Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[homersapien 11,352]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Can we not just dial it back a bit and try and have an adult conversation? 

Obviously not.  Poo flinging is much easier than a reasoned rebuttal.

[homersapien 11,352]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

A buy back will be just as effective at stopping the acts of random madmen as an enema will be for treating ear aches.  It won't hurt; but you'll still have an ear ache.  

Now there's that 'reasoned rebuttal' I was looking for!          

[TitanTiger 20,469]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You are right because you use common sense.

Titan is clueless about this issue. Though, like usual, he would claim to be an expert most likely.

You need to dial it back a few clicks.  I asked a simple question because I wanted to hear his answer.  We have a forum where people are long on making assertions and short on actually making their case for them.  I wanted to see what Salty had to say as to why such a thing wouldn't work.

[DKW 86 7,410]

We need reforms no doubt in gun control. We need serious reforms. (I would make the same assertion for driving, but that's another day.) 

But: We have 300M+ weapons in Murica now. Last night 300M+ weapons did nothing wrong and will never do anything wrong. As a self-described liberal, I have a problem with defining an issue and then ONLY addressing the citizens that will never be a part of that problem. If we are going to go to the expense of regulating 300M weapons that are never going to do anything wrong then lets at least address the real core issues as well.

1) Mental Illness and Gun ownership needs a radical reform. I do not pretend to have all that figured out yet, but we have to do it.
2) Let's make criminals using guns in crimes a far far more serious matter. Raise jail time etc.
3) Let's make getting guns off our streets a real priority. Raise the powers of the BATF, etc.
4) Let's get gun statistics straight. Why in the hell do we add Gun Suicides in with Gun Violence Stats? It makes the US Stats look ridiculous versus the rest of the world. It gives the other side reason to poo poo those same stats.
5) We need to fix the "See a problem, Report a problem." system. I know the FBI is made up of Humans, but they cannot have another meltdown. They were solidly warned about this kid. The Sheriff's Dept knew about this kid. The whole community knew about this kid.  

This is just a start. We need to address everything. If you can fit your thinking on a bumper sticker, you arent really thinking.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You need to dial it back a few clicks.  I asked a simple question because I wanted to hear his answer.  We have a forum where people are long on making assertions and short on actually making their case for them.  I wanted to see what Salty had to say as to why such a thing wouldn't work.

You know Salty's just going to deflect and slither away.

 

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Last night 300M+ weapons did nothing wrong and will never do anything wrong. 

Again... make anthrax legal. Make heroin legal. Make hood-mounted M60s on cars legal. All equally incapable of evil.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Congratulations!  You avoiding addressing a single substantive point I made.

 You clearly lack game.

 

Congratulations! You didn’t read the long ass article I posted about Australia’s buyback program which makes your “substantive” point obtuse.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Read the second amendment.  It is clear to any objective person there is a wide range of interpretations, using whatever principle of interpreting the constitution  existent.  The NRA is forcing it's own interpretation of the second amendment to sell more guns. 

It's always about the money.

 

You’re wrong. My interpretation and yours does not matter if such interpretation exceeds the bounds proscribed by SCOTUS rulings and authoritative legal doctrine. 

There’s a wide range of interpretation throughout the constitution. That’s why we entrust SCOTUS to have the ultimate interpretation/final say. The executive and legislative branches can pass/enact and move law along, thus being the branches in most need of constraint. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and sets the bounds.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, I don’t know how this touchcstone of our government escaped you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You need to dial it back a few clicks.  I asked a simple question because I wanted to hear his answer.  We have a forum where people are long on making assertions and short on actually making their case for them.  I wanted to see what Salty had to say as to why such a thing wouldn't work.

You’re correct. My apologies Titan

[homersapien 11,352]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re wrong. My interpretation and yours does not matter if such interpretation exceeds the bounds proscribed by SCOTUS rulings and authoritative legal doctrine. 

There’s a wide range of interpretation throughout the constitution. That’s why we entrust SCOTUS to have the ultimate interpretation/final say. The executive and legislative branches can pass/enact and move law along, thus being the branches in most need of constraint. The judiciary interprets the Constitution and sets the bounds.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, I don’t know how this touchcstone of our government escaped you.

I said nothing about how the mechanisms of government operate.  I simply said second amendment allows for a wide range of legitimate interpretation.   You sorta of agreed in the above response.

The point is one cannot hold the wording of the second amendment to be definitive on any nuance of gun ownership regarding regulation.  For example, SCOTUS could very easily "ban" assault rifles  - just as fully automatic weapons have been regulated.     Bottom line, to refute what you said, no amendments are required.

