Jump to content

So, I'm Changing My Mind on Gun Control


Recommended Posts

I'd like lawyers of those who know to weigh in, mostly.

 

In the wake of some studies and the recent success in Australia, I'm thinking that most of ideas the Democrats have on

weapons now-that it's a good time to give 'em a spin-IF that can be done in Federal law.

 

Can we write them to expire if not updated, like the first 'assault weapons' ban? Is this bad for the country or does it

depend?

 

What would be the implications, IYHO?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually never had much of a problem with strict gun control on a policy level.

 

There's just that pesky 2nd Amendment. And I don't make a habit of pretending something in the Constitution exists or doesn't based on my preferred policy outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want any kind of gun control, doing so on a local or state level seems to be your best bet. So far, the Court seems more willing to allow that than federal actions.

 

But to have anything lasting, you need an Amendment. Liberals aren't going to even potentially get the support needed for that because of the knee-jerk name calling that immediately starts when the topic starts.

 

Then you have Obama saying he isn't interested in grabbing guns and then, immediately after, listing the classes of innocent people that he wants to take guns from, and you don't have anything resembling a starting point for real change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest. The statements from Democrats that they don't want to confiscate guns, that nobody is talking about confiscating guns, are lies. It's obviously the long-term goal.

 

For one thing, the 2nd Amendment is, more or less, on the ballot in November. There are already four Supreme Court justices who have basically declared that the Amendment doesn't exist (to note: these same justices are the most likely to find new rights in the 14th Amendment whenever it fits their mood). They get a 5th justice and they'll quickly overturn Heller and any local gun effectively banning ownership will pretty much be allowed.

 

In the mean time, any time a mass shooting happens, the same stuff gets brought up and then quickly voted down without fanfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats stage a sit in. While they're at it can they get the GOP to vote on a Supreme Court Justice?

 

And Poe, this is like the last straw, man. If people who bought guns were responsible owners we'd be fine but society is changing and more people are owning guns who shouldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Democrats stage a sit in. While they're at it can they get the GOP to vote on a Supreme Court Justice?

 

I told you that it was a nothing story when Obama nominated Garland.

 

 

 

And Poe, this is like the last straw, man.

 

I doubt it. Gun control's had much higher tides than this and has gone nowhere. If anything, aside from the occasional bump after one of these shootings, the long-term trend of public opinion is actually firming up against tighter gun control.

 

Congress has already disposed of the bills. It's going nowhere and would have trouble passing even during a Democrat Congress. Don't forget, Democrats got burned when Clinton's gun control measures went through. It's a good chunk of the reason that they took such a beating in 1994 (when gun control was much more popular). Until a few years ago, Democrats avoided gun control like the plague. A lot of Democrat politicians are too young to remember that now, which is why this is finally resurfacing 20+ years later, but in many circles it's an object lesson in angering a motivated voting bloc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could trust the people who buy guns to be responsible I would be okay but come on. Seriously someone on the terrorist watch list can buy a gun but can't ride a plane?

Excepting those No Fly lists are pretty loose. How do we know everyone on a no-fly list belongs there? And again, we're talking about a Constitutional Right. Airlines can make their own discriminatory rules because we don't have a Constitutional Right to fly.

 

So, the big question I have is: how do we make these restrictions AND keep everyone's rights intact? It seems to me all other restrictions on Constitutional Rights are made after the fact; yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, slander and libel; you can DO all these things but you pay the consequences later if you fucked up. By restricting gun purchases, are we not truly infringing on a person's RIGHTS until he or she does something illegal with said gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want any kind of gun control, doing so on a local or state level seems to be your best bet. So far, the Court seems more willing to allow that than federal actions.

 

But to have anything lasting, you need an Amendment. Liberals aren't going to even potentially get the support needed for that because of the knee-jerk name calling that immediately starts when the topic starts.

 

Then you have Obama saying he isn't interested in grabbing guns and then, immediately after, listing the classes of innocent people that he wants to take guns from, and you don't have anything resembling a starting point for real change.

Can you tell me what you're talking about here? When did Obama list a class of innocents he wants to 'take guns from'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want any kind of gun control, doing so on a local or state level seems to be your best bet. So far, the Court seems more willing to allow that than federal actions.

