How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

This is false. The handgun is the most used weapon in mass shootings.

LINK: The Simple Facts About Mass Shootings Aren't Simple at All - Pacific Standard (psmag.com)

Actually I am. Just because I don't do it in ways that you find acceptable doesn't mean that I didn't.

Ironically your link shows several laws being overturned and upholding the individual right to bear arms. Just because laws are made, doesn't mean they're Constitutional.

You should read your own links more thoroughly.

Note the leading motive. And while suicide is tolerated the government is working to change that:

Sorry, but guns are not causing the problems. They are a symptom at most. Your own paragraph here admits that, albeit circumspectly and I doubt even you realize that you admitted it. Dylan Roof was shown to have mental issues, the "mistakes" that you mention is that he was never barred from being able to legally own a gun due to those mental issues. Which he could have been, and should have been. Those mental problems existed long before he was given a gun by his father and the ones that he purchased. If those had been addressed he never would have gone on a killing spree. Regardless of current gun availability.

We can agree on most of this. Though singling out Ted Cruz points towards a bias in your thinking imo. Particularly since they all use fear tactics, not just Cruz.

Probably because guns do not cause anything. I've told you several reasons. Mental, education, justice, economy.

You do realize that self same 1994 law did not include AR15's right? The same guns that are now being called "assault weapons". And who exactly are the ones calling AR15's "assault weapons"? Hint: Its not the NRA or conservative politicians.

You know you don't need a bump stock to perform the actions of a bump stock right? You can use nothing but your body and achieve the same results. But that is neither here, nor there, again, guns are just a symptom. Not the cause.

 

In some weapons, like the M1 Garand, you can. But not the AR 15. That is why I said "some" and then went to include the kits to make the weapon full auto or the bump stock to make it near full auto. Nothing you said refutes that.

Second, the Democratic Party in the Antebellum South is not the same as the Democratic Party today. Neither is the GOP Party of the Civil War the same as the Republican Party today. We have gone over this time and time again.

But my argument was two things, first, the first laws restricting firearms were done in our history a lot earlier than you argued, and second, the first gun law to ban purchases was to newly freed black slaves, which was a law in 1870 that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1875 in said case. Nothing in your reply reflects or refutes those two points. Furthermore, the bump stocks and the full auto kits are sold by the gun manufacturers to make their weapons fully auto. Yes, technology can make it happen and that is why gun manufacturers work around the laws with those kits I said. Or in other words, the gun manufacturers, if they had their way, would want to sell full auto weapons to the public, bump up the price, no pun intended, and sell the firearms as a fear tactic to improve and increase their profits by any means necessary. That is why the NRA, fully paid for by the gun manufacturers, does not want any restrictions whatsoever. And that is why we have what we have today.

 

Except, the Pacific Standard was using the same FBI data that I was referring to. The FBI data pretty much links all homicides with the use of firearms in one study. Thus, there really isn't any study about intentional mass casualty events such as Uvalde, Boston, or even Parkland high school. Of the studies I have seen, read, and studied, none even come close because they really don't do a study on it. Again, broad categories are used with limited information from the FBI statistics. And the Pacific Standard used 2008 through 2010 data from the FBI initially, and that was spotty at best in those days. Furthermore, I said hand guns are used in most crimes

Simply stating that you cannot obain firearms is not what I call "taking responsibility." You have argued conspiracy theories and other such nonsense, and yet have not taken responsibility for that, have you.

But I never made that argument, did I. I simply said that the laws were on the books a lot longer than you have stated and that the Supreme Court has weighed on such laws. I never made the argument either the laws were constitutional or unconstitutional, just that they were on the books period.

And you should read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote there buddy.


[/QUOTE]Note the leading motive. And while suicide is tolerated the government is working to change that:[/QUOTE]
You still do not get Japanese Culture. The Japanese Government is not doing anything substantially to promote suicide as a negative event. What the Japanese Government is doing, however, has nothing to do with suicide, but with working environments, especially with women in the workforce as well as foreigners in the Japanese Workforce. Other than that, you are completely citing BS without any knowledge whatsoever.