And considering you didn't get the actual point, the insults look rather pathetic. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I said nothing about how the mechanisms of government operate.  I simply said second amendment allows for a wide range of legitimate interpretation.   You sorta of agreed in the above response.

The point is one cannot hold the wording of the second amendment to be definitive on any nuance of gun ownership regarding regulation.  For example, SCOTUS could very easily "ban" assault rifles  - just as fully automatic weapons have been regulated.     Bottom line, to refute what you said, no amendments are required.

And considering you didn't get the actual point, the insults look rather pathetic. 

You forgot that this conversation is in regards to what Mcloofus proposed. An essential ban of all guns except single shot rifles and guns designed for hunting would require a Constitutional Amendment before the government came house to house and literally took guns away from people. Keep in mind, the buyback program in Australia that so many you seem to want can be more accurately characterized as a confiscation - it was mandatory. If the government takes our guns, Amend the Constitution first and thereby overturn a slate of judicial rulings. Good luck.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You forgot that this conversation is in regards to what Mcloofus proposed. An essential ban of all guns except single shot rifles and guns designed for hunting would require a Constitutional Amendment before the government came house to house and literally took guns away from people. Keep in mind, the buyback program in Australia that so many you seem to want can be more accurately characterized as a confiscation - it was mandatory. If the government takes our guns, Amend the Constitution first and thereby overturn a slate of judicial rulings. Good luck.

Well, not exactly.  McLoofus' proposal is only one fraction of the overall discussion here.  For instance, I don't propose that we ban all handguns or all guns aside from single shot hunting rifles.  And I think homer's point in that sense is well taken - the 2nd amendment, even to you, doesn't give carte blanche access for average citizens to any and all 'arms' that are available.  You mention a 'military-grade' distinction (even though the 2A doesn't make such a distinction itself) so you agree that citizens being able to own a drone equipped with Hellfire missiles or an Abrams tank with a working cannon isn't a 2nd Amendment right.  So what is the line and how do we settle on where it can be set before requiring a new Constitutional amendment?

[homersapien 11,352]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You forgot that this conversation is in regards to what Mcloofus proposed. An essential ban of all guns except single shot rifles and guns designed for hunting would require a Constitutional Amendment before the government came house to house and literally took guns away from people. Keep in mind, the buyback program in Australia that so many you seem to want can be more accurately characterized as a confiscation - it was mandatory. If the government takes our guns, Amend the Constitution first and thereby overturn a slate of judicial rulings. Good luck.

No, it would not.

The wording of the second amendment could legally allow that, even if unlikely with today's supreme court.

The purpose of the second amendment was to allow for a "well-regulated militia" (however one wants to intepret that).  One could also argue that having been conceived at a time when there was no plan for a standing army, the second amendment is no longer relevant.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, it would not.

The wording of the second amendment could legally allow that, even if unlikely with today's supreme court.

The purpose of the second amendment was to allow for a "well-regulated militia" however one wants to intepret that.  One could also point out that having been conceived at a time when there was no plan for a standing army the second amendment is irrelevant to start with.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms... shall not be infringed." Again, under what Constitutional authority could the government come home to home or mandatorily buy back guns?

You haven't read much caselaw in your day have you? 

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

We need reforms no doubt in gun control. We need serious reforms. (I would make the same assertion for driving, but that's another day.) 

But: We have 300M+ weapons in Murica now. Last night 300M+ weapons did nothing wrong and will never do anything wrong. As a self-described liberal, I have a problem with defining an issue and then ONLY addressing the citizens that will never be a part of that problem. If we are going to go to the expense of regulating 300M weapons that are never going to do anything wrong then lets at least address the real core issues as well.

1) Mental Illness and Gun ownership needs a radical reform. I do not pretend to have all that figured out yet, but we have to do it.
2) Let's make criminals using guns in crimes a far far more serious matter. Raise jail time etc.
3) Let's make getting guns off our streets a real priority. Raise the powers of the BATF, etc.
4) Let's get gun statistics straight. Why in the hell do we add Gun Suicides in with Gun Violence Stats? It makes the US Stats look ridiculous versus the rest of the world. It gives the other side reason to poo poo those same stats.
5) We need to fix the "See a problem, Report a problem." system. I know the FBI is made up of Humans, but they cannot have another meltdown. They were solidly warned about this kid. The Sheriff's Dept knew about this kid. The whole community knew about this kid.  

