a few points made) however, I understand your opinion.

62 percent say third political party is needed in US

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. needs a third major political party because the GOP and Democratic Party “do such a poor job representing the American people,” accordin…

thehill.com

Yeah, but to be fair, Americans have the same favorability to programs like the Bachelor, so do we really want those people making any more decisions for us?

 

[bigfoot11]

My problem is that, as with all topics, I seek efficacy as a key reason to support govt action. I will not support government action on a topic just because I see a problem, I need to see effective govt action proposed that I reasonably believe will result in improvement, not action for action's sake or bills for mere political advantage.

In the present case, I am struggling to see most of these bills as actually changing any outcomes. The bulk of gun tragedies are caused by suicide and illegally possessed guns used in association with other crime (gangs, drugs, etc). So a bill that specifically targets suicide - such as 48h delay on first-time gun purchases of handguns and shotguns (primary suicide choices), increased psychiatric care funds, or red flag laws with proper due process provisions could get my support. Or a bill that funds a big crack-down/lock-up focused on removing guns from the possession of gang members and other criminals could get my support. But chasing the mythical AR ban is of very questionable efficacy - especially if they grandfather in tens of millions of guns and magazines as the OP's bill (and most of its ilk) does. This bill (and most of the dozens I have read) are political eye candy that make life more difficult on law-abiding owners while doing little to nothing to stop the bleeding. I have written many times to my representative proposing some reasonable and possibly effective steps, but on both sides they just continue to whip their respective sides into unproductive furries.

Like all constitutional rights there are regulatory limits - 2A is no different. But that doesn't mean the govt should ineffectively thrash around in performative "safety theater" at the expense of lawful gun owners/users. Gun violence is a real problem that needs real solutions. I do not believe either party is serious about actually solving the problem - they are both just riding the outrage waves to lock in votes and $$$ on both sides of the issue.

You ever read a post that you say to yourself "Damn, I don't think I could have said it any better?" This is one of them posts. Would really be interested to hear what your effective steps that you send to your reps. Not to bash, just to see if there is anything I could add when I write mine.

Also, what does everyone think of donating to the NRA (I know they have had their issues), USCCA and the like? I have been mostly donating to local sportsmans groups instead of the big national gun groups.

 

[pabearhunter]

Hey guys, just a heads up. The senate judicial committee approved H.R. 1808, basically it bans the production or selling of most semi auto rifles, shotguns, pistols and any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. You seriously need to email or call your representitives and tell them to oppose it, this is getting ridiculous. I personally don't hunt with semi auto rifles and shotguns, I have always been better with bolt guns and pumps, but I think that anyone who wants to should be able to own as many as they want.

It passes the house and now goes to the Senate and they need 10 Republicans to vote it in !

 

[longbow51]

I don't think they have 10 Republicans now to get it through, but to those who scoffed that it was just political pandering for votes, it's clearly not. However, as usual, Republicans fail their constituents on a regular basis, so who knows?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't think they have 10 Republicans now to get it through, but to those who scoffed that it was just political pandering for votes, it's clearly not. However, as usual, Republicans fail their constituents on a regular basis, so who knows?

This is exactly according to script. The house knows it wouldn’t see the floor of the senate #gamesmanship_n_pandering.

 

[Don Fischer]

I don't really know what anyone needs with semiautomatic rifles, especially high capacity weapons of war like the AR15. They'll literally blow the lungs out of the body.

And it's those that actually believe this that will be voting!