Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
For the love of the game

Gun control

Recommended Posts

I don't see any way the NRA would ever agree to a licensing program. That falls right into their narrative of the government taking away your guns. It just shifts it a little bit into "the government will take away your guns if they don't deem you worthy of owning a gun."

 

They're already whipping people into a frenzy and encouraging them to prepare for a civil war on this issue. This is going to get a whole lot uglier before any meaningful solution is reached.

 

There are lobbiest groups on both sides of the isle for most everything being fought for, pro life or pro choice, for or against merit pay for teachers, both sides of the legalizing of weed. Same thing in the gun debate. The Brady Campaign, Potomac Institute, Coalition to Stop Gun Violance for the gun control side. I think Bloomburg even has a gun control group. NCPA, Firearms and Liberty, NRA for the anti gun control.

 

Another possible factor is that the people we have in Washington do not want to lose there jobs by stepping on a political landmine. There are I believe 20 democratics seats up for reaction in 2014, 10 of which are in red states. I believe there are 13 republican seats up but from what I saw they are all in red states. I think it goes both ways here too, just like above.

 

While the NRA I am sure has some blame in this Frenzy, the tradgedies themeself factor in along with lobbies groups on the other side and the media have blame as well.

 

Personally, I think the solution for the gun debate, if there is one, involves stricker background checks and training for gun owners and stiffer penalties for gun violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but none of those anti-gun lobby groups have anywhere near the influence in Congress that the NRA has. It's not even close.

 

The NRA is going to oppose anything that results in less guns being owned, no matter what it is, and they have a pretty tight grip on the Republicans and even quite a few Democrats. There is no way anything passes in the house that they don't want passed.

 

They oppose restricting gun sales to people on the terrorist watchlist, for *****'s sake. They're not going to agree to opening up the possibility of the government denying ownership rights to regular citizens under any circumstances. It's not going to happen.

 

They represent the interests of gun and ammunition manufacturers. Their goal is selling more guns. They're not going to deviate from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but none of those anti-gun lobby groups have anywhere near the influence in Congress that the NRA has. It's not even close.

 

The NRA is going to oppose anything that results in less guns being owned, no matter what it is, and they have a pretty tight grip on the Republicans and even quite a few Democrats. There is no way anything passes in the house that they don't want passed.

 

They oppose restricting gun sales to people on the terrorist watchlist, for *****'s sake. They're not going to agree to opening up the possibility of the government denying ownership rights to regular citizens under any circumstances. It's not going to happen.

 

They represent the interests of gun and ammunition manufacturers. Their goal is selling more guns. They're not going to deviate from that.

 

Google myths about NRA Dominance by Paul Waldman. He did a 4 part series that provides statistical evidence of this. Now, of course the NRA has power, I am not debating that. The degree of their power is debatable though IMO

 

Regarding the watch list, the ACLU has problems with it being bloated stating at one time that it needs to focus its time on finding true terrorists. The article I found appeared to be from 2009 but it was none the less on there website. I cited them because while some of their values might intertwine, their missions are different Now of course I understand the list has importance in the war on terror.

 

I am not agreeing with the NRA's stance. From what I could find on the web it appears they feel the watch list, like the ACLU it is too broad and arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to see some things straightened out. First off, there's no such thing as "assault weapons". You have automatic weapons, which are already illegal, and you have semi-automatic weapons which are not illegal. The AR-15, which is erroneously called an "assault weapon", is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle. Looks like an M-4, but isn't. Has no "auto" selector, nor a "burst" selector. For each trigger squeeze you fire one round.

 

Second, it's not called a "clip". A clip was used in weapons like the M-1 Garand. 8 bullets on a metal strip that was then loaded into the top of the rifle. What's used in the AR-15 is called a magazine. And banning 30 round magazines won't do anything meaningful to curtail gun violence. All a gunman need do at that point is just bring X amount of magazines to make up the difference, and anyone who has practiced a little can exchange magazines in a matter of seconds. So any and all measures being either proposed or passed (such as the NY law) will not do a single thing to prevent mass shooting tragedies such as Aurora or Newton.

 

My own personal view is that gun control isn't about guns, but about control. The second amendment reads that the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Note that they didn't specify what type of arm, just arms, period. They could have limited the People to cruder firearm technology than what was available at the time, but chose not to do so. The People were armed just as much as the soldier, and in some cases, even better armed. So yeah, I'm not in favor of banning pretty much any type of weaponry. As long as the person who wields it is a responsible person, it shouldn't matter much.