[/QUOTE]Sorry, but guns are not causing the problems. They are a symptom at most. Your own paragraph here admits that, albeit circumspectly and I doubt even you realize that you admitted it. Dylan Roof was shown to have mental issues, the "mistakes" that you mention is that he was never barred from being able to legally own a gun due to those mental issues. Which he could have been, and should have been. Those mental problems existed long before he was given a gun by his father and the ones that he purchased. If those had been addressed he never would have gone on a killing spree. Regardless of current gun availability.[/QUOTE]
Again, not making that argument here. The availability of guns is the issue here as well as the culture of firearms, especially the pro-gun culture crowd of the NRA is more precisely the problem. The NRA wants to use, proverbially speaking, the more guns, more fear, more guns argument so that gun manufacturers have a steady profit motive to sell as many guns as possible to whomever as possible. It is also why I want the AFT to have more personnel and funding to go after the federal violations of laws that I believe gun manufacturers are flaunting. And gun manufacters are, in my opinion, some of the main culprits of illegally shipping firearms into Mexico. It is why we had two AFT sting operations, both under Bush and Obama, to try, but even

I chose Ted Cruz because he has been in the news recently, he represents Texas, my home state, and he has a history of doing this with each and every mass casualty event.


[/QUOTE]Probably because guns do not cause anything. I've told you several reasons. Mental, education, justice, economy.[/QUOTE]
This is a childish argument when all else fails. For starters, no one is really arguing that "guns are the problem." What people are arguing is that people will use guns first and foremost than any other tool available to them. Second, pro-gun machoism is at play here.

That is because the AR15 of the 1990s did not have a pistol grip or the ability to place a bayonet or a high-capacity magazine at the time of the 1990s. the Civilian version of the M16 in the 1990s was still the version that was used in the Vietnam War. It was not the most popular rifle in the 1990s, the Uzi, AK, and a few others were. Nowadays, the AR15 is the most popular, it has a pistol grip on most of its versions, and has the capability to put a flashlight, or handle a bayonet on its stock. Thus, if the 1994 definition was used today, then yes, most of the AR15s would be banned because it meets the definition of the assault weapon definition for a rifle.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

Again, that is BS here. The Bump Stock artificially makes the firearm near fully auto. YOu cannot pull the trigger fast enough to make it that compared to a bump stock. Sorry, but you have no idea what the hades you are talking about.

 

It's probably not going to happen any time soon but, in this case, it's not because of the makeup of the Court. It's because of the makeup of Congress. Defining "dangerous weapon" is not a problem at all. If experts can't come up with common characteristics, we LIST them. Or, if worst comes to worst, we can list those that CAN be sold to the general public.

But, again, the impediment to this is not the courts, not public opinion (even among Republicans)... it's the current makeup of Congress.

But the NRA has lost a lot of political power. I sense that they'll lose more. Still a force to be reckoned with. But not sure that will be the case forever.

I'm not talking about special courts. Any civil court should have the power to temporarily prevent access to guns to a person who might be a danger to themselves or others at the request of family members or police.

Exactly the same way there is a federal requirement for a driver's license. States can issue their own licenses and add their own requirements. But minimum federal requirements need to be established.

I find that the argument that we should not criminalize things because we can't enforce them a very poor argument. Once we restrict access to guns, many more resources will be available. And I see no difficulty holding sellers responsible if they sell a gun illegally which is used to commit a crime. Most WON'T. So right there w have reduced the number of guns on the streets. And we have more resources to deal with those who DO.

Once the power to enact this in Congress exists, the NRA will have either evolved (or rather gone back to it's original principles), or it will be irrelevant.

 

The reason is simple. Enforcement becomes arbitrary based on how much effort the government choses to pursue them which tends to make enforcement political.

 

How many times do I have to explain to you that I have ZERO interest in your "Deep State Conspiracy" theories! And yet, you keep bringing them up in just about EVERY discussion, no matter what the topic.

 

How did you get "Deep State Conspiracy" out of that?

