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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, May 25, 2022.

  1. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The question is not what you or I think an assault weapon or rifle is but how each state defines them in their laws. Also I am sure you are aware the term assault weapon is commonly defined other than when it is particularly defined in specific state laws as ANY fully or semi automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, pistol grip and sometimes additonal features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud and any weapon created for military use.

    So you may not feel an M1 Carbine is not an assault rifle but I am sure you are aware in common usage it is, i.e.,

    https://www.theregreview.org/2018/11/14/kopel-defining-assault-weapons/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

    https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/assault-rifle

    Also I am not interested in playing semantics as to the words automatic weapon and automatic rifle as you are well aware the m1 Carbine is both.

    https://www.spslandforces.com/story/?id=485&h=Assault-Weapons-and-Assault-Rifles

    Also yes I am aware the M1 first had a cartridge of 15 bullets then was modified hold another 15.

    No I have never used one but you know they were not designed to hunt so why would you even attempt to suggest they were not designed as a military weapon designed to kill and facilitate killing precisely because of their military design.No they were not used or designed to hunt ducks.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  2. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    23,068
    Likes Received:
    17,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, here we go. Where are you getting your definition of 'civil rights' from? "Scholars" is not a very good source to cite. I can find "scholars" that claim anything I want. Here's a legal definition of civil rights from an accredited school of law:

    "Civil Rights
    Primary tabs
    Overview

    A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury."
    Civil Rights | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

    You'll notice the actual legal definition of 'civil rights' include both individual rights and 'social' rights. Its about what is enforcible, aka, protected by law, which in the US includes the right to bear arms.

    Methinks your "scholars" are full of bullspropagandahit. But by all means, cite them.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  3. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    11,735
    Likes Received:
    9,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why outline them at all? The most common type of weapon used in a crime, or mass shooting for that matter, are hand guns. Semi-automatics rifles for the rest. At least here in the US. In Mexico that's a different story. And they have far stricter gun laws than we do.

    But I did. All through out the post. I did so by giving examples of why and how to reduce the risk without focusing on guns.

    No, it hasn't always been the role of governments. At least not the US government. Even our oldest federal gun law is less than 100 years old. Indeed the courts have even ruled that cops do not have a duty to protect anyone. Which only leaves one person responsible for your protection. Yourself.

    And no, I wouldn't be the first, or even the last to sue or demand. When I was younger I went to Job Corp to study a trade. My first week there I was assaulted by this guy who was drunk. He assaulted me because someone told him that I had said something bad about his mother. It was a lie of course since I didn't even know the guy being new and all. I don't even know why the person told him that. After the assault the cops were called by the staff at Job Corp. They asked me if I wanted to press charges. I told them nope. They asked me if I was threatened into saying no. No, I wasn't. I told them that I new that karma would come around and bite him in the butt. (it did btw) I never tried to sue the guy that told the guy that assaulted me that I had said something bad about his mother. I never pressed charges. I never demanded anyone make regulations or anything else. Job Corp paid for my stitches but I never asked them to.

    My whole life I have taken responsibility for everything that I have done. And not kept grudges for the things others have done. After all, karma is a bitch. So putting me in such a group is a waste of time.

    It wasn't an analogy. It was an example. Suicides are going to happen regardless if guns are around or not. I used the forest in Japan because its famous (or infamous depending on your POV) and because Japan has a 99.9% complete ban on all guns. The point was to show that its mental health that we need to be talking about when it comes to suicide. The method of suicide is irrelevant.

    Yes, in studies they break things down. But when it comes to talking about it how often do you hear a politician break it down? How often do you see such on these forums from gun control advocates? Indeed politicians LOVE targeting AR-15's, yet they don't tell you that its actually hand guns that are the most common method used by mass shooters. They blame the AR-15. Even when the gun wasn't used. They use the phrase "assault weapons" while pointing out AR-15's while also not telling you that the only difference between an AR-15 and other .22lr is looks. I've seen video's of politicians HOLDING an AR-15 while also claiming its an automatic weapon. I've also seen video's comparing AR-15's to other .22lr's and people would claim that the AR-15 should be banned while the ones with wooden stocks should not be. These people don't know guns. They just know that "something needs to be done about guns" and to them the best way is to ban guns.

