America is under attack': Dem candidates call for gun control after shootings

[TheGreatGamble]

6 hours ago, legend said:

 

Oh, well if you don't think so I guess we shouldn't even try to get there. 

I mean, every time you say something like “make handguns illegal”, you just entrench reasonable gun owners deeper into fighting every proposed gun law, pushing us further to the “breitbart gun owners” as I like to call them. If your answer to the problem is banning semi’s and handguns altogether, no gun owner is going to support you.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I mean, every time you say something like “make handguns illegal”, you just entrench reasonable gun owners deeper into fighting every proposed gun law, pushing us further to the “breitbart gun owners” as I like to call them. If your answer to the problem is banning semi’s and handguns altogether, no gun owner is going to support you.

Frankly, I am in favor of sweeping up all guns, then starting over with a much tougher system and far more regulated laws for gun ownership. Making even owning guns as a collector difficult and expensive. 

 

But I also know that won’t happen with this society. 

 

But I wish we could treat it like a debate or negotiate. If we start with the most reasonable, sensible option, by the time we even get a bill written there have been so many concessions that the bill is toothless and ineffective. Something stupid, like instead of being able to able ban 100 round magazines we just make it so you’re limited to purchasing one magazine per transaction. Just as an extreme example. 

 

Think of it as the political equivalent of starting with the mark up price, so that after negotiations you’re not settling at a point of losing money. 

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Frankly, I am in favor of sweeping up all guns, then starting over with a much tougher system and far more regulated laws for gun ownership. Making even owning guns as a collector difficult and expensive. 

 

But I also know that won’t happen with this society. 

 

But I wish we could treat it like a debate or negotiate. If we start with the most reasonable, sensible option, by the time we even get a bill written there have been so many concessions that the bill is toothless and ineffective. Something stupid, like instead of being able to able ban 100 round magazines we just make it so you’re limited to purchasing one magazine per transaction. Just as an extreme example. 

 

Think of it as the political equivalent of starting with the mark up price, so that after negotiations you’re not settling at a point of losing money. 

I’m all for magazine capacity restrictions. I’m also for bi-yearly mental health examination at the gun owners expense. As well as getting rid of items like bump stocks. I am not for banning more types of guns.

 

honestly, I think investigating people involved with online hate groups would do more to stop this stuff. Seems all of these shooters are a part of one.

[Kal-El814]

24 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I mean, every time you say something like “make handguns illegal”, you just entrench reasonable gun owners deeper into fighting every proposed gun law, pushing us further to the “breitbart gun owners” as I like to call them. If your answer to the problem is banning semi’s and handguns altogether, no gun owner is going to support you.

Wah.

[foosh]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

honestly, I think investigating people involved with online hate groups would do more to stop this stuff. Seems all of these shooters are a part of one.

 

you can't really get into this without removing everyone's right to online privacy. we saw that happened when people found out about the NSA and PRISM.

[TheGreatGamble]

5 minutes ago, foosh said:

 

you can't really get into this without removing everyone's right to online privacy. we saw that happened when people found out about the NSA and PRISM.

When you post stuff where everyone can see, privacy really isn’t an issue 

[TheGreatGamble]

8 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Wah.

Can you not read?

[foosh]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

When you post stuff where everyone can see, privacy really isn’t an issue 

its posted anonymously. and to drill down to figure out who the user is, it creates other issues of privacy. everything you do on the internet is for the public the see. PRISM did this by standing outside people's houses and capturing all digital comms leaving a residence (ok, they really did this to a company).

 

NSA and PRISM are still active today but corporations have been working hard to encrypting messages.

[TheGreatGamble]

16 minutes ago, foosh said:

its posted anonymously. and to drill down to figure out who the user is, it creates other issues of privacy. everything you do on the internet is for the public the see. PRISM did this by standing outside people's houses and capturing all digital comms leaving a residence (ok, they really did this to a company).

 

NSA and PRISM are still active today but corporations have been working hard to encrypting messages.

I think trying to intercept private communications is different than investigating things posted publicly online.

[foosh]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I think trying to intercept private communications is different than investigating things posted publicly online.

but thats it works though. they are going to start by looking at D1P. then they are going to see where all the communications from D1p are coming from until they get close to the target individual. but while they are doing that, they are grabbing everyone's communication as well.

[Emblazon]

19 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Assault weapons bans won't help alleviate the shootings in Chicago.  There needs to be large societal changes in Chicago and other cities afflicted with gun violence.

 

You mean like creating sensible gun regulations in Indiana? That would stifle the Chicago gun market quite a bit. 

