Alternatives to arming teachers

Except it did nothing of the sort.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

Page two hundred and forty five of the legislation.

Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:

Do note the bolded words and what they mean. The center for disease control is free to research firearm-related violence and potential root causes to whatever extent it wishes. But it cannot utilize any of the funding provided to it by the federal government, to call for certain or otherwise specific firearm-related restrictions being enacted into law.

If the individual being cited by yourself is knowingly spreading false information, does it not undermine their credibility as being a reliable source for citation?

 

Perhaps this will be the last two part response that is necessary on the part of myself.

The fact that a crime is being committed has done nothing to discourage countless thousands of prohibited individuals from attempting to purchase firearms from either a federally licensed firearms dealer, or through the commission of a straw purchase carried out by someone who is willing to traffic the firearm for them immediately after making the purchase. And as law enforcement in the united states does not regard such matters as worth pursuing, it is very difficult to see the logical reasoning behind what is being proposed on the part of yourself. If law enforcement will not even pursue charges against prohibited individuals who attempt to acquire firearms, why would it be so motivated to pursue charges against members of the public who have no criminal record? The matter simply does not make sense from a logical perspective.

Again, how would such be achieved by requiring background checks for private sales? Those who have committed mass shootings have all been individuals who have demonstrated the ability to pass background checks without issue, with only one exception which involved the murder of the legal firearms owner, and the theft of their firearms as a result.

The matter is regarded as being relevant due to research that has been performed on related matters. In the wake of the McDonald v Chicago ruling by the united state supreme court, the city of Chicago required extensive effort on the part of anyone wishing to legally own a firearm, including having to travel outside of the city to acquire firearms training from a licensed shooting range, because the city would not allow such facilities within its borders. A federal judge was quick to slap down these requirements, and rule them as being unconstitutional infringements because it discriminated against individuals on the basis of economic standing, since such individuals could not afford to travel outside of the city.

That is ultimately why the matter was raised for consideration, as distance of travel and the means to actually do such has been regarded as as being violations of the second amendment.

Operation of a motor vehicle on a publicly accessible right of way is not a constitutional right, but rather a privilege granted by government. The two standards are not in any way comparable to one another.

There is a desire on the part of yourself to discuss the subject of responsibility? Very well then, such can indeed be done. Can it be explained where the "responsibility" is to be had when it comes to releasing individuals who are known to be dangerous and untrustworthy, back into the public at large where they are capable of causing the most harm? Individuals who are apparently known to be mentally imbalanced, who commit murder, who engage in rape, who commit any number of violent felony offenses, putting them right back into society where they can easily victimize others at their discretion, simply because the mood strikes them as appropriate?

Pray tell, where is the "responsibility" on the part of the government forcing the law abiding populace to coincide with those who have demonstrated that they will not abide by the law, if the job of the government is to protect the public? Can such be explained?

The matter is being addressed and discussed at length to try and demonstrate the logical fallacy of what is being presented. Simply claiming a proposal is wrong and useless has little in the way of actual merit. Explaining precisely why a proposal is devoid of merit, highlighting the logical shortcomings that exist with attempting to enforce the matter, and articulating why the matter will fail, is a far more worthwhile approaching in moving beyond political talking points, and getting down to the real issue.

It is not even cared about by yourself whether or not a proposal that has the support of yourself, can actually work? The logistics of enforcement, sustainability, practicality, feasibility, and the ability to withstand judicial review if challenged in a court of law, are of no interest to yourself?

That is not logical. That is simply not logical.

If someone is going to give their support to a specific proposal, the logistics behind making the proposal work as intended should be of the utmost interest to them.

 

The two are not comparable to one another in this particular regard, as murder is a physical act that can be shown to directly affect, impact, and harm others, while selling a firearm to a private individual in absence of government oversight and consent does not.

Such is not being discussed. Rather it is being explained how an investigation will not reveal anything that is worthwhile.