    I should probably tell you that I'm not allowed to own guns due to my own stupidity when I was younger. So my arguments are not based on my rights. Because my right was stripped from me the moment I did what I did. So I'm not arguing on my behalf here. So much of what you said here is irrelevant. Because I'm already banned from owning guns. Yet if I wanted to I could still get ahold of several guns. Know why I haven't? Because I educated myself. Strove for things and found things more important to me than owning a gun or committing another crime. All of the suggestions that I gave in my post are from my own personal experiences both of myself and from watching people. All those things I mentioned, they work. If done properly.

    There is a uniform consensus of what an assault rifle is. It is a rifle with select modes of shooting either automatic or semi-automatic with the flip of a switch. There are only about 270,000 such weapons owned by civilians in the US. All of them made before 1986.

    Assault weapon however is nebulous and has no uniform consensus. What it is just depends on who you're talking to. Ask Golem for example and ALL guns are considered as such. Ask a politician and their answer will depend on the district they represent and if they can get voted back into office. To me, an assault weapon is purely a political term meant to fearmonger.

    The only fully automatic weapons gun manufacturers make in the US are those made specifically for the military and those are never sold to civilians. It is illegal in the US to sell any automatic weapon to another person if that gun is newer than 1986. So you are, at least in part, wrong about why they call it "modern sporting rifle". It is true that their phrasing is made to avoid bad publicity. But any company does that.

    Yes, the NRA loves to play semantics. You have to more often than not in a political environment. Indeed that is what politicians thrive on. Semantics. What organization doesn't play semantics though?

    Refer to the part where "babysitting" is talked about.

    I gave several examples of things that could be done to reduce the risk of someone using a gun unlawfully or through suicide. Not one of them had to do with guns. So I'm not sure how you cannot see that there are ways to reduce the risk, without once addressing guns. Education reform. Mental health reform. Justice reform. All can be done without once making a single gun regulation. All of them would reduce the risk of guns being used illegally or inappropriately.
     
    Buri likes this.
  4. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,923
    Likes Received:
    19,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about devices that can be mounted in public places that would make any firearm within a certain distance inoperable by emitting type of energy.

    Because I was involved in some of the development of this technology I have signed a non-disclosure agreement. So I can't discuss the specifics.
     
  5. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With due respect Marine 1's point is in practicality people would not buy an M1 today to assault or kill people. It would be a collector's item. I am not arguing with him over that although it sounds like it. My only point is they were designed to replace single bolt action loading. So the fact they have a catridge that reloaded bullets from a clip after the first shot one at a time makes them semi automatic and in today's definitions in many laws, all semi automatics with cartridges are considered assault weapons. In my legal terminology I use the definition that any weapon designed to facilitate the ability to kill in war time scenarios constitutes an assault weapon and that is the standard use definition by law makers. I appreciate anti gun regulators have their own self proclaimed vocabulary based on what the NRA tells them to repeat. HOWEVER gor former service members who used one they would have an affinity for the gun which might s them to describe it otherwise. I do not tell a service member what to call his/her gun of use or former use. I do not. I am only discussing it as how it is used by gun regulators and in academic circles.Be very clear of my deference to Marine 1,

    Quite frankly I have no right to argue with Marine 1 on his knowledge of it. I do not mean to. I do not however repudiate non service people denying what weapons were designed for.. They do not get the right a soldier or police officer who used one or uses one does. There is if you wish a double standard for service persons who used the weapons in combat they own. Its one based on the fact that if they put their life on the line or served with the weapon, their appreciation of the lethal qualities and discipline required with using such a weapon gives them the right as far as I am concerned to tell me to **** off.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    12,919
    Likes Received:
    6,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. The last President to sponsor serious immigration reform was GWB.
     
