Gun control

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

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 mentally 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?

 

Okay, so stricter background checks only, except, not only, because you also want to include mental illness as well. What happens when someone who fails a background check or hits on a mental illness issue already has, from past purchases, a hefty supply of firearms?

 

Are you going to say that they aren't able to purchase guns, but it's okay if they have some from previous purchases?

 

What's the point in that?

[For the love of the game 56]

Okay, so stricter background checks only, except, not only, because you also want to include mental illness as well. What happens when someone who fails a background check or hits on a mental illness issue already has, from past purchases, a hefty supply of firearms?

 

Are you going to say that they aren't able to purchase guns, but it's okay if they have some from previous purchases?

 

What's the point in that?

 

I dont think i worded my post well. Yes I feel some mentally ill people should not own guns, but I am not sure how or even who I want to dertermine that. Maybe if the background check hits on a history of non weapon violence only that would prevent a mentally ill person from owning a gun. In a perfect world, the person or persons caretaker would help determine this or self govern if he or she should have a gun. But we all know this is not a perfect world.

 

I am not saying that its ok if one failed a background check or a mental illness check should be able to keep their previous purchases since, as you pointed out, what is the point of that?

[For the love of the game 56]

Okay, so stricter background checks only, except, not only, because you also want to include mental illness as well. What happens when someone who fails a background check or hits on a mental illness issue already has, from past purchases, a hefty supply of firearms?

 

Are you going to say that they aren't able to purchase guns, but it's okay if they have some from previous purchases?

 

What's the point in that?

 

I dont think i worded my post well. Yes I feel some mentally ill people should not own guns, but I am not sure how or even who I want to dertermine that. Maybe if the background check hits on a history of non weapon violence only that would prevent a mentally ill person from owning a gun. In a perfect world, the person or persons caretaker would help determine this or self govern if he or she should have a gun. But we all know this is not a perfect world.

 

I am however not saying that its ok if one failed a background check or a mental illness check should be able to keep their previous purchases since, as you pointed out, what is the point of that?

 

Again as I have stated previously, I feel the answer to this debate lies in a combination of stricker background check and no gun show loopholes and tougher enforcement of the laws in place and more severe pentalities for gun violence.

[Emory889 353]

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?

 

Since I've yet to hear of a story of the US military intentionally driving a tank through a private residence, I'm going to say hell yes, I trust them with those systems. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a private citizen with one....or a mortar system either for that matter. I don't give a damn how well trained or responsible they are with them. Can you imagine the kind of damage that could be done with a system like that if it fell in the wrong hands? A psycho with a little army training could destroy an entire school and HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING AWAY WITH IT!

 

While we are speaking of tanks, I'm curious what you think would happen if you attempted to "defend yourself against tyranny" with an AR-15 against that tank? In the highly unlikely event that the citizens of this country ever have to defend themselves against the military, your AR-15 is going to be just as effective as a shotgun, handgun, hunting rifle or the numerous other perfectly legal guns.....ie not very effective because you will probably be dead.

 

Lets cut through the BS here. Most of the people that scream "I need my gun to defend myself against the government" know that is just nonsense. These guns aren't used for hunting. They aren't really practical for home defense. People don't carry them on their person for self defense. People own these guns for 2 reasons. Most own them because they like to go out into the woods and shoot s*** because shooting s*** is fun. A small minority of people own them because they want to cause as much harm to as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. If the cost of keeping these kinds of guns out of the hands of lunatics is you have to reload a few more times when you are in the woods shooting other, completely legal guns, well; I can live with that.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

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?

 

Even if their money isn't as effective at winning elections as they would like it to be, the NRA still gives lots of money to politicians. Unfortunately, that buys them a seat at the table on policy matters. A lot of the people in Congress who have been there for a long time have received a sizable amount of money from the NRA over the years. They want to continue receiving that money. They aren't going to care that NRA endorsements haven't had a pronounced effect on election outcomes. Most of them probably don't even know that. All they care about is getting that contribution. And keep in mind that the money mentioned in that article is only the money that we know about. Since the Citizens United decision, PACs can take unlimited amounts of money and never have to disclose where a dime of it comes from.

 

Also, donations to re-election campaigns are not the only way lobbying groups influence politicians. Look up how many former members of Congress are now working as lobbyists themselves, and you start to get an idea of what's going on here. They take money from a lobbying group, then put forth and vote for whatever legislation the group is concerned about. Afterwards, if they play ball, they get a nice high-paying position at that lobbying firm. It happens all the time.

 

Another thing to consider is that the NRA is not the only lobbying group you'll be running afoul of if you break ranks and support gun control measures, especially if you're a republican. You're also going to lose support from groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the countless conservative PACs like Freedomworks or American Crossroads. The NRA is kind of like a figurehead in this situation. They're front and center because this is their issue, but they're the tip of a very large iceberg of conservative political organizations that will put their considerable weight behind removing you from office if you take a position on this issue that they don't like. Plus, you're going to be way less likely to get one of those cushy lobbying jobs once you're out of office.

 

I will be shocked if any of these gun control measures get more than a handful of republican votes. And it's likely that they will get 0 republican votes.

 

I should also point out that this isn't something unique to the republican party. The other side does the same things, and a lot of democrats receive money from the NRA too.