Articulation and eloquence are of high importance in being able to not only establish a position, but also justify it when questioned as to why the position in question is held as opposed to a different position. Someone being able to scream the loudest and be heard the most is of no importance, if they cannot calmly, and rationally, explain why they believe what they do. If one does not wish to be dismissed out of hand as nothing more than what is classified as a "useful idiot" then they should be able to demonstrate, to others as well as themselves, that they have thought things out for themselves.

Enforcement of existing rules, regulations, and utilization of the system that is already in place, is a proposal that has indeed been overlooked by yourself. A significant number of recent mass shootings can all be directly attributed to the authorities in the united states both failing, and even refusing, to do their established jobs, thereby putting the public at risk as a result. Such is hardly responsible on the part of government in keeping the public safe.

Deaths attributed to mass shootings are approximately two percent the number of all firearm-related homicides. The number of individuals who are shot, much less killed in the course of a given year by rifles of any sort, is significantly lower than the number of individuals who have been choked or stomped to death, according to the findings of the FBI. If that does not qualify as being statistically rare, then pray tell just what would?

According to the citation that was presented by yourself on this matter, there are fluctuations from one year to another. An increase one year, a decrease the next year, with nothing suggesting a stable pattern of approach is being established.

Statistics may be regarded as being valuable, but they are very easily manipulated, and can be made to say whatever the individual presenting them wishes for them to say.

Why did it take six or more years after the enactment of the law for the number of mass shootings to finally being dropping? Why did such not occur immediately? Why were there apparently only two recorded years during which no apparent mass shootings occurred, despite nothing being different from the period during which the law enacted came into force?

You tell us. Overall nothing really changed. The firearms and ammunition magazines targeted by the legislation in question remained freely available to the public, very little overall changed that would amount to anything of significance. So ultimately why did things play out as they did, according to the chart presented by yourself?

What caused the increase to occur was the crack cocaine epidemic that rocked the united states during the late twentieth century.

Except the law in question did no such thing. It did not remove so much as one single weapon, or one single magazine, from the equation. Law enforcement did not confiscate any firearms that were in circulation prior to the law coming into place, as those were grandfathered in, and not subject to any new restrictions on their use, or availability. They could still be bought, sold, traded, and modified by the legal owners, just as they could be prior to the ten year period in question. Nothing of significance occurred, other than the public being tricked about what was occurring at the time.

Unless they are actually, physically removed from the equation this time around, in amounts far in excess of one percent their total numbers, there would be no point in even trying the same tactic once again. And with tens of millions of such firearms being owned by the public now, such an approach is not economically feasible.

Explain how it would work by being adopted at the federal level. What would be the deciding factor and/or factors of such an approach, that would actually make the proposal work, by apparent virtue of being at the federal level, rather than at the state level?

Such is not even being discussed.

Meaning it is nothing more than a promissory note, which will take decades before any effect, one way or the other, can actually be demonstrated to the public.

For one, the assumption that the public will actually comply with the requirement. Or the government having the physical ability to actually enforce the requirement. Or the requirement being able to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Anyone who refuses to comply, and is charged with a crime for such, would have to be provided with a trial and legal council before they could be convicted of any wrongdoing, all at the expense of the government. Trials can last for months at a time before a verdict is finally in, and prosecutors will rarely pursue charges they do not believe that they can win. Multiply this by tens of millions of individuals who refuse to recognize the authority of the government in this particular matter, each one of them having to be tried individually, and one begins to understand why such matters are unenforceable.

The above makes a great many assumptions about how things could potentially play out in a private firearms transaction. Assumptions that have already been taken into consideration on the part of myself to demonstrate just why what is being proposed by yourself, and has been proposed by others, cannot be made to work. It is not so much a matter of outsmarting the FBI, as it is simply not being found by the FBI. There is no way of telling when or where a private sale may be performed, and there are not enough FBI agents to cover every single state, county, city, town, and unincorporated areas in which two individuals may speak privately about selling a firearm for cash.