  7. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again Kal' Stang I appreciate your efforts in response. I appreciate your efforts.

    In regards to the court ruling that said police do not have the duty to protect I think you may have read it wrong police produce it. Its not what the law has said. In fact police officers have to take an oath where they promise to uphold the law and the “public trust.” While the duty does NOT require them to put their lives on the line, they most certainly still have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their clients which s the public, even when when their personal safety is on the line.

    So there is a judgement call as to how far a police officer goes. In most police training an officer is trained to wait for backup because a dead police officer can't protect anyone but police officers still have a discretion in dire circumstances to risk their lives on behalf of others and they most certainly do and will. Ask them. I can say that about all first responders and their discretion is not easy to define. Officers get reprimanded for not waiting for backup and many times they die because they put their lives on the line for a civilian because they felt they could not wait for back up.

    You are entering an area I worked in. I saw far too many police officers in routine stops of cars or responding to domestic violence calls put in danger because someone had a gun and that is nothing compared to what police face in the US. Its because they put their lives on the line and for that matter all first line responders as well as victims I priorize their best interests over a gun owner's.

    Next If you think I have put you in a group with unreasonable extremists I would apologize. I disagree strongly with some of your positions. I do not know you as an additional and what you wrote back to me was well thought out and sensitive and I acknowledge it as such including why this is not an issue of personal benefit to you. Thank you for telling me.

    Again I worked as a crown prosecutor, sex crimes investigator, lawyer and mediator. I was at the scene of many suicides and I know 3 close friends who committed suicide from stress or mental illness related issues and yes I have had clients or people I was trying to help kill themselves..Trust me the method of suicide is very relevant. If we can understand how someone got access to a gun we might be able to cut down certain suicides particularly with young children or teens. In their specific case if their parents did properly store their weapon the access to it to be used in the suicide would not have arisen and we might have had extra time to reach them.

    Next you are working on a myth about suicide. In fact with many suicides, the disturbed person seeks help first and thire cry for help is missed so they go on to escalate to suicide. That by the way also holds true with young adults who use guns to kill others.I say that from direct clinical experience but if you want I can provide further studies that show that.

    In regards to politicians they react to what their constituents react to and mirror back what they think their constituents want to here. Your comment that politicians don't tell you that its actually hand guns that are the most common method used by mass shooters is untrue. Many have in districts where there are hand gun shootings. On the other hand in Texas, when the AR 15 is used in mass killings they won't talk about it. Politicians do and say what gets them votes and this is precisely why many politicians won't speak up about how lack of effective gun screening that is allowing questionable people to get weapons is indeed avoidable and can be prevented with tighter screening practices. The politicians in Texas chose after three mass killings to not do a thing to improve screening. In fact their response was to allow people to now carry guns visibly without a permit. Your country is choosing anarchy over the rule of law in the name of what? In the name of the children and innocent civilians who die, that is who. Where is your priority?

    I agree with you that in all gun discussions there are inaccuracies and myths stated but I say on BOTH sides not just the side you disagree with

    Also I know you and other anti gun regulators do not agree with the standard references as to the definition of assault weapon but thanks for letting me know you understand how the term is being used and how its used with a rifle.

    In regards to your comments about it not being about your own rights but a conviction, I respect that. I also respect you have not obtained weapons. That does mean something to me. Thanks for telling me. It does matter to me you said that.

    Finally can I tell you having been a lawyer on both sides of the law, prosecuting and defending, it is naive to think you can let anyone obtain a weapon without proper screening, training and storage and think your society will not have problems with guns. All of the methods you suggest can not reduce risks specific to gun ownership, access and usage.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  8. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense, line by line is the only way to conduct a proper debate, as you proceed to do, below.

    Ok , it's a matter of degree. How about banning access to all people and all guns except for identified categories of people and guns.