This is just a start. We need to address everything. If you can fit your thinking on a bumper sticker, you arent really thinking.

 

That is the point I was making in my opposition to any form of assault weapons ban.  That Nikolas Cruz (or insert other mass shooter's name here) was able to purchase and continue to possess an AR-15 is not the problem to me.  That he was able to purchase and continue to possess a firearm of any kind is the crux of the problem, and it is a problem that extends far beyond him.  He is the exclamation point of the problem that non-NFA firearms are too easy to obtain, legally.  All firearms are dangerous weapons.  Even the completely innocent mishandling of a firearm can easily result in serious injury or death to yourself, or anyone nearby.  That is why we do not allow children to buy them, and no sane parent leaves them laying around on the floor, for their children to pick up.  We recognized the same thing about cars.  That is why we have a minimum age and at least some demonstration of competent operation is required in order to purchase and drive them.  This is what I support:

1.  Mandatory licensing and registration.  Possession of a firearm without a license (or someone licensed present), and possession of an unregistered firearm should be a severe felony.  I tend to favor a licensing system with three classes, and an endorsement for the completion of at least a basic safety course is required.  Class One allows the purchase and possession of the basic shotguns and rifles generally used by most hunters, is available to anyone 16 and older, and requires something like our existing simple background check.  Class Two allows the purchase of handguns and semi-automatic rifles like AR and AK variants, is also a concealed carry license, is available to anyone 21 and older, and requires a much more extensive review of the applicant.  Class Three allows the purchase of NFA items, is available to anyone 21 and older, and requires the most extensive review of an applicant that is possible.  The ability for license holders to continue to have a license (and possess firearms) should be periodically reviewed.

2.  Mandatory reporting to NICS.  Complete records of federal convictions, military court martials, and convictions from all 50 states and any territory must be included.  Complete records of all voluntary or involuntary commitments to any mental health facility must be included.  A mechanism must exist for mental health professionals and law enforcement agencies to flag a person for license denial or suspension.

3.  People identified as dangerous.  When a potentially dangerous person is reported to a court, law enforcement agencies, or mental health professionals, a universal method must exist to at least temporarily confiscate their firearms during a review.  Abuse of that system should be a felony.

4.  Mental illness.  I am definitely not a psychologist, so I cannot define what mental illnesses the diagnosis and treatment of should exclude a person from a firearm license.  I am content to leave that determination to mental health professionals, but they should have the authority to initiate a license suspension or flag people for denial.

The laws governing the purchase and possession of firearms need to catch up to the technology at our disposal.  In 2018, there is no excuse for a database that determines whether or not someone can purchase a firearm to be incomplete.  There is no reason that the ATF cannot provide a section of their website where an individual can verify the legality of another individual before selling them a firearm privately, or another section of their website where the firearm sold can be easily registered, or another section where you can print a form that functions as a legal receipt for the transfer.  We have the technology to provide everything I just mentioned without tremendous interruption to everyone else.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, not exactly.  McLoofus' proposal is only one fraction of the overall discussion here.  For instance, I don't propose that we ban all handguns or all guns aside from single shot hunting rifles.  And I think homer's point in that sense is well taken - the 2nd amendment, even to you, doesn't give carte blanche access for average citizens to any and all 'arms' that are available.  You mention a 'military-grade' distinction (even though the 2A doesn't make such a distinction itself) so you agree that citizens being able to own a drone equipped with Hellfire missiles or an Abrams tank with a working cannon isn't a 2nd Amendment right.  So what is the line and how do we settle on where it can be set before requiring a new Constitutional amendment?

Have you ever read the Heller opinion? And yes, I was in an exchange with Mcloofus when Homer butted in. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT GUN CONTROL REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT. But rather, specific regulation that has been mentioned in this thread would. For example, what Constitutional issues might the implementation of Australia's buyback program have here? Off of the top of my head, Fourth Amendment, as it stands, would have to be reconsidered.  

[Strychnine 1,802]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, not exactly.  McLoofus' proposal is only one fraction of the overall discussion here.  For instance, I don't propose that we ban all handguns or all guns aside from single shot hunting rifles.  And I think homer's point in that sense is well taken - the 2nd amendment, even to you, doesn't give carte blanche access for average citizens to any and all 'arms' that are available.  You mention a 'military-grade' distinction (even though the 2A doesn't make such a distinction itself) so you agree that citizens being able to own a drone equipped with Hellfire missiles or an Abrams tank with a working cannon isn't a 2nd Amendment right.  So what is the line and how do we settle on where it can be set before requiring a new Constitutional amendment?

