The issue of gun control

[shootbrownelk]

Evil finds a way, imposing strict laws on law abiding citizens won't stop that.

Where's that LIKE button?

 

[Tkaldahl2000]

We can take away the guns, but remember that in Rwanda all they had was knives and machetes. Evil will find a way if it wants to. We need background checks, and a better background check system. We do not need to ban semi auto rifles based on cosmetics. If guns are taken away, look for bad guys to invest heavily in pressure cookers.

 

[noharleyyet]

Ignoring the root cause is true. This last mass shooting barely tops some weekends in Chicago. And Chicago gun laws are weak? Politicians suck at root cause analysis because they hate dealing in facts. Fact, that city hit the 300th Homocide this weekend. How many didn't die? Nothing to see here......business as usual in a city with strict gun laws.

...not enough funding. Bush/NRA's fault.

 

[RobG]

Who determines what laws are "Common sense"....our Representatives who have none themselves? Fineswine? Shumer? Boxer? Background checks for Chicago's south side? All the gun laws on the books already in Chicago have absolutely NO effect on the shooting rampages that occur there every weekend. You might be willing to trade some of your rights & freedoms for a promise of security....I am not. It's the camel's nose under the tent. You give the gun-grabbers an inch and they take a mile. That's for sure & for certain. JMO

The people will decide. One side feels a deranged person shouldn't have the ability to roll out of bed at noon, buy a semi-auto "assault-style" rifle, boxes of ammo, a handful of clips, then go into a bar and rack up 100+ casualties. The other side does not want to lose their "gun rights" and vigorously disagrees, insisting gun-grabbing liberals are clueless because he bought a detachable magazine, not a clip. And furthermore, if he couldn't get a gun he would have just used a knife.

One of those sides is going to lose.

 

[BuzzH]

Who determines what laws are "Common sense"....our Representatives who have none themselves? Fineswine? Shumer? Boxer?

Any particular reason you left out Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr.???

They were all advocates and/or pushed (successfully) more "common sense" laws on firearms than those you listed. I know its an inconvenient truth...but still.

 

[u1299]

Where's that LIKE button?

So I guess we shouldn't have any laws anywhere anytime because evil always finds a way?

 

[JoseCuervo]

The people will decide. One side feels a deranged person shouldn't have the ability to roll out of bed at noon, buy a semi-auto "assault-style" rifle, boxes of ammo, a handful of clips, then go into a bar and rack up 100+ casualties. The other side does not want to lose their "gun rights" and vigorously disagrees, insisting gun-grabbing liberals are clueless because he bought a detachable magazine, not a clip. And furthermore, if he couldn't get a gun he would have just used a knife.

One of those sides is going to lose.

Exactly this. When your best argument is calling someone "clueless" because of using the interchangable terms of "magazine" and "clip", or arguing the definition of "assault weapon" doesn't really exist, because that is not a term, and, if it did, it means everybody's fave Browning A-500 autloader goose hunting shotgun.

And the phony "but look at Chicago" argument is just as ineffective.

One side is on the ropes in this debate, one side has 90% plus of the public on their side.

The times, they are a changing....

 

[jryoung]

Exactly this. When your best argument is calling someone "clueless" because of using the interchangable terms of "magazine" and "clip", or arguing the definition of "assault weapon" doesn't really exist, because that is not a term, and, if it did, it means everybody's fave Browning A-500 autloader goose hunting shotgun.

And the phony "but look at Chicago" argument is just as ineffective.

One side is on the ropes in this debate, one side has 90% plus of the public on their side.

The times, they are a changing....

I think the nomenclature is relevant in many situations though. For example most California State legislators can't even describe the components of a CA compliant AR. There are some great comparisons to CA legislators talking about guns, to a panel of 60+ year old men talking about women's reproductive rights. Sometimes they should just shut their mouth and get a few facts straight first before they try and restrict freedoms.

 

[RobG]

I think the nomenclature is relevant in many situations though. For example most California State legislators can't even describe the components of a CA compliant AR. There are some great comparisons to CA legislators talking about guns, to a panel of 60+ year old men talking about women's reproductive rights. Sometimes they should just shut their mouth and get a few facts straight first before they try and restrict freedoms.

Sort of, but everybody called them "clips" back in the day and many gun nuts still do. Furthermore, most people know that so making a big deal out of it only cuts into the credibility of the gun crowd who may be pointing out legitimate flaws in proposed laws.

 

[jryoung]

Yeah, I wasn't really referring to clips/magazines. I was more along the lines of understanding what a shroud is, that guns are not full auto, what an 80% is etc. etc.

Some of it is so far out of context it makes Trump sound reasonable.

 

[noharleyyet]

Rob, I think most citizens regard the usual spotlight grabbing liberals' stupidity much deeper than nomenclature over a few misnomers.

 

[noharleyyet]

Jose, come again on Chicago's abject failure being comparison exempt.

 

[RobG]

Rob, I think most citizens regard the usual spotlight grabbing liberals' stupidity much deeper than nomenclature over a few misnomers.

Disagree. I think intelligent people don't put meaning in stupid Biden-type comments, and see the fixation on them as a deflection from a real underlying issue. But the bigger issue is the lack of substantive comments in defense of these "assault rifles." You get crap like "guns don't kill people, people do" or "they will just use knives" or ""Chicago" whose laws only exist to the city limits. The majority of the people see the problems with those statements.

 

[noharleyyet]

Yes, we disagree.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, come again on Chicago's abject failure being comparison exempt.

I have no idea what is "Chicago's abject failure", nor do you. Until Mayor Trump builds a wall around the City, there will be guns going in and out of the City.

In 1823, under Corfield v. Coryell, the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. So, unless you only want to pick and choose certain parts of the Constitution, and ignore the Privileges and Immunities Clause, your deflections will be insincere.


The "Chicago" argument is not a winning argument. Nor is the other nonsense from the NRA that the "standard" for ANY law must be that it stops EVERY homicide.

 

[Bugle 'Em In]

I'm guessing these are the times that are changing that Jose is referencing?

 

[rideold]

I don't profess to have the answer but what I find most interesting about the issue is that no one seems to be putting out any solution other than more control on guns (please correct me if I'm wrong). If controlling guns doesn't work (be nice to see some studies to support or refute this) or is unconstitutional then what other methods might there be for addressing violence committed with the aid of a fire arm? To me that seems to be the crux of things. I also think it would be reasonable to separate the argument of "crazy people" and "normal people" from the mix. Crazy or normal are just points on a spectrum determined by the average of that spectrum. Mental health issues are best addressed in the real of mental health rather than gun control. It would be great if the discussion could be about methods or mechanisms that would improve the safety of me or my kids going to a public gathering and not worrying about being knifed, bombed, shot up and/or killed and not about constitutional rights or mental health. Address the issue, come up with some things to try, test those ideas for efficacy and then keep working on it. If one of the methods is unconstitutional then the supreme court is the one responsible for determining that. Maybe I'm just over simplifying the whole ball of wax.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I just bought another glock yesterday. It came with 3 high capacity magazines and a inside the belt holster. Since I have a CWP, didn't have to call it in. I'm thinking about getting a pallet of ammo, just in case Armageddon starts before yard work season is over.

 

[RobG]

Yes, we disagree.

It won't be long before instead of "He would have just used a knife" you'll be saying "Remember the Alamo." The path the gun nuts are taking is unsustainable. Given the money to be made by milking the conflict, I'm sure the gun leaders would have it no other way.

 

[noharleyyet]

I agree with you Jose..for the first 4 words.