    The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century anachronism responsible for bringing democracy into disrepute around the entire world. It's affirmation by blind, Conservative "rights" ideologues makes monsters out of those same fundamentalist ideologues, satisfied to acquiesce in the mass slaughter of innocents by madmen who have unfettered access to military grade weapons.

    Of course; blind, conservative "rights" ideologues aren't interested in the regular slaughter of children by madmen who can walk into gun stores and buy assault rifles. You are only interested in the increasing gun violence, not in the innocent lives lost to that violence.

    Addressed above, your blind ideology focuses on saving guns, not people.

    I will be exposing your blind Conservative "rights" filth, as long as you prefer to save guns rather than people.

    Most guns on the market should be illegal, or access severely limited to police and military, forget your slippery 'exaggerations'.

    Impossible for blind, 'survival of the fittest', Conservative fundamentalist "rights" ideologues - who elevate guns (and the economy) above people - to explain anything.

    All gun homicides. Mass slaughter is of course easier with military grade weapons.

    plus the ability of 18 year old kids to walk into gun stores and buy assault weapons.

    I'm here to expose the filth of Conservative, survival of the fittest, "rights" ideology with its fundamentalist attachment to the obsolete, anachronistic 2nd Amendment which no other democracy it the world would tolerate in the modern era.

    Try to identify the real threats to individuals in communities in the modern world, and methods to appropriately deal with those threats, other than claiming an anachronistic "right to bear arms" which ought to be the preserve of police and the military.

    A point which is reasonable, but wholly inadequate in the context of reducing gun violence and the ongoing massacre of innocents by madmen.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2022
  9. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently the puckle was mounted on a tripod; in any case, would the present Texas madman have been able to create as much havoc with any hand held gun available in 1791 (when the 2nd Amendment was ratified?)

    The topic is the 2nd Amendment; but indeed Trump was booted off twitter.....

    My standard is rule of law designed to promote well-ordered relations between self-interested individuals living in communities.

    I learnt puckle guns were mounted on tripods...

    Conservative, fundamentalist "rights" ideologues aren't capable of 'knowing' much of reality beyond nature's 'survival of the fittest' slaughter-house.
     
  10. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    34,197
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I mentioned several other repeating arms which I see that you simply ignored that were handheld. And by no means was my list exhaustive either, I'm sure I left some of them off.
     
  11. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    14,541
    Likes Received:
    10,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the constitution is nothing but blind Conservative "rights" filth
    You haven't got a clue what a military grade weapon is
    You think banning guns is going to stop criminals
    And anyone who disagrees with you wants to kill kids

    That pretty much sums up the loony left ideology and their sense of entitlement.
     
  12. Grau

    Grau Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By now we should know that it is not possible to alter human behavior by manipulating inanimate objects.

    Regardless of which firearms you want to ban, a determined mass killer will find a way to kill a large number of people with either home made bombs, a Bio - Chem weapon concoction, Molotov Cocktails, Anthrax or something worse and the list goes on.

    Not being able to get a gun compels a determined mass killers to to use a crude but very effective WMDs.

    I have frequently cited the "Happy Land Fire"(1) as just one of countless ways in which a determined mass killer can kill more people with a crude WMD than any type of firearm.

    In this instance(1), the killer only wanted to kill one person, his ex girlfriend, but was unable to get a gun to kill that one person so 86 additional people died needlessly because of New York's strict gun laws.

    The "assault weapon" of choice in this case was just $1.00 of Amoco gasoline and a plastic bag.
    That $1.00 of gasoline killed more people than any firearm in any mass shooting.

    The deadliest school mass killing, too, was not done with any type of firearm but with an easily made bomb.(2)
    No school shooting incident has ever been as deadly as that 90 year old school bombing.

    It is my contention that draconian gun laws will not deter determined mass killers from killing but that more people who are regarded as collateral damage will die as mass killers resort to far deadlier WMDs .
    That is precisely what has happened. in the 50+ countries around the world(3) that have higher homicide rates than the US and is precisely what will happen here if and when firearms become harder to get.