For a more in depth explanation, the following thread is available, where it was detailed by myself how any restriction implemented is easily bypassed, and how no risk to the one doing such is present. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...f-firearm-regulations.518452/#post-1068235983

Factually incorrect. The argument being made boils down to engaging in critical thinking skills, and basic logic, before proceeding with any course of action. Simply because the public is frantically screaming "do something" because they are frightened by reality, is not sufficient grounds for proceeding without thinking.

Failure does not deserve to be rewarded.

None of which changes the fact that even if all the proposals being supported by yourself were enacted into law, they would still fail to make a dent in mass shootings being committed. The simple fact that it may be potentially "more difficult" to carry one out, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support this notion, or even what such would ultimately translate into in terms of physical effects, does not change the fact that the proposals are doomed to failure. They are the legislative equivalent of snake oil in terms of their substance.

Why did firearm-related homicides drop in the united states, despite the number of privately owned firearms increasing during the time period in question?

Pray tell what amounts to "some" with regard the above? Is there an estimated round number of firearms that would be removed from the equation? Is it ten percent? Five percent? One percent? One one hundredth of one percent?

Such as handguns with magazines limited to ten rounds each?

The entire presentation sounds as if it is being presented by one who has no idea of what they are talking about, and is desperate to avoid admitting to such a fact.

So long as the focus remains on the implements, rather than the individual that would misuse them, nothing of actual substance will come about. That is a fact that simply must be understood and accepted.

 

And you had to research much to come out with that "thrilling" piece of knowledge?

Did you or will you report the loss of your weapons to the authorities?

.
The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to be irresponsible. Nor the right to be a pathological paranoid who is unable to make an argument without hiding behind a Conspiracy Theory.

 

If you are referring to me, I have never failed to respond to an argument... never....

As for the rest of you message.... I already explained to you what an ad-hominem is and is not. If you want to learn, you can go back a couple of messages. But I must say you probably won't get very far if you keep confusing attacks to what you say with personal attacks to you.

 

It has nothing to do with my proposal, so here......

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research

She didn't. But it wouldn't matter either way because that's besides the point.

Credibility about what? It's an opinion piece! Not a technical paper. You don't know the difference?

The fact that the only response you can come up with is an attack on her personally, and not on what she says means... she wins!..

So... that one being settled, if you want to try your hand at another of my proposals, let me know... You might do better next time if you stick to discussing the arguments stated, and not the person stating them. Otherwise, you will lose every time. But it's your choice....

 

Exactly! So we focus on the seller.

You are talking garbage. Who says they don't? You find one or two cases (or a handful), and then extend that to all law enforcement. That clearly shows you have no real arguments.

Because very few (probably none) sellers with no criminal record will dumb enough to risk getting one by selling a gun illegally, when they can sell it legally at the cash-for-guns program.

Don't sweat it. The reason for that is that what you call "logic" is not what the rest of humanity does.

You keep trying to prevent mass shootings that already happened, and I'll work on preventing those that haven't happened.

There are more, but it's irrelevant because, as I said: I'm preventing mass shootings in the future. Not in the past.

BTW, preventing one mass shooting is well worth it! So any talk about "only one" will not impress me.

Yes it is. The right to travel has been litigated in the Supreme Court many times and upheld for over a century. The supposed "right" to bear arms only once by a partisan Supreme Court.

But don't waste too much time on that. My point is that neither the 2nd Amendment nor the Supreme Court decision grant gun owners the "right" to be irresponsible.

In that we agree. The right to travel by car has a large number of court precedents. The individual right to guns does not.

However, from a legal point of view, they are equivalent. Even though they shouldn't....

No. Just wanted to point out that if gun sellers act responsibly, "inconvenience" is not an excuse.

Your discussion has nothing to do with the proposals.

"Fallacy"? It's a proposal! The term doesn't apply. "Fallacy" would (or could) apply to arguments supporting the proposal, but not to the proposal. You might want to look up the meaning of the term before using it.

It's the only thing that matters.

"Enforcement" is not what is intended by the law. What is intended is to save lives. If the proposal saves lives, it works!

