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

Any way they want to define them is fine. Cosmetics is good enough for me. So long as we err on the side of saving lives.

Read above: we err on the side of saving lives.

Sure! Do you know how much having almost 400 cops standing around doing nothing while a shooter is killing children costs?

This is not about you.

Most mass shooters were not criminals before they went on their shooting spree. So this is nonsense.

Still the thread is not about you, but I'm counting on it making the people who this thread IS about happy in the same way.

See Irrelevant Argument 6 further down on the OP

Whatever lawmakers and gun experts agree determine is "high-capacity".

See Irrelevant Argument 1

The Uvalde shooter shot over 1600 rounds (probably had more than that which he didn't use). He got them delivered to his house. Sounds much easier than MAKING 1600 rounds. Anything to make it more difficult to kill people is good.

Also, there is this
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-easy-is-it-to-build-an-assault-rifle.600117/

It wouldn't pass THIS partisan Supreme Court. But the jokers won't be in a majority forever.

Already responded.

Which very few mass shooters are likely to have. Again: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-easy-is-it-to-build-an-assault-rifle.600117/

Your "constitutional" arguments have already been responded to above.

I would say 19 children and 2 teachers dead.... plus more than one mass shooting per day in this country is a pretty good reason.

My proposal is not to be implemented all today. We can go little by little as the circumstances merit This one requires a SCOTUS that is not just the judicial branch of the NRA. We'll have one, eventually.

The POINT is that these proposals would reduce the number of mass shootings, as well as the number of dead in shootings that cannot be avoided. i.e. make mass shootings more difficult. Which I stated at the very top of the post.

And since the only argument you are left with is, not that it won't work, but that SCOTUS won't allow it, looks like that means I'm on the right track.

 

My Constitutional (with a capital "C") arguments have already been responded to by the Supreme Court. And those "jokers" will be in office for at least the next 3-4 decades. How old will you be then? Enough for it to matter to you?

Hell, even the losing lawyers have accepted their loss and moved on. As you should, too. At least for the next 30 years. Maybe, if you're lucky, and the right Justices die or retire with a D POTUS and Senate at the time, then maybe you'll find some yahoos who think the Court is a super-Legislature with no checks or balances. I hope not, but by then, I'll be a crotchety old man who it will probably be a good idea not
to mess with.

 

I guess you realized that's the only argument you have left. But it relies on the assumption that we will never again have a non-partisan SCOTUS. I don't think you have lived long enough to realize how things tend to change. Some of us have lived through many periods of crazyness. But, in the end, facts and logic ALWAYS manage to prevail.

 

No, it is not. But it is the only argument that is necessary, because it really is end of conversation, despite the fact that myself and others humor you.

No, we don't. What we have, for possibly the first time in my life, is a Court full of textualists, or if you prefer, originalists. To me, it's just two different ways of saying the same thing. That has been evident in their recent rulings, except I'm not sure they went far enough in the EPA case. They ruled that the EPA didn't have the authority to make "major decisions" (or words to that effect) without Congressional action. This makes sense, as it's Congress' job to make the rules, not these alphabet agencies. It's also good news for some of the stupid decisions the ATF has made regarding silencers, bump stocks, and other firearm related issues.

But they didn't go far enough for me.

See, I question where in the Constitution you can find Congressional authority to create an EPA in the first place.

Son, I'm in my 50s. Early 50s, but 50s nonetheless. I've seen just about all there is to see, hell, I even died, saw the other side, and came back to tell about it.

I know you are praying for some Justices that hate guns and think the Court is actually the Congress, but at best, at best that's going to be 2-3 decades from now, and even that assumes a far-left President, a far-left Senate, and some available candidates that meet your requirements. Were I you, I would not hold my breath about it even happening when our current Justices retire or die.

And here is a cold, hard fact for you to ponder for the next 30 years as you anonymously start thread after thread after thread on internet forums crying about partisan Justices.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - United States Constitution, as reaffirmed by it's Supreme Court multiple times in the history of our Republic.

 

It is the end of the conversation. But it will go away when we have a non-partisan Supreme Court again. So I appreciate the fact that you agree that what I proposed will solve the problem.

 

That's actually the complete opposite kind of Court you'll need. Come back to this thread in, say, 25 years. We'll see if maybe the planets all aligned, the groundhog didn't see his shadow, and if there even still is a dem party, we'll see. But unless more would-be assassins try to take out some Justices and succeed, it won't be before then.