 

Regarding my other statement: I'd prefer to live in a world where guns aren't a thing. So I guess you could say that in theory I do support gun control. But any legislation that makes it through Congress is going to be watered down the point of being almost meaningless. That's not to say that I think people shouldn't try. Of course I think they should try. But the end result is going to be either no legislation at all, or legislation that is a token so politicians can say "Hey look at us, we did something to combat gun violence!" So it's not something I can really get behind.

[For the love of the game 56]

Even if their money isn't as effective at winning elections as they would like it to be, the NRA still gives lots of money to politicians. Unfortunately, that buys them a seat at the table on policy matters. A lot of the people in Congress who have been there for a long time have received a sizable amount of money from the NRA over the years. They want to continue receiving that money. They aren't going to care that NRA endorsements haven't had a pronounced effect on election outcomes. Most of them probably don't even know that. All they care about is getting that contribution. And keep in mind that the money mentioned in that article is only the money that we know about. Since the Citizens United decision, PACs can take unlimited amounts of money and never have to disclose where a dime of it comes from.

 

Also, donations to re-election campaigns are not the only way lobbying groups influence politicians. Look up how many former members of Congress are now working as lobbyists themselves, and you start to get an idea of what's going on here. They take money from a lobbying group, then put forth and vote for whatever legislation the group is concerned about. Afterwards, if they play ball, they get a nice high-paying position at that lobbying firm. It happens all the time.

 

Another thing to consider is that the NRA is not the only lobbying group you'll be running afoul of if you break ranks and support gun control measures, especially if you're a republican. You're also going to lose support from groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the countless conservative PACs like Freedomworks or American Crossroads. The NRA is kind of like a figurehead in this situation. They're front and center because this is their issue, but they're the tip of a very large iceberg of conservative political organizations that will put their considerable weight behind removing you from office if you take a position on this issue that they don't like. Plus, you're going to be way less likely to get one of those cushy lobbying jobs once you're out of office.

 

I will be shocked if any of these gun control measures get more than a handful of republican votes. And it's likely that they will get 0 republican votes.

 

I should also point out that this isn't something unique to the republican party. The other side does the same things, and a lot of democrats receive money from the NRA too.

 

Regarding my other statement: I'd prefer to live in a world where guns aren't a thing. So I guess you could say that in theory I do support gun control. But any legislation that makes it through Congress is going to be watered down the point of being almost meaningless. That's not to say that I think people shouldn't try. Of course I think they should try. But the end result is going to be either no legislation at all, or legislation that is a token so politicians can say "Hey look at us, we did something to combat gun violence!" So it's not something I can really get behind.

 

Right, but all that points to corruption in general accross the board on all topics. Yes, the NRA has a big chip in this, maybe bigger that the otherside. I do not have numbers to show either way. The NRA has the 2nd ammendment to stand on though (even if the adgenda has run wild). If our politians had to balls to stand on their personal deep held beliefs in stead of letting how much is in it for them make up there minds.

 

Do you not believe that Bloomberg and his Mayors Club thing has a gun control lobbiest in there back pockets?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Right, but all that points to corruption in general accross the board on all topics. Yes, the NRA has a big chip in this, maybe bigger that the otherside. I do not have numbers to show either way. The NRA has the 2nd ammendment to stand on though (even if the adgenda has run wild). If our politians had to balls to stand on their personal deep held beliefs in stead of letting how much is in it for them make up there minds.

 

Do you not believe that Bloomberg and his Mayors Club thing has a gun control lobbiest in there back pockets?

 

I apologize, but I don't understand what any of this means. Could you clarify the point you're making here?

[For the love of the game 56]

I apologize, but I don't understand what any of this means. Could you clarify the point you're making here?

You initially stated that the NRA would not allow gun control (or something close to.that). I am agreeing they have power, but that if the system was not corrupt and politicians had balls, there power would be nil. The other side of the debate has power to though. On my phone, sorry about any errors

[For the love of the game 56]

Also, what kind of gun control do you or would you support?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

You initially stated that the NRA would not allow gun control (or something close to.that). I am agreeing they have power, but that if the system was not corrupt and politicians had balls, there power would be nil. The other side of the debate has power to though. On my phone, sorry about any errors

 

As I said before, the other side lacks the influence of the NRA. The NRA has been involved in politics for decades and has built a good amount of key relationships. Those other groups don't have that history.

 

The key to this is the House. It's under republican control, and the NRA has close ties with the republicans. House republicans are not going to take a stance that differs from the NRA in numbers sufficient to pass legislation. The democrats can pass legislation in the Senate all day, but it's not going to go anywhere if it doesn't pass in the House as well.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Also, what kind of gun control do you or would you support?

 

I'm not sufficiently versed in the subject to come up with a meaningful answer to that. As a layman, the only thing I can do is look at proposed legislation and decide if I support it or not.

[For the love of the game 56]

As I said before, the other side lacks the influence of the NRA. The NRA has been involved in politics for decades and has built a good amount of key relationships. Those other groups don't have that history.

 

The key to this is the House. It's under republican control, and the NRA has close ties with the republicans. House republicans are not going to take a stance that differs from the NRA in numbers sufficient to pass legislation. The democrats can pass legislation in the Senate all day, but it's not going to go anywhere if it doesn't pass in the House as well.

 

I am not debating that they have more influence, maybe the degree of more influence, but that is it. I previously stated they have the 2nd ammendment to stand on as well, which adds to there influence and power doesnt it?