 

However, like with the AR-15, it's more a matter of perception than it is about anything else. We see a guy walking down the road with an AR-15, or even a shotgun, and everyone's first instinct is to panic, whereas not too long ago, such things would not even raise an eyebrow. For those who have been able to travel to the Middle East or southwest Asia, the public view on weapons there is much different than here in America. Over there, it is an every day occurrence to see even 14 and 15 year olds walking down the roads carrying a fully automatic AK-47, and no one even looks twice at him. Had a buddy whose folks were from Syria who told me something close to 10 years ago that has always stuck with me. In America, we flaunt our women and hide our guns, while Over There, they hide their women and flaunt their guns.

 

Going back to the second amendment, I feel there's a mistake being used in the argument. The second amendment does not protect the rights of hunters. It really doesn't even protect the rights of homeowners against criminals. The goal is to create an armed populous that the Government canNOT trample the rights of, for even if the power of a vote is taken away, the power of the bullet still stands as an equalizer. That is why an AR-15-type rifle should not be banned. It is the same reason I feel 240s, 249s, and other weapons should be available to those who possess the aptitude and mental stability to own them. The People must be able to stand against the Government on something at least approaching even terms. It is not a coincidence that some of the most brutal dictators in modern history were able to round up and execute so many millions of their own people only AFTER being able to disarm them.

 

Edit: Forgot to add that I am also against the registration of firearms as well. It is not like your car. When you look at the second amendment as the last line of defense against tyranny of the Government, the last thing you'd want is the Government knowing who has guns and where they are. Would you trust a politician (from either side of the aisle) with the database containing the whereabouts of all guns in the US? History has plenty of examples of a government that uses knowledge, such as a person's political beliefs, to round up, imprison, or simply execute them. The Government would be the ones determining if you're not mentally capable of owning a firearm, and with the level of corruption present these days, do you really trust them to be fair? As it is now, unless I'm wrong, the Government knows who has registered for a license, but not if said person actually HAS a gun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the second amendment, I feel there's a mistake being used in the argument. The second amendment does not protect the rights of hunters. It really doesn't even protect the rights of homeowners against criminals. The goal is to create an armed populous that the Government canNOT trample the rights of, for even if the power of a vote is taken away, the power of the bullet still stands as an equalizer. That is why an AR-15-type rifle should not be banned. It is the same reason I feel 240s, 249s, and other weapons should be available to those who possess the aptitude and mental stability to own them. The People must be able to stand against the Government on something at least approaching even terms. It is not a coincidence that some of the most brutal dictators in modern history were able to round up and execute so many millions of their own people only AFTER being able to disarm them.

 

Do you believe private citizens have the right to own fully-operational tanks? Drone planes? Nuclear weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe private citizens have the right to own fully-operational tanks? Drone planes? Nuclear weapons?

 

Depends on the private citizen. Would you crap your pants if I owned an M252 81mm mortar system? I worked with those for over 8 years and am VERY good with them. However, I have no desire to level a playground with them. Do you trust our government with those same systems? Tanks that can run right through your house, drones that will be watching your house? If you can trust that bunch of tools with weapons of that scale, why not the private citizen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to see some things straightened out. First off, there's no such thing as "assault weapons". You have automatic weapons, which are already illegal, and you have semi-automatic weapons which are not illegal. The AR-15, which is erroneously called an "assault weapon", is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle. Looks like an M-4, but isn't. Has no "auto" selector, nor a "burst" selector. For each trigger squeeze you fire one round.

 

Second, it's not called a "clip". A clip was used in weapons like the M-1 Garand. 8 bullets on a metal strip that was then loaded into the top of the rifle. What's used in the AR-15 is called a magazine. And banning 30 round magazines won't do anything meaningful to curtail gun violence. All a gunman need do at that point is just bring X amount of magazines to make up the difference, and anyone who has practiced a little can exchange magazines in a matter of seconds. So any and all measures being either proposed or passed (such as the NY law) will not do a single thing to prevent mass shooting tragedies such as Aurora or Newton.

 

My own personal view is that gun control isn't about guns, but about control. The second amendment reads that the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Note that they didn't specify what type of arm, just arms, period. They could have limited the People to cruder firearm technology than what was available at the time, but chose not to do so. The People were armed just as much as the soldier, and in some cases, even better armed. So yeah, I'm not in favor of banning pretty much any type of weaponry. As long as the person who wields it is a responsible person, it shouldn't matter much.