I really hope the kids in law school today who might be candidates at the right time have learned to read plain English by then.

 

BTW, looking back at my proposal, I very much doubt even THIS Supreme Court would find anything objectionable. At least as far as precedent CURRENTLY in place. Of curse, they could create NEW legislation. Like Scalia did. But none of my proposals is objectionable even by Scalia's legislation.

Anyway... after seeing that no right wingers, which includes you, but also includes more serious posters, could rebut any of my proposals, I am more confident that this is a pretty comprehensive list of what needs to be done.

 

And I'm not just confident, but absolutely certain that the right of the American People to keep, which means own, and now after Bruen, to bear arms (that would be guns) is, as the founders intended, absolutely secure for at least the next 3 decades, and to change it even then will require a confluence of events that comes along only once or twice in a lifetime.

Funny, though, that you label me a "right winger", considering that I'm pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-drug legalization, anti-religion and more. Yes, I'm pro-gun, and I'm in favor of reducing taxes and the size of government, I want allodial land titles and no income taxation, and I'm a Constitutional Originalist, so I guess there's no wing for me. I stand on my own principals, sense of right and wrong, and I take no talking points from anyone. If I happen to have an idea that sounds similar to someone else on a particular issue, I came to that position all by myself, without the assistance of any group.

BTW, I was researching earlier today trying to purchase some Teflon coated bullets, aka "cop killers", but they aren't made any more. So, you insisting that they do exist just doesn't make it so. Even if they did, testing showed that the teflon did nothing to help them penetrate a soft vest. Rifles, OTOH, can easily do so, but you need metal plates to protect against those and since the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, that is what the police prepare to handle.

Now you can return to tilting at windmills.

 

Ok. So you want to discuss how to discuss banning guns. So instead of derailing the thread about abortions (in which you refuse to answer the question), let's do it in the appropriate thread.

Banning assault weapons (Proposal 1) would have definitely have saved children's lives in Parkland, Uvalde, etc... Of course, this is not about preventing child deaths that ALREADY occurred, but to make it more difficult for the NEXT school shooting. Which you can be sure WILL occur.

But, of course, there are proposals here that might have an even bigger impact. Like the ones related to the licensing process (education). But they are all likely to have an effect in saving the life of children's also.

 

What I want you to do is provide an analysis of the premise of your post. Your premise is that restricting access to guns reduces child death. Please provide that analysis.

You said:

"If you are one who claims that they oppose abortion because a child is killed, then surely you'll now be calling your congressperson urging them to enact stricter gun legislation, right?"

This assumes that stricter gun regulation will produce FEWER child deaths.

Let's see that logic supported please.

 

Oh sure... my analysis is very profound. Here it is:

You can't shoot somebody if you don't have a gun.

Was it too technical for you?

It assumes it will produce fewer guns. Please refer to my learned "analysis" above.

 

"You can't shoot somebody if you don't have a gun".
That's true- Wisdom that boggles the mind!

Not having an assault weapon certainly saved lives in the 1995 event at the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. If that guy had an AR-15 handy, he might have killed many people with it, just lucky for us, he didn't have one.
Proof that gun control saves lives.

 

Can you even believe that it boggled the mind of the person I had to explain this to?

Another dumb argument that the same poster referenced above made: reducing the number of guns doesn't prevent children from being killed in car accidents.

I would have thought you would consider that one as ridiculous as the one above. But here you go and make it YOURSELF!

It's not disappointing that you guys make arguments like these. It means that you HAVE no arguments. And that tells me I must be on the right track.

 

So, another "let's suspend the constitution because...... " thread. Why not. Authoritarianism has to start somehow. And frankly, at this point, can we all just agree that this is what the OP and other democrats really want?

How about this, instead. Enable folks to be able to defend themselves. Perhaps when actually challenged by an able public, the ability of mass shooters to hind in safety in gun free zones won't continue to be an option. Actually punish folks who commit crime with any weapon as if it actually needs a punishment, not a vacay prior to cashless bail releases, or lazy democrats who pose as DAs let them go anyway...

When you look who pushes these narratives, ask them why. What possible good will banning guns do other than to further criminalize a larger segment of the public. And given their soft on crime approach, what difference would banning anything actually do? Guns would simply be the next contraband item that democrats wouldn't enforce the law anyway, so what difference would any of this BS proposed in the OP otherwise address?

 

You can't know that to be true. If you ban assault weapons, the potential shooter -- driven by his mind not by the fact he has a gun -- simply uses a non-assault gun, whatever the hell that is.