 

On a different note, I'm all for the abolishment of the second amendment. Or at least enforce it as it was originally intended. Not this "gun ownership is a right for all" crap. 

 

My (extreme) solution would be to ban any and all guns that can hold more than 5 rounds at a time. I'm also 1000% for mandatory biometrics. 

[TheGreatGamble]

16 minutes ago, Emblazon said:

 

You mean like creating sensible gun regulations in Indiana? That would stifle the Chicago gun market quite a bit. 

 

On a different note, I'm all for the abolishment of the second amendment. Or at least enforce it as it was originally intended. Not this "gun ownership is a right for all" crap. 

 

My (extreme) solution would be to ban any and all guns that can hold more than 5 rounds at a time. I'm also 1000% for mandatory biometrics. 

According to the supreme court, it is enforced as intended. Shall not infringe, and all that. It doesn't say there is a limit to what types of arms you can bare. 

[TheGreatGamble]

28 minutes ago, foosh said:

but thats it works though. they are going to start by looking at D1P. then they are going to see where all the communications from D1p are coming from until they get close to the target individual. but while they are doing that, they are grabbing everyone's communication as well.

So do it with a bill that only allows you to target groups that are actually legally deemed as hate groups. 

[Emblazon]

1 minute ago, TheGreatGamble said:

According to the supreme court, it is enforced as intended. Shall not infringe, and all that. It doesn't say there is a limit to what types of arms you can bare. 

You mean according to half the Supreme court. And I'm sure the founding fathers intended every civilian to own guns that could shoot hundreds of rounds in minutes. 

 

Different time, different age. 99% of guns have no place in a modern society. 

[TheGreatGamble]

Just now, Emblazon said:

You mean according to half the Supreme court. And I'm sure the founding fathers intended every civilian to own guns that could shoot hundreds of rounds in minutes. 

 

Different time, different age. 99% of guns have no place in a modern society. 

It doesn't matter that its half the supreme court, because thats not the way the supreme court works. They decided you are wrong, so by law, you are wrong. 

 

And the second part is your opinion. For half of us, they have a very important place in this country, and again, the law is on our side. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I mean, every time you say something like “make handguns illegal”, you just entrench reasonable gun owners deeper into fighting every proposed gun law, pushing us further to the “breitbart gun owners” as I like to call them. If your answer to the problem is banning semi’s and handguns altogether, no gun owner is going to support you.

 

Seeking to get handguns banned doesn't mean embracing a dumb strategy of proposing an overly simple bill to do it and calling it a day when it doesn't work.

 

Social reform is never that simple for anything.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I wonder if law requiring a license to purchase ammunition meets both the letter and the spirit of the Second?

[Emblazon]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

It doesn't matter that its half the supreme court, because thats not the way the supreme court works. They decided you are wrong, so by law, you are wrong. 

 

And the second part is your opinion. For half of us, they have a very important place in this country, and again, the law is on our side. 

Well, buddy, then so are all the mass shootings. And gun violence in general. But if I had to guess, you're more likely than not of a Christian denomination, so you confess your sins, and sleep like a baby. 

 

But make no mistake--that blood is on the hands of all who support the laws that currently protect the 2nd amendment. 

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Seeking to get handguns banned doesn't mean embracing a dumb strategy of proposing a bill to do it and calling it a day when it doesn't work.

 

Social reform is never that simple for anything.

America is never, ever going to support a handgun ban. 

 

Like I said, go after things that make sense. High capacity magazines, bump stocks, shit like that. At least reasonable gun owners support that and might back you. Hardly any of us will ever support a ban on semi-auto's and handguns. Like I said above, espousing that banning them is a good idea is what drives more gun owners to support the NRA and local firearms groups, and makes us fight ANY legislation, because we know that giving some will only result in anti-gun groups trying to take more. Death by a thousand cuts. Thats why the gun lobby is so strong, we know if we give an inch on weapon types, some will look to take a mile. 

[Emblazon]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

I wonder if law requiring a license to purchase ammunition meets both the letter and the spirit of the Second?

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a mention of "ammo". So that would be a hilarious solution. 

[TheGreatGamble]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I wonder if law requiring a license to purchase ammunition meets both the letter and the spirit of the Second?

I have no problem with this. 

1 minute ago, Emblazon said:

Well, buddy, then so are all the mass shootings. And gun violence in general. But if I had to guess, you're more likely than not of a Christian denomination, so you confess your sins, and sleep like a baby. 