 

However, like with the AR-15, it's more a matter of perception than it is about anything else. We see a guy walking down the road with an AR-15, or even a shotgun, and everyone's first instinct is to panic, whereas not too long ago, such things would not even raise an eyebrow. For those who have been able to travel to the Middle East or southwest Asia, the public view on weapons there is much different than here in America. Over there, it is an every day occurrence to see even 14 and 15 year olds walking down the roads carrying a fully automatic AK-47, and no one even looks twice at him. Had a buddy whose folks were from Syria who told me something close to 10 years ago that has always stuck with me. In America, we flaunt our women and hide our guns, while Over There, they hide their women and flaunt their guns.

 

Going back to the second amendment, I feel there's a mistake being used in the argument. The second amendment does not protect the rights of hunters. It really doesn't even protect the rights of homeowners against criminals. The goal is to create an armed populous that the Government canNOT trample the rights of, for even if the power of a vote is taken away, the power of the bullet still stands as an equalizer. That is why an AR-15-type rifle should not be banned. It is the same reason I feel 240s, 249s, and other weapons should be available to those who possess the aptitude and mental stability to own them. The People must be able to stand against the Government on something at least approaching even terms. It is not a coincidence that some of the most brutal dictators in modern history were able to round up and execute so many millions of their own people only AFTER being able to disarm them.

 

Edit: Forgot to add that I am also against the registration of firearms as well. It is not like your car. When you look at the second amendment as the last line of defense against tyranny of the Government, the last thing you'd want is the Government knowing who has guns and where they are. Would you trust a politician (from either side of the aisle) with the database containing the whereabouts of all guns in the US? History has plenty of examples of a government that uses knowledge, such as a person's political beliefs, to round up, imprison, or simply execute them. The Government would be the ones determining if you're not mentally capable of owning a firearm, and with the level of corruption present these days, do you really trust them to be fair? As it is now, unless I'm wrong, the Government knows who has registered for a license, but not if said person actually HAS a gun.

 

Very well said. Heard a qoute the other day that goes something like this, "governments fear people with guns, people without guns fear governments" Cannot remember who said it, but it has stuck in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google myths about NRA Dominance by Paul Waldman. He did a 4 part series that provides statistical evidence of this. Now, of course the NRA has power, I am not debating that. The degree of their power is debatable though IMO

 

That article is about their inability to sway elections, not their influence on people who are actually in Congress already. I agree that their spending on elections doesn't mean dick, but that's not really relevant when we're talking about their relationships with legislators and their ability to influence which bills get votes in Congress. That's where their real power is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own personal view is that gun control isn't about guns, but about control. The second amendment reads that the people's right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. Note that they didn't specify what type of arm, just arms, period. They could have limited the People to cruder firearm technology than what was available at the time, but chose not to do so. The People were armed just as much as the soldier, and in some cases, even better armed. So yeah, I'm not in favor of banning pretty much any type of weaponry. As long as the person who wields it is a responsible person, it shouldn't matter much.

 

The second amendment also mentions a "well-regulated militia" and the whole thing has been interpreted in lots of different ways over the years. I'm not big on gun control either, mostly from a practical standpoint, but let's not pretend that it's a clear message with a well-defined meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, I'm not in favor of banning pretty much any type of weaponry. As long as the person who wields it is a responsible person, it shouldn't matter much.

 

So, how do you determine who is responsible enough? What do you do when someone you think isn't responsible enough has access to significant weaponry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is about their inability to sway elections, not their influence on people who are actually in Congress already. I agree that their spending on elections doesn't mean dick, but that's not really relevant when we're talking about their relationships with legislators and their ability to influence which bills get votes in Congress. That's where their real power is.

 

You are right about what the article was about. My question then is how the NRA that cannot sway an election has such great power over whos already in Congress (both dems and republicans alike)? What is their real power?

 

Can you define that first? I am not saying they have none just want to know what you feel is their real power is before continueing.

 

Also, you made a comment in another post that you are not big on gun control either, mostly from a practical standpoint. Do you mean that if it was practical you would support it? What kind of control would you support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how do you determine who is responsible enough? What do you do when someone you think isn't responsible enough has access to significant weaponry?

 

I know you are asking him, but I would support stricker back ground checks only. I feel that some types of mentally ill people should not have guns either so I would support some limited control on that. I just do not know the how that could be done. An then is that not the slipperly slope theory again? If the Goverment can say that mental illness A cannot own a gun now, whats to stop them from saying next year that mental illness B cannot have one? It would have to be an outside person, but then who would take that with the fear that mental illness B goes out and snaps and then he gets taken to court?

 

Edit: and who is to say that mental illness B snaps solely based on the illness and not in at least some part because of the meds he is on or the home invironment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×