The logistics of enforcement have nothing to do with the enactment of the law. I assume they will be enforced. But the law, by simply existing, will help a lot. Because most honest sellers will just not sell the guns illegally. You seem to believe that we live in a third world country where laws are not enforced at all. I, having lived in one, can tell you that that is far from the truth.

However, again, I am proposing a series of laws. Does your insistence on changing the subject mean that you have no arguments to rebut the laws proposed?

 

if I know the serial number yes if not what's the point?

.

Didn't claim it did so fantastic strawman I guess.

 

with the strawman or an ad hominem or nonsense. Which is a

you aren't attacking what I say you're attacking me.

 

Now you're being disingenuous. Fact is that you only argument against my proposals throughout this discussion is based on placing unreasonable requirements that no law in existence would meet. First you argued that my proposals would not stop every instance of mass shootings. When I pointed out that no law in existence stops all instances of the action being criminalized, you quickly changed. This time you argued that investigators would not be able to identify anybody who broke the law. Besides the fact that the premise is false (there are many ways in which violators can be caught), you keep insisting that my proposal won't work because it doesn't specify how to catch them. Same as before, you are unable to produce any law whatsoever that was enacted wondering how investigators would find violators..

This is your only argument of substance. The rest is not even an argument. Now you say that's not what is being discussed. despite the fact that it was your only argument.... Now your nonsense escalates with this...

Enforcement has nothing to do with passing legislation. Laws will be enforced. Anybody in charge of enforcing them who does not do so, will experience consequences.... This discussion is not about enforcement. It's about proposals for legislation. You obviously have nothing to say about the proposals themselves. So you throw a smoke screen.

The rest of this post is nonsense repeating the same above arguments in different words and in which my proposals are not even remotely referenced.

If you have anything to say about my proposals, now would be the time. If you don't have anything to say, but only want to change the subject.... There are interesting discussions on this forums and I'm missing out only because I'm wasting my time with you, when you don't even want to discuss the real subject.

 

The point is that if any of those weapons suddenly appear and are traced to you, you have a police report about their disappearance.
.

Uhmmm.... believe me... any independent reader would agree that you did....

 

There is no registry, there is no tracing. No I don't have to report anything. I would but I'd only give caliber make and model.
.

Sure.

 

There has been nothing presented to actually show that the registration of firearms is synonymous with being responsible, or how such would indeed qualify as being the case.

The language of the Dickey Amendment itself states that such is not the case. Therefore the article cited by yourself is knowingly, as well as deliberately, continuing to perpetuate a falsehood.

It does not matter if it is a mere opinion piece, or a technical paper, as the individual being cited by yourself is knowingly perpetuating a confirmed falsehood.

Ultimately for what purpose? How will such be beneficial when targeting the buyer has produced no results?

Try an estimated average of one hundred and fifty thousand cases each year.

http://content.thirdway.org/publica...nforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

The number of straw purchases committed each year in the united states is evidence to the contrary.

Humanity in general is stupid.

What is continually being proposed by yourself will not work towards achieving such, because law enforcement will continue to fail to do its job, and will not be held responsible for said failures.

Mass shootings have been prevented by legal firearm owners being able to respond by returning fire, because they were legally carrying a concealed firearm at the time. Therefore, by the logic of the argument being put forth by yourself, legal firearms ownership as it presently is in the united states is well worth it.

Explain the so-called "irresponsibility" that is being referred to by yourself, and precisely what it entails.

The united state supreme court has long held that the right to be armed is not granted by the second amendment, not dependent upon it in order to legally exist.

And the contrary is not being discussed. It is merely being pointed out why the proposed requirement will go unenforced by those in a position of authority, ignored by those who are tasked with abiding by it, and will likely never withstand constitutional muster according to established rulings by other courts.

Just as there should be an effort on the part of yourself to examine the logical shortcomings of what positions have apparently garnered the support of yourself, to learn why they are useless and not worth being supported in the first place.

And what matters in this particular case, is that the proposals being supported by yourself not only cannot work, but will not have the desired effect. That is why they do not have the support of myself. If there were actual evidence that the proposals did indeed work as is being promised, then they would have the support of myself.