 

But make no mistake--that blood is on the hands of all who support the laws that currently protect the 2nd amendment. 

Nope, the blood is on the hands of the killers, nobody else. Neither myself, or my guns, have ever killed anyone. Also not religious, but if you want to blame something for fostering hate, you just named the biggest hate group in history, christians. 

[legend]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

America is never, ever going to support a handgun ban. 

 

8 hours ago, legend said:

Oh, well if you don't think so I guess we shouldn't even try to get there. 

 

 

Quote

Like I said, go after things that make sense. High capacity magazines, bump stocks, shit like that. At least reasonable gun owners support that and might back you. Hardly any of us will ever support a ban on semi-auto's and handguns. Like I said above, espousing that banning them is a good idea is what drives more gun owners to support the NRA and local firearms groups, and makes us fight ANY legislation, because we know that giving some will only result in anti-gun groups trying to take more. Death by a thousand cuts. Thats why the gun lobby is so strong, we know if we give an inch on weapon types, some will look to take a mile. 

 

10 minutes ago, legend said:

Seeking to get handguns banned doesn't mean embracing a dumb strategy of proposing an overly simple bill to do it and calling it a day when it doesn't work.

 

Other regulations and bills are not mutually exclusive with the goal of getting handguns out of private ownership.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

23 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

According to the supreme court, it is enforced as intended. Shall not infringe, and all that. It doesn't say there is a limit to what types of arms you can bare. 

And yet limits have already been placed. Once that any NRA member would agree is necessary. 

 

To me the only people that make that argument, that the 2nd amendment doesn’t limit what arms you can own, that make any sense are the lunatics that think all arms, ALL should be legal. 

 

Since we’ve already banned things like nuclear weapons from civilian ownership for the safety and well-being of society, we may as well keep going.

 

It should be not be so easy to kill each other. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Based on where things are going, I'm going to advise that all of you start arming the hell up for the societal unrest/collapse that will occur when The Imbecile loses the popular vote by at least 5 million votes but manages to squeak out a win in the Electoral College next year.

 

This will accelerate the process of the inevitable dissolution of the United States and naturally the level of violence will increase accordingly.   You want to ensure that you and your families stand at least a fighting chance.  And for those of you on the Left, take heed in Karl's wisdom:

 

 

[Jason]

8 hours ago, legend said:

Oh, well if you don't think so I guess we shouldn't even try to get there. 

 

Shall not infringe and shall not silence!

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Shall not infringe and shall not silence!

Those ARE the two first amendments.

[mclumber1]

44 minutes ago, Emblazon said:

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a mention of "ammo". So that would be a hilarious solution. 

 

No where in the 1st amendment is there a mention computers.  I suppose the government could ban porn on everything except printed media. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

17 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Those ARE the two first amendments.

I only see the one first amendment. What constitution are you reading? 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No where in the 1st amendment is there a mention computers.  I suppose the government could ban porn on everything except printed media. 

Fine. Then everyone can bear all the arms they want. Any arms.

 

we just make it illegal to sell, re-sell, or gift arms of any type. You’ll just have to make them yourself. 

[mclumber1]

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Fine. Then everyone can bear all the arms they want. Any arms.

 

we just make it illegal to sell, re-sell, or gift arms of any type. You’ll just have to make them yourself. 

 

 

polymer80.com

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

 

polymer80.com

We also ban the sale of premanufactured parts of arms. You will have to 100% make it yourself. Every trigger, every barrel, every grip, every magazine, etc. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No where in the 1st amendment is there a mention computers.  I suppose the government could ban porn on everything except printed media. 

The critical difference is that the First Amendment is silent on the means of the conveyance of speech while the Second Amendment specifically mentions "arms".

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

34 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Based on where things are going, I'm going to advise that all of you start arming the hell up for the societal unrest/collapse that will occur when The Imbecile loses the popular vote by at least 5 million votes but manages to squeak out a win in the Electoral College next year.

 

This will accelerate the process of the inevitable dissolution of the United States and naturally the level of violence will increase accordingly.   You want to ensure that you and your families stand at least a fighting chance.  And for those of you on the Left, take heed in Karl's wisdom:

 

 

Lol thinking libs will do anything but roll over

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Lol thinking libs will do anything but roll over

The Libs get the bullet first!

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The critical difference is that the First Amendment is silent on the means of the conveyance of speech while the Second Amendment specifically mentions "arms".

 

The only means of communication in the 1790s was with your own voice or an actual, literal, printing press.  Electronic methods of communication were not even invented for another ~50 years with telegraph.