    Determined killers will continue to kill and even more innocent people will die if all we do is trot out more feel-good-do-nothing gun laws and ignore the determined killers who carry out these heinous massacres.

    Thanks,


    (1) "Happy Land fire"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

    Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


    (2) "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

    "Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

    EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED


    (3) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
    https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
     
  13. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but the Conservative fundamentalist attachment to the obsolete 2nd amendment makes that RW ideology complicit in gun violence and gun massacres.

    I know they are highly advanced killing machines

    No, but I know restricting access and type, as in Australia, the UK and Japan, will reduce the slaughter which Biden said was "embarrassing"(!) on his flight home from Japan.

    Sometimes madmen want to kill kids. Trump said people kill kids, not guns; yet the experience of the rest of the world proves gun homicides can be markedly reduced by restrictions on access and type.

    Trump's solution: introduce specially trained armed guards at every school. [Remind you of anything? I recall seeing armed guards on trains in communist East Europe in the 70's....]

    But of course Trump didn't mention the cost of provision of said highly trained guards in every school in the US....

    And then there's the cost of markedly increasing expenditure on mental health (though much of the cause of poor mental health is the highly competitive dog eat dog NAIRU neoliberal economic ideology).

    Meanwhile, Abbott is disgusted with the response of the local police in the latest massacre; easy for him to express 'disgust' when he is not in the firing line....

    Where is the "loony left ideology", in the above?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2022
  14. Condor060

    Condor060 Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2018
    Messages:
    14,541
    Likes Received:
    10,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So anyone who believes in the constitution or any portion you don't like is complicit in killing kids and you have decided the parts you don't like are now magically obsolete.
    Got it

    Proof you know nothing about weapons and even less about protecting a country or your freedoms

    Biden is embarrassing no matter where he is.

    So does North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Venezuela and we know how those countries turned out. Sounds like you prefer to live in a government controlled environment where you can be killed just for claiming the things you have posted here. But you wouldn't consider living in one of those countries because they don't put up with the self entitlement of the left.

    Trump said? Thats all you know? Trump said? lol
    The connotation that guns don't kill people, people do, was around long before Trump. But your blind hatred and blind media regurgitations are pretty evident.

    Trumps solution? OMG, You should get out of the Trumpist bubble. There were armed guards at schools before Trump. Yet another media regurgitation you got sold on.
    So you prefer the continued killing of children over the cost of protecting them from psychopaths. Now we know where you draw the line, don't we.
    You approve of guns to protect the president, Congressmen, Governors, celebrities, sporting events, jewelry stores, banks, office buildings, factories, and courts but you prefer to defend our children with a sign that reads:
    THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE

    This is the common problem with those on the left who do not posses critical thinking skills

    So now you think if there are no guns, there wouldn't be a cost associated with psychopathic killers because they only use guns?
    Thats a perfect example of neo leftist thinking right there.

    Even the Sheriff and police chief made the same claim. You should get out more

    Lets count them
    1. Wants government control in every aspect of their lives
    2. Still Thinks Trump caused all their problems in life
    3. Doesn't know a gun from a armed personnel carrier
    4. Thinks living in government controlled environment would be heavenly
    5. Willing to trade their freedoms for the false security of government control
    6. Thinks the cost to protect children is more than the lives of children
    7. Thinks guns kill people but cars, knives, and any other object doesn't
    8. Hasn't figured out yet that gun free zones means open season on the ignorant
    9. Thinks the cost of mental health is caused by gun ownership
     
    Buri likes this.
  15. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    7,657
    Likes Received:
    5,789
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He’s a keyboard warrior. Don’t stoop to his caps locks. It makes him look petty.
     
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    13,326
    Likes Received:
    6,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The M1 carbine was not designed to replace bolt action firearms.