 

I really do not see how anything you said here relates to what you quoted. Except the very last sentence. And while you did say that handguns are used in most crimes (true) you also singled out mass shootings and said that AR15's and the AK47 are the guns most used in mass shootings. That is false. Hand guns are the most used gun in mass shootings. As the link I provide shows.

No where have I stated anything about "cannot obtain firearms". Where in the world did you get that from? Are you confusing me with another poster? And what conspiracy theories am I espousing exactly?

On State law books. Not Federal. The earliest Federal law is what I was talking about. Obviously States had their own laws. Especially at a time when the States did not have to follow the BoR's. But even then the Courts ruled that there was an individual Right to Bear Arms. As your own link shows. And why would you ignore/leave out the Constitutionality of those laws?

You DO realize that what I quoted was from your own link right? And you still call it BS?

Yes, I know the argument you are making. I am the one making the argument about mental issues. You are ignoring that because you think the availability of guns is the issue. Its not. Guns, be it their availability, or just them in general is just a symptom. Not the cause.

I do agree with you at least on getting the ATF more personnel. Especially to go after straw purchases. I don't recall the amount that they actually go after but I do know its extremely low.

I don't agree with going after the gun manufacturers just because they use loopholes. Make the law first. Then if they don't conform go after them. That is how its done. And those "stings" as you call them did not involve the gun manufacturers. They involved gun stores. Not once was it ever linked to any gun manufacturer. Or even suggested.

So what exactly is he fear mongering about? Can you link to me something which he is using the Uvalde shooting to fear monger?

Then I'd suggest that your side stops making articles with the headlines of "guns are the problem".

LINK: Guns are the problem, not people - The Triangle
LINK: America’s Gun Problem - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Only a couple of links out of hundreds I could have posted.

And yeah, surprise, guns are used before things like bombs, cars etc etc. Because they do what they're designed to do. But again, they are just a symptom. Not the cause. If you gave a gun to every single person that was mentally stable, financially stable, educated, not treated as a pariah...not one single one of them would use the gun to kill a human being. This is proven by the fact that millions of people own guns and yet only .001% of gun owners commit crimes. Those .001% have at least one of those problems. (not mentally stable, not financially stable, not very well educated, treated as a pariah).

You do know that those things you listed are mostly just cosmetic right? How many bayonets were used in school shootings? Guns with a flashlight attachment? The pistol grip helps somewhat with stability, but not having one isn't that big of a deal as it doesn't help that much. It mainly helps with those people who are old or weak. Pretty sure the Uvalde shooter was not either of those.

BS? Don't know what I'm talking about? Hold my beer....




You were saying? You can make ANY semi-auto weapon fire at a rate that a fully automatic weapon can fire with just your body. Be it a handgun, or an AR15, or AK47.

 

Let's recognize the Repubs are going to be very careful about what they go along with regarding gun control measures. If they agree to too much they leave themselves exposed to criticism for standing with the NRA all these years if there is a measurable decline in gun violence.

 

How many, shootings by under 25, a year that you would ban all other under, the 10's of millions, 25 year olds or under 21 year olds who are legally adults just as any other adult other than to buy liquor to which there is no constitutional right. And why do those between 18 and 25 have less a need to be able to defend themselves than those over 25?

 

It doesn't help when the President keeps repeating a falsehood.

Politics
Fox News
Biden keeps repeating false Second Amendment claim, despite repeated fact checks

 

Personally I'd like to know when people between the ages of 18-25 started to be considered as "kids".

 

You agreed with me about the 2A allows nukes ownership.

And 2 posts later you need to ask this?

Which obviously means that since we can not own nukes, the 2nd is obviously limited.

You agree.
Then all that remains to determine is where society limiits arms ownership.

I guess you agree with that also.
Although why you think that is circular argument is odd. Especially since you agree that we can place limits on arms ownership, which is against the 2A as written.

 

It's quite obvious to most people that you can't own nuclear weapons for a good reason.

You might as well mention water is wet.