The proposals do not work, they do not save lives. Nothing that has been proposed by yourself would have the actual effect of saving even one single life.

They should. If a law cannot be enforced as presented, it should never come into being.

Ideological nonsense and naivety. Idealism and optimism need to be tempered by what is ultimately reality.

The united states is not a first world, developed nation, no matter how much it is claimed to the contrary.

It is being explained why what is being proposed by yourself is not devoid of merit, and not worth even being discussed in the first place.

The proposals presented by yourself are devoid of value specifically because they would not prevent mass shootings from occurring. They are deliberately designed and intended to fail at achieving the promised goal, so those resulting failures can be capitalized on by those who will propose even more firearm-related restrictions as a result of said failures coming to pass, and the public continuing to demand that something be done.

And yet they are not experiencing consequences of any sort.

Every proposal that has been presented by yourself, and countless others before yourself, has been discussed at length, and it has been explained why they are devoid of merit in even being proposed in the first place. The failure on the part of yourself to comprehend such is not the fault of anyone except for yourself.

 

.Good enough!

 

We're talking about reporting weapons lost in a boating incident. Focus!

The effect shows that it is!

I suggest you leave Dr. Sher alone. She already handed you an argumentative whooping without even lifting a finger....

Already responded: because somebody who buys a gun that is used for illegal purposes has no qualms about breaking the law, but most sellers with a clean record will.

There is so much in this post that has already been addressed. I prefer to use my time following a few interesting debates that are going on on this forum rather than repeating myself over and over. So I will hop over what has already been answered. I will also hop over the nonsense about law enforcement. I expect law enforcement to get better and better as time goes by, but it's a different topic. Hopefully you will have something of substance to say about the proposals themselves. Though I'm not expecting you to.

I don't know of any. I do remember some like Virginia Tech, Orlando, Colorado, ... where people who were armed did not return fire. I remember reading about some of them explaining they feared shooting an innocent.

Let's get rid of it, then.

Who says it can't be enforced? So far you have argued (incorrectly) that it "won't".... now you say it "can't" Make up your mind.

Anybody who does not want to make a fool of themselves looks up the terms they use before using them.

Now it's too late!

Why, thank you! Nice of you to say that.

 

What is being discussed are the legal, technical, and practical shortcomings of the proposals being presented on the part of not only yourself, but countless others who argue from the standpoint of idealism, rather than the real world.

Factually incorrect. It does not matter how the center for disease control has chosen to dishonestly interpret the words "advocate" and "promote" as it does not change what the Dickey amendment actually specifies. If it is incapable of studying a matter without including its belief of what should be done as a result, then perhaps the matter being studied is without legitimacy on their part.

Except for the fact that such has not been done. Nothing presented on the part of herself has been able to refute anything that has been presented on the part of myself, nor actually support what is being presented on the part of yourself.

Then let us see if the message can be clarified. Law enforcement will not pursue charges against a prohibited individual attempting to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer, despite having a record of their name, address, social security number, and their exercise in perjury in claiming they are legally able to possess a firearm. Yet they will pursue charges against the private individual who may dispose of a firearm without performing an unenforceable background check, despite it being physically impossible for government to actually prove anything actually took place, illegally or otherwise.

Is this the position of yourself?

https://www.naturalnews.com/047378_murder_sprees_armed_citizens_FBI_report.html

https://www.bustle.com/p/how-many-m...-civilians-there-are-documented-cases-2776521

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ootings/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5fc59ce0ba02

Rights that are held by the people are not granted by the united states constitution, they are merely acknowledged and protected from government infringement.

Basic logic, physics, and even history dictates that a great deal of what is being proposed by yourself cannot be enforced without additional, more expansive requirements and restrictions being implemented into law as well. That is why mandatory background checks on all private sales cannot actually be enforced with the universal registration of every firearm in existence, as firearms can be privately sold at any time, at any location, and no one is ever the wiser as to it occurring. It is not something that requires promotion or advertisement, and can be done between two adjoining motor vehicles in any publicly accessible parking lot, with no one ever knowing what is going on.