 

I hope that you are aware that you can legally own an operational M1 Abrams.  For that matter, you can legally own Hellfire missiles, if you can scratch up the unit cost and convince Lockheed Martin to sell you one.  They would be NFA items, under the classification of destructive device.  The FAA likely has regulatory oversight about you then equipping them on an aircraft.  The process of acquiring them legally is more involved than a handgun purchase, and you cannot buy either of them at Wal-Mart, but you can certainly purchase, possess, and use them.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

4 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

I hope that you are aware that you can legally own an operational M1 Abrams.  For that matter, you can legally own Hellfire missiles, if you can scratch up the unit cost and convince Lockheed Martin to sell you one.  They would be NFA items, under the classification of destructive device.  The FAA likely has regulatory oversight about you then equipping them on an aircraft.  The process of acquiring them legally is more involved than a handgun purchase, and you cannot buy either of them at Wal-Mart, but you can certainly purchase, possess, and use them.

I actually didn't.  I'd read something earlier this week that seemed to indicate you could own a tank, but the cannon and fire control mechanism would have to be disabled or removed.  But having read this now, the regulations in place (forgetting cost for a moment) would seem to make it nearly impossible.

Of course this brings me back to my earlier point - obviously if the 2nd Amendment allows for someone to own such things, it doesn't preclude law makers from making the acquisition of any weapon a much more involved and expensive process.  

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I actually didn't.  I'd read something earlier this week that seemed to indicate you could own a tank, but the cannon and fire control mechanism would have to be disabled or removed.  But having read this now, the regulations in place (forgetting cost for a moment) would seem to make it nearly impossible.

Of course this brings me back to my earlier point - obviously if the 2nd Amendment allows for someone to own such things, it doesn't preclude law makers from making the acquisition of any weapon a much more involved and expensive process.  

 

A tank with the cannon disabled is just a heavy vehicle.  It has to be modified in order for you to legally drive it on the roads.  The tank itself is even irrelevant to the NFA process.  The NFA is only concerned with the cannon, and its ammunition.  They would be registered as destructive devices, under the NFA.  You can purchase one, and use it anywhere that someone will allow you to blow holes in the ground.

Your point is correct.  It is within the scope of legislation to make the acquisition of any weapon a more involved and expensive process.  The NFA itself is proof of that.  The purchase (or transfer as law calls it) of an automatic weapon, ammunition for a grenade launcher, suppressors, tanks, and even Hellfire missiles are basically treated the same by the NFA.  A quick summary would be, you submit the forms, pay the $200 tax, ATF does whatever it is they do that takes months, and you can take possession when you get the stamp.  Anyone that you wish to later sell (transfer) it to has to go through the same process.  Take a look at the post I made before replying to you.

[autigeremt 6,569]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not to quibble, but who has bought up banning firearms?

I don't get the last sentence.  You'll have to elaborate.  Thanks.

My comment about "everyone" isn't directed at just our forum. Every time one of these incidences happen the hard left starts beating the drum of bans. Australia is brought up faster than a Mick Dundee blade. It's not realistic and I get sick and tired of it. So predictable. 

I've read several articles that throw shade on the Constitution and the right to bear arms. It's clear the intent of the founders on this issue and the only way to reverse it is an amendment. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

My comment about "everyone" isn't directed at just our forum. Every time one of these incidences happen the hard left starts beating the drum of bans. Australia is brought up faster than a Mick Dundee blade. It's not realistic and I get sick and tired of it. So predictable. 

I've read several articles that throw shade on the Constitution and the right to bear arms. It's clear the intent of the founders on this issue and the only way to reverse it is an amendment. 

Equally sickening, tiring and predictable is the automatic rejection of any ban conversation without any hard evidence that it wouldn't work.

Really curious what the harm in trying would be. If the gun industry were crippled by taking AR-15s out of the market, then the need for the ban would be highlighted that much more. 

[stoic-one 1,543]

7 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Equally sickening, tiring and predictable is the automatic rejection of any ban conversation without any hard evidence that it wouldn't work.

Really curious what the harm in trying would be. If the gun industry were crippled by taking AR-15s out of the market, then the need for the ban would be highlighted that much more. 

I think the logic flaw here is assuming that the "ban conversation" or the actual implementation of said ban can actually be accomplished, do you think it can? Could it be tried? Sure. I find it unlikely in the current climate, and think there is a lot of "we have to try/do something" mentality that feeds that notion.