 

Only a reasonable person would assume that a slaughter carried out with an assault weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible would not have had the same effect WITHOUT the afore mentioned assault weapon.

Which would not be as big a deterrent to 18 armed police officers standing in the hallway in Uvalde for 77 minutes.

See OP, "Irrelevant Argument 2"

 

The largest mass murder of children was by dynamite. Want to ban dynamite, too?? You either missed or glossed over my point. A mass murderer's genesis is his mind, not his ownership of some weapon.. Whether he has an assault gun, a "non-assault" gun, a knife, a car or truck or bus, a fertilizer bomb, or sticks of dynamite makes some but little difference to him. Most anti-gun people somehow think that a normal person buys a gun and then says, "Hey, I think I'll shoot somebody", but that is not how it works.

 

No- it means you have no comprehension. That is as off-track as you can get.
A million times you've been told that guns don't kill people- People kill people. No gun ever loaded itself, picked a victim and shot them.
IF I wanted to kill someone, the choice of means and weapons is totally secondary to the motivation. No Motivation- weapons don't matter at all. That's when there is no murder.

You believe you are smart. I agree you are intelligent, but that's not enough. You've got to use it, wisely- not lie to yourself.
Your argument is swiss cheese, mine is granite fact.
You don't get it because you hate the idea that you aren't always right.

If No guns existed- that narrows the choice of weapons down to damn near everything. That would mean only that murder victims would not die of gunshot, but by some other means-
Like the Oklahoma city bombing that killed 168 and wounded over 600 more. The weapon- fertilizer.
.
The identical logic would say that if we banned yellow cars, nobody would be run over by yellow cars. That would put an end to yellow car deaths everywhere!!! Wow!

It doesn't prevent murdering children. It doesn't prevent mass murders or school murders or bar murders or any murders.
If passing laws that only law abiding people would obey worked, we wouldn't have more deaths from drug overdose than gunshots.
More people are killed each year with fists and feet than by all rifle types combined.
Would those become the next thing to ban? Same logic.

The argument against any type of gun or the existence of guns is literally ludicrous. You can't make it work, and you know it.

One has to ask- why is this beyond your comprehension?

 

If you want to open a thread about dynamite, you are free to do so. This thread is about reducing gun deaths.

 

Sure have been told that. And the best answer anybody can give to that statement is described in full detail and with scientific precision using the clearest available technical language and in the most gracious way possible as it relates to the seriousness of the argument, on the OP under the heading "Irrelevant Argument 4"

 

To what end??? If you banned all cars you would save 30,000 deaths a year by car. Then there would be 30,000 deaths by truck. Much better in your view?

 

Your "Irrelevant Argument 4" is nothing but a flat out denial of @spiritgide 's factual and indisputable statement.

 

That reduces the scope of the discussion down to where the possible solutions are more limited.

It is a fact that if a person wants to kill a lot of children, he has many options. Reducing the number of guns only means that he will not choose that option.

A fact that is frequently ignored is that there already hundreds of millions of guns out there. Imposing laws getting rid of those guns will result in the lawful getting rid of their guns and the lawless keeping theirs. Maybe in a few decades that problem can be solved.

In the meantime, the obvious solution is to harden the schools so that the shootings are much more difficult. That will likely involve properly trained armed guards.

 

I see your expertise in psychobabble as an evasion to uncomfortable facts is substantial. Congratulations on that.
I realize we are stretching your range here, but just for the sake of silly argument-

What if we forget about removing the guns, and removed the people with the motivation to kill instead?

They are not unknown, almost all tell us or show us well in advance- and like the Parkland shooter, publicize their intents, which get are reported to the FBI and sheriff or are known to counselors, teachers, etc- , who ignore them until after the fact.

What if we actually woke up and paid attention to that, took those people off the street? I'm assuming of course that you can accept threatening to shoot a bunch of school kids does constitute probable cause, at least on the level of using the wrong pronoun or something evil like that.

Do you think that would make a difference, might reduce gun deaths?
Or would the guns themselves be so offended at the shortage of people to pull the triggers, denied the right to kill- they would use their vast technical abilities to evolve into evil robots and go on a murder rampage all by themselves?

I would have no problem believing you would believe that, and if you can tell us how that is real- I'd be in favor of serious gun control.

Get serious. Tell us how the elimination of guns would equate to the elimination of murders. It's plain to see you believe in that.

 

We can reduce gun deaths by giving out free poison. If we were discussing reducing murder, that would be common ground.