    The “nuts and bolts” concepts/technology for the M1 carbine were the product of a guy incarcerated for killing a sheriff who was raiding his still. He liked firearms and was bored so he came up with the underlying technology of the M1 carbine just for fun. Not for ANY particular purpose.

    His concepts were later put to use when the military wished to come up with an intermediate cartridge based weapon that was lighter than the standard issue at the time M1 Garand which is semiautomatic NOT bolt action. The M1 carbine was initially intended as a personal defense weapon for officers, truck drivers, and other non front line troops. Because it was lighter and the ammo was lighter than the M1 Garand it did end up on the front lines in many cases—especially paratroopers.

    So we see the information you have provided is patently false. I’m finding that to be a common theme with those taking the anti gun stance. It’s unfortunate because it destroys your credibility.

    Since you stated your affinity for appeal to authority, although I’m not military or prior military I use firearms for practical purposes far more often than any military or law enforcement individual. But even though I have experience and state facts in opposition to your disinformation you will probably tell me to **** off. Fallacy also seems to run deep in the anti gun crowd. :)

    And yes, quite a few people buy M1 carbines for self defense. They are a great option.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2022
  17. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    36,952
    Likes Received:
    20,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    14 Senate Repubs voted for the bill after the Gang of 8 hammered out a compromise. Boehner honored the Hastert rule and refused to bring the bill to the floor of the House because it wasn't supported by a majority of the Repub caucus. But it likely would have passed.

    Many experts believe that the bill's successful and relatively smooth journey through the Senate was owed to the Gang of Eight, which after authoring the bill, remained united in its strategy to keep its product intact and fend off "poison pill" amendments that would have led to the bill's failure.

    The Senate success created expectations for quick House action. After all, the Senate bill had won a strong bipartisan majority, polls showed robust public support for the measure, and a growing coalition of nontraditional players—including law enforcement, Silicon Valley, universities, agricultural interests, and small businesses—was seen as sufficient to create pressure on House GOP leaders to bring it to a vote. But House action did not materialize.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-immigration-reform-didnt-happen-2013-will-2014-be-year
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    12,919
    Likes Received:
    6,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, that was certainly the advocates' hopeful view. More detached observers never thought the bill had a chance in the House.
     
  19. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not "magically" obsolete, but FACTUALLY obsolete.

    In 1791, the 13 states existed precariously on the edge of the vast unknown hinterland occupied by natives not necessarily kindly disposed toward the new settlers in the 13 colonies. Frontier violence was a reality.

    So the 2nd Amendment ("the right to bear arms") was a reasonable proposition at that time, because a professional standing military as required by the new nation was yet to be instituted.

    Fast forward 2 centuries: the US - now occupying the entire continent - spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined. And yet Americans are killing themselves at a greater rate than any other wealthy country.

    Biden spoke powerfully today: from the 'might makes right' of history, we must change in our time to 'right makes might'. And granting the right of madmen to access the most advanced killing machines in the world is sheer insanity.

    Now, don't you feel foolish when the facts are pointed out to you?

    Proof your Conservative fundamentalist reading of "the right to bear arms" on behalf of "the right to self-defense" makes you a blind ideologue who instead of "protecting a country or your freedoms" achieves the opposite, destroying the country's unity from within and acquiescing in the slaughter of innocents by madmen.

    See, you can't resist a mindless partisan attack on the president, over an issue which is dividing the nation at its core. Such is your blind, Conservative, at heart - paranoid -, 'self-defense' ideology, determined to enforce a 'survival of the fittest' mentality.

    [btw, Biden gave an impressive enthusiastically received off the cuff speech in Delaware today, with no sign of cognitive decline: "You generation is the most well-educated, kindest, least bigoted generation in history...."

    Good government is difficult - for God's sake the US itself, the richest nation on the planet no less, proves it, with its own extreme hyper-partisanship on display to all the world.

    Yes, at the pathetic NRA 'gun lovers' conference.

    You are betraying your mentality now, not only your blind ideology but lack of capacity to comprehend an argument.