I hardly think taking the "AR-15", whatever that means, off the market, cripples the gun industry. The AR-15 is common and popular, what about AK's? SKS's? I could make a long list of rifles like that, ban them all?

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

I think the logic flaw here is assuming that the "ban conversation" or the actual implementation of said ban can actually be accomplished, do you think it can? Could it be tried? Sure. I find it unlikely in the current climate, and think there is a lot of "we have to try/do something" mentality that feeds that notion.

I hardly think taking the "AR-15", whatever that means, off the market, cripples the gun industry. The AR-15 is common and popular, what about AK's? SKS's? I could make a long list of rifles like that, ban them all?

I limited it to ARs because there is a segment that always freaks out anytime you say AR-15s and guns like them. So please feel free to make a list. And yes I would love to ban them all.

As for the industry, I was just trying to make an honest effort to come up with one possible thing wrong with attempting a band. If that's not a problem, then I got nothing. 

[stoic-one 1,543]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I limited it to ARs because there is a segment that always freaks out anytime you say AR-15s and guns like them. So please feel free to make a list. And yes I would love to ban them all.

As for the industry, I was just trying to make an honest effort to come up with one possible thing wrong with attempting a band. If that's not a problem, then I got nothing. 

Well that's kind of my point. The 1994 ban, which I have a VERY hard time believing could be passed in today's climate, did what you are suggesting, and calling it ineffective would be an insult to the word ineffective. CA currently has a ban similar to what most people advocating an AR-15 ban want. It's a convoluted useless mess that really just creates markets for people to exploit "loopholes" in the law, and make better mouse traps.

Here is a wiki page concerning laws in that state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

It would take me days to list all the workarounds people have come up with, and sell legally, to get around CA state laws.

 

To add:

The laws in CA are so ineffective that they keep making new laws which will also be circumvented. Their latest "target" is restricting ammo purchases and requiring a "transfer" similar to what is necessary when purchasing a weapon (Form 4473). If that is the model we want to use in the entire US, I just don't see it happening, unless implemented VERY incrementally over YEARS...

[McLoofus 35,182]

22 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Well that's kind of my point. The 1994 ban, which I have a VERY hard time believing could be passed in today's climate, did what you are suggesting, and calling it ineffective would be an insult to the word ineffective. CA currently has a ban similar to what most people advocating an AR-15 ban want. It's a convoluted useless mess that really just creates markets for people to exploit "loopholes" in the law, and make better mouse traps.

Here is a wiki page concerning laws in that state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

It would take me days to list all the workarounds people have come up with, and sell legally, to get around CA state laws.

 

To add:

The laws in CA are so ineffective that they keep making new laws which will also be circumvented. Their latest "target" is restricting ammo purchases and requiring a "transfer" similar to what is necessary when purchasing a weapon (Form 4473). If that is the model we want to use in the entire US, I just don't see it happening, unless implemented VERY incrementally over YEARS...

That "unless" clause at the end of your post is appreciated. 

Having "what not to do" scenarios such as California (and Seattle's botched attempt at a buyback) could be instructive.

And no, it probably wouldn't get passed right now. I have no illusions about that. But I'm not entirely sure that's not almost a self fulfilling prophecy, as much as its cited as a reason not to even try.

[stoic-one 1,543]

The word "unless" is a necessary inclusion.

I haven't been sleeping for the entirety of the last 50+ years, I see how things work, generally. It's government. That which you can't have today, you can move toward over time. It's incrementalism, it's the boiling frog. When the 1994 AWB sunsetted in 2003, CA never removed the restriction, and kept the ball rolling over time adding laws. That's how they got to where they are, it's a bloody mess.

Make no mistake, my personal feeling on the subject is that it's the archer, not the arrow. I have more firearms than I can count, including numerous AR's, AK's, SKS's, SCAR's, various caliber bolt guns, shotguns, and handguns. None of them have spontaneously gone on killing sprees... I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people that disagree with me on our gun laws, and I'm not without compassion. BUT. Most of the time, the average Joe citizen out there doesn't have a clue what laws are in place, how they are or are not enforced, and what different weapons are capable of. The sheer volume of crap I see in the press, if it weren't so numbingly absurd, would otherwise serve to entertain. My problem is with the uneducated press, educating an uneducated populous, fanning flames, pushing emotions, making psycho A-holes famous. It's ratings. Want to go out in a blaze of glory and have everyone know your name? Get your name in the press? Why not, turn 18 and buy a rifle, sure. SMDH