 

mostly unconstitutional . a government that tries to impose that nonsense is a rogue government and should be ignored

 

Which again means, limits on the 2A is quite obvious.
Now, society just determines the line in the sand for limits.

Glad you agree with me finally. 5 days later.

 

Why? Because you could kill a bunch of people?

 

The US neoliberal NAIRU dog eat dog economy results in economic hardship for half the population who are living paycheck to paycheck, or worse in entrenched poverty. That's one thing.

But Conservatives naturally (instinctively) blame the people living paycheck to paycheck, instead of blaming the neoliberal system, hence the Conservative call for "small government" ie, low taxes.

And Conservatives naturally (instinctively) want to arm themselves against a possible "tyrannical" government who might impose higher taxes to redistribute income (via social security etc.)

Clarified above, we have a systemic economic problem resulting in homelessness, chronic financial stress, and poverty-related crime; and Conservatives want to deal with this dysfunction by arming themselves against those most badly affected by said dysfunction.

Answered above.

Obviously no. The linked article noted it's the Repub states who are blocking the Dem states - PLUS the majority of Americans - who want gun control enacted at the Federal level.

The laws set forth by the Fed govt. are inadequate, because of resistance stemming from present day Conservative paranoia re "tyrannical govt" which might increase taxes, and restrict access to guns.

On the contrary: Putin is paranoid about NATO on his doorstep. You are paranoid about "tyrannical govt." You are both reptilian-brain-driven no-hopers, not willing to accept national and international law, necessary to eliminate war and poverty.

From a thinker who did have one of the most capable minds:

O what a chimera is Man...what a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe.” ― Blaise Pascal, Pensées.

Even in the age of MAD, you want to maintain the "right" to wage "legal" war, when modern warfare itself is a crime because it is always fought in urban areas.

Listening to 'war crimes' legal eagles trying to work out what constitutes "war crimes"......... 'blah blah blah', indeed.

 

Another deflection because you can't back up your own post.
Still running from the question.
I didn't ask you about any national problem. I asked you specifically about California.
If your claimed vicious dog eat dog neoliberal economic orthodoxy is about gun loving conservatives, why does the most liberal state in the country have the most mass shootings and the highest homelessness per capita in the country?

Now, go ahead and run from that question a 4th time. It only shows you agree with my post and can't defend your own garbage.

How do Republican states stop Democrat states from instituting gun control in their own states?
Another fantasy post. Those with better than average critical thinking skills knows how states enact their own gun legislation.
I guess you are part of that minority that doesn't get it.

If that were true then whats stopping them from enacting it on a state level?
Oh, thats right, conservatives are blocking all democrat run states from instituting gun control.
What part of states enact their own gun legislation is over your head?

Then that would mean the Democrat states are even dumber because they have no clue they don't need the federal government to institute gun laws. Not to mention that the largest majority of mass shootings happen in Democrat cities. Oh, Don't tell me. They are all blocked by Republican states.

More blah blah blah

 

Well I still consider my all over 35 year old kids as kids but under the law.....................

 

Well Golem, does that include these?

https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/us/virginia-tech-shootings-fast-facts/index.htm

February 9, 2007 - Cho picks up a Walther P-22 pistol he purchased online on February 2 from an out-of-state dealer at JND Pawn shop in Blacksburg, across the street from Virginia Tech.
March 2007 - Cho purchases a 9mm Glock pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition from Roanoke Firearms for $571.
9:45 a.m. - 911 calls report a second round of shootings in classrooms at Norris Hall, the engineering science and mechanics building. At least 32 students and faculty are killed.

 

Not understanding your question. Does what include what?

 

My M1Carbine has an 8 round clip. You can buy a 16 round clip for it. The bullet is 30 caliber. Not a high powered round at all. Most hand guns hold more and have a much stronger round and not considered an assault gun.

 

You know very well what I mean Golen. Here is a man that had two hand guns. Not even a high powered bullet. Neither would fall into an assault weapon, yet he was able to kill 32 people with them.

 

Why are you asking me that? If you're leaving it up to me I say ban them!