The term is indeed known and understood. It has been stated before on the part of myself, and it will continue to be stated because it is the truth. The united states is not a first world, developed nation. All available evidence points to it being a third world nation at best.

A mere typo. Even the best of machines are not above occasional imperfections in performance. The proposals being presented on the part of yourself continue to remain as devoid of merit as they were when they were first presented for consideration, long before they were ever even known about by yourself.

 

Not on the paragraph you quoted. But I'm happy to hear that you will finally start discussing my proposals. About time!

.
It does not matter how they interpret words. Only thing that matters is that they have no money for Research. And even Republicans have said it's because of the Dickey Amendment. It has been a de-facto prohibition to research gun violence by the Agency whose job it is to analyze it imposed by the NRA. This is my last participation of this discussion that is irrelevant to the matter discussed.

They need to do both. But you said you were going to talk about my proposals. When will you start?

Let's put this one to rest: we either live in a nation of laws, or we don't. If we don't, then according to your "reasoning" we can get rid of all the laws because "everybody" is going to break them. The fact that typical citizens don't break the laws rebuts your assertion. Laws are enforced in this country. A law enforcement agent who does not do that due to incompetence, must be trained. If it's because of laziness, they need to be disciplined. And if it's because of ineptitude, they need to be reassigned.

Now, if you are insisting that we are not a nation of laws, then there's not much to be gained by discussing any law whatsoever with you.

End of story.

Now can we get to my proposals?

Ah.... still nothing about my proposals. But at least... a change. Yes! Law enforcement costs money. The more financing, the better they do their job. Yes! My proposals are not free. They are not meant to balance the budget. They are meant to save lives.

Now... that laid to rest.... can we finally talk about my proposals?

Just out of curiosity. What, in your mind, does a "1st world nation" mean?

Don't worry about it if it's going to keep you from finally addressing my proposals, though.

Ouch! That hurts!

So that's the extent of your argument about your proposals?

How disappointing!

For a second there I actually believed you had arguments. My mistake!

 

Shall they be approached one at a time, or all at once? Shall we start with the illegality of the approach of the so-called "red flag" law, or with how the no-fly list is devoid of anything resembling due process, and someone can be disqualified based on nothing more than their name alone?

The center for disease control has an adequate budget for researching matters pertaining to firearm-related violence. They simply have chosen not to do such in protest of being told that they are forbidden from promoting, advocating, or otherwise supporting firearm-related restrictions.

And yet they are not. They are neither pursuing charges against prohibited individuals who attempt to acquire firearms, and they will not pursue charges against those who are accused of selling a firearm without a background check, when there is no way of verifying the accusations.

The requirement for private individuals to perform background checks prior to the disposing of privately owned property cannot be enforced against the public, as there is no way of enforcing it at all since there is no registry of privately owned firearms. The only individuals who know whether a firearm was sold without a background check will be the seller and the purchaser, and the purchaser will be one who is wanted for a serious crime; a minimum of illegal possession of a firearm, or potentially a maximum of first degree murder. Whatever the charge, they have already impugned their own credibility by committing a crime, and the mere word alone of the prohibited individual cannot be used as testimony to convict a private individual with no criminal record; especially if the seller is smart enough to report the firearm as having been stolen five minutes after the sale occurred.

Only certain laws are enforced in the united states. Others go routinely ignored, by the public that is required to abide by them, the criminal element that could not care less about them, law enforcement tasked with doing such, and the courts that put the accused on trial. Firearm-related restrictions go without enforcement in nearly every single case, with charges routinely dropped and never pursued. Since they are not pursued they are without merit in even existing.

And yet in the united states such is not being done. Law enforcement is not being punished and held responsible for failure to enforce the laws, rather it is being rewarded for such.

They are already being discussed. Primarily in how they are devoid of legitimacy in even being suggested for consideration.

An absence of crippling national debt, secure borders, high rates of adult literacy and education, low rates of homelessness, rule of law that applies to not only the public, but also elected officials who enact and implement the policies, just to name a few qualifying factors. All of which are devoid in the united states.