    Addressed above, I merely affirmed that Trump repeated the tired old "media regurgitations" - in fact, gun-lovers crap.

    So where were the trained marksmen at the Texas school?

    No, I said no-one has considered the cost of dealing with mental health issues - which also requires reform of the present dysfunctional neoliberal NAIRU economy itself (with its disastrous, blindly competitive, 'dog-eat-dog' ethos), nor the cost of providing highly trained guards who would be capable of preventing massacres like the one in Texas.
    That's what I said; your conservative, paranoid gun loving ideology renders you incapable of comprehension of a simple argument (at best, or at worst, reveals you to be a fraud on behalf of a vicious survival of the fittest mentality.

    Addressed above; your deliberate misrepresentation will be obvious to all except the ideologically blind.
    No, I approve of the abolition of the 2nd Amendment....and a guarantee of employment and housing for everyone.

    Which you certainly do not posses, being crippled by a "survival of the fittest"/ "right to bear arms" mentality.

    It's certainly an example of your twisted analysis and misrepresentation: "only psychopaths use guns" is your own invention.

    Token poorly trained guards at schools cannot prevent massacres by madmen who gain entry to schools.

    Ah... the fall back position of 'survival of the fittest' ideologues.

    Misrepresentation, I reported what Trump said at the the NRA 'gun lover's love-in.

    .........

    An absurd variation of your first proposition; not only is the 2nd Amendment obsolete, but so is the classical economics based NAIRU neoliberal economy.

    No willing to accept rule of law, to counter 'survival of the fittest' in the law of the jungle, via an arms race among individuals (or nations).

    Misrepresentation: gun lovers think the way to protect children is by arming everyone, and yet gun lovers will not address the cost of trained guards at schools.

    See how you twist and turn:
    The gun-lovers' creed, namely, 'People, not guns, kill people' now becomes changed to 'other objects kill people', but not guns! Your twisted logic is on full display.

    The rest of the world has figured out what your twisted survival of the fittest, law of the jungle arms race mentality achives.....

    You can't point to anything I have said that supports that comment.

    See how blind 'survival of the fittest'/ 'right to bear arms' gun-loving ideology twists logic and invents all sorts of wrong conclusions.
     
    Golem likes this.
  20. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, but the fact of the obsolescence of the 2nd Amendment remains.

    In 1791 the US was 13 states precariously attached to a vast unknown hinterland containing natives not necessarily well disposed to the settlers, and without a professional permanent, well-paid, standing military.

    Fast forward 2 centuries: the US now occupies the entire continent (except Mexico and Canada) , and has the largest most powerful military in the entire globe......

    Yet the 2nd Amendment now results in Americans killing themselves at a greater rate with gun violence, than any other wealthy nation on the planet.

    Go figure.
     
  21. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    34,197
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tell me where you see an expiration date or words to the effect of this shall only apply to arms common to this day.

    Go ahead, I'll wait.

    @dairyair

    Here's exactly what I was talking about
     
  22. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact remains the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism, and needs to be abolished, see post #270 above.
     
  23. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    67,207
    Likes Received:
    15,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't have to wait long.
    Your other post said liberals. Notice the plural? You have ONE.

    The 2A is explicit.

    ...
    Second Amendment



    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

    ...
    Where's all you posts agreeing with me nukes are constitutional right to own?
    I guess I'm calling out your bias. Be consistent.
     
  24. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regardless of arms technological advances over 2 centuries, the 2nd Amendment is now proving to be a dangerous anachronism (as explained in #270).
    So it's time to stop navel gazing - including whether an assault rifle (however defined) today is a more effective killing machine than in 1791, and face that reality.

    There are more appropriate methods for a modern society to maximise community and individual security, than by legal universal access (for above 18 years olds) to military grade weapons however defined.
     
  25. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    35,689
    Likes Received:
    34,197
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, own nukes then. You agree?
     

Share This Page