Out of everything that has been proposed by not only yourself, but countless others who have presented the same suggestions prior to yourself, not a single one of them is supposedly "designed" nor "intended" to actually save lives. Such can easily be determined by merely reading how they are worded in order to garner such facts. Case in point, the background check requirement for example. Law enforcement knowing who owned a particular firearm prior to it being used in the commission of a crime does not, and cannot possibly save any lives from being lost. How could it? Law enforcement will not have a firearm to trace until after a crime has already occurred, meaning after it has been used for the purpose of killing someone, or a great many someones. Will law enforcement knowing who owned the firearm previously, serve to bring the victims back to life? No it will not. The proposal cannot come into play until after lives have already been lost.

All of the proposals presented on the part of yourself suffer from the same weaknesses and failures, primarily to over-reliance on the federal government growing in terms of size and authority, all in the desperate hope that more government will do some measure of good, when history has proven otherwise. Beyond that, all of the proposals on the part of yourself rely on the cooperation of those who will be directly affected by the legislation, that being those who currently own and purchase firearms. Current estimates put the number of legal firearm owners in the united states at one hundred million, if not far more. That is just under one third of the united states population. If approximately one third of the entire population of the nation outright refuses to comply with the requirements under any circumstances, what can government do about the issue? How can government make the public do what it is told, when it does not have anywhere near the number of personnel necessary to match dissenters on a one-to-one ratio? Is government going to proceed with murdering random members of the public on the basis of noncompliance? Is it going to deploy the full extent of its military force and declare martial law if a large percentage of the public refuses to abide by its firearm-related restrictions?

 

Not sure what you mean by "illegality". They are "illegal" until a law is enacted that makes them legal, of course.

The no-fly list is not my proposal. It already exists. In my personal opinion, it should be declared unconstitutional. However, it hasn't yet. So might as well put it to good use until it is. If nothing else, I think this proposal would actually bring pressure towards bringing it before SCOTUS. Which has taken longer than I thought possible.

Most of what follows is irrelevant to my proposals.

I don't care about the others. Mine are. And I can only defend mine. Not anybody else's

There is no better argument to support the government growing than to save lives. Ideology never trumps doing the right thing. Never!

Only to the extent that all laws in existence do. You are changing the subject again. Focus! Comment on the proposals. Not on generalities.

What does that have to do with my proposals?

What requirements are you talking about?

If one third of assault weapon owners were to keep their weapons and not sell them, or sell them only after a background check, or sell them to the cash-for guns program... that could reduce mass shootings with assault weapons by one third. Which is far beyond my expectations. Even reducing them by one fourth would be a home run. But it can be much less and it's still a success. Because the assault weapons that come out of circulation would not be replenished. I have a feeling that in 20 to 25 years the number would be zero or very close.

As for the rest of your message, I have no idea what you are talking about. Looked like you were on some sort of police-state Fantasy trip that had nothing to do with my proposals. I wouldn't want to interrupt your "happy daydreams", so let me know when you come back down to Earth.

 

And you know this just how? A one for one decrease? Really? How does that work except in liberal la la land. Do you have an example? You do and it's called fantasy,

 

You call one third to less than one quarter a "one to one decrease"?

Uhmmm I'm afraid you'll need to add math to your list of inefficiencies.

 

And you might want to understand ratios. Geez are you for real or is this some sort of act?

 

Looks like my "California" vs "Federal" comment left you pretty agitated. That was easy! More than usual.

 

Only in your mind dude. I can't stop laughing at your ridiculous fantasies. But hey when you're losing as badly as you are in this discussion, just declare victory and hope as few people as possible notice.

 

Most teachers shouldn't be allowed to have guns at school. It's a high stress, low pay, low benefits job that could easily lead to mental breakdowns, and you don't want most people to have easy access to guns.


However, I do not see any issue if SOME teachers, who can pass criminal and mental health background checks, and pass all the requirements for being certified as an armed security guard being used as security personnel in schools. It wouild be best to have them as backups to either on site full time guards, or police.