 

But to have anything lasting, you need an Amendment. Liberals aren't going to even potentially get the support needed for that because of the knee-jerk name calling that immediately starts when the topic starts.

 

Then you have Obama saying he isn't interested in grabbing guns and then, immediately after, listing the classes of innocent people that he wants to take guns from, and you don't have anything resembling a starting point for real change.

Can you tell me what you're talking about here? When did Obama list a class of innocents he wants to 'take guns from'?

 

When he said that someone who's been investigated by the FBI shouldn't be able to get guns and when he talks about people with mental illness not being able to get guns. Pretending that those groups aren't innocent is, to be blunt, an absolute lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until America can handle its guns I think we have to "safety lock" the US up. Much like when you bring a baby home and anything that may cause it harm is locked up or safety protected. So sure, buy your guns, but they come with safety locks on them and until it's deemed necessary that this weapon should be used then you can't take that lock off without another sane person with a second key. This isn't like when the US was new and people were first populating the area and getting rid of Indians and usurpers. The mentally ill, people with extremist ideas (like Tim McVeigh who caused things that you can buy to blow up buildings to get more regulated) and people who's guns were not their own such as the gun used in Sandy Hook being the Mom's weapon would have a back up system to prevent the use of the weapons.

 

So for example if you wanted to go target shooting someone at the range would use an access code or key to unlock your weapon for you to blow shit up. Or if Obama finally declares martial law or the Chinese Reds come to take your liberty the Police/Military or other responsible party can unlock the gun to be used.

 

We don't give the right to convicted felons to vote after they've been rehabilitated. You can't buy your allergy medication with certain ingredients off the counter any more because of meth. Imperfect as the no fly list is you still can't get on a plane if you're on that list. Your toddler can't play under the kitchen sink with the poison. Cars have safety features and new and better ones are coming out every year to prevent accidents. Let's just make guns a little more safer for the public until we as a society can make mental issues more easily recognized and can get help to those in need and people can be trusted with them. We've protected ourselves from so many other things why can't we do this with guns?

 

What really bothers me the most though about the whole thing is how in GOP is let's go on vacation. I feel like Congress has not done one damn thing and we PAY them a huge salary with benefits. Vote on a Supreme Court Justice. Fix the ACA. At least look for options or other things if you cannot do anything about gun control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems to me all other restrictions on Constitutional Rights are made after the fact

 

That's partially a legacy of incorporation. The Bill of Rights were never meant to apply to the states and didn't until a series of rulings spanning several decades of the 20th Century (and which still hasn't totally been completed). So a lot of exceptions have been made in the years since because the flexibility of letting the states and local governments handle things such commonsense legalities as actually shouting "Fire!" is no longer an option.

 

Ironically, the old "Fire!" ruling by Holmes was later overturned and isn't given much credence anymore. That ruling had to do with making it illegal to hand out anti-draft flyers during WWI. An activity I believe we'll all agree is plainly protected by the 1st Amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

State level control is the only way that makes any real sense. The whole national gun control debate immediately makes me a little angry for the simple fact of people in NYC and DC wanting to tell me (from a village of 198 in nowhere Idaho) how to live. They have absolutely no concept of how we see firearms or use them. They have no concept of how far from a police station I am. In Idaho we are passing laws to expand gun rights, because that is what makes sense here. The new "Constitutional Carry" law goes into effect on Friday, meaning you no longer need a concealed carry permit. You want to pass laws in your state that rip up the constitution? Great, but stay the F out of Idaho. We don't need that kind of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent half my childhood in eastern Washington, about an hour from the state line actually. I lived in the PacNW for half my life. And despite being blue states, it's amazing in Oregon and Washington that as soon as you leave the cities, you might as well be in Tennessee 1963.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, what kind of people live in Idaho you need to carry a weapon for in public places? I live in a major metropolitan area and own a shotgun. Aim to kill and do it so the body falls in your house. I'm not about taking away your right to own a gun and protect your home. I think it gets touchier when you bring the public and public domain into play. I am not okay with schools, work and places you eat, drink or party in large groups especially for high powered rifles that can be converted with a simple kit to fully automatic and weapons that require a magazine of say more than 13 bullets. I can't trust the public at large.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet somebody who has spent time in Eastern Washington or Oregon (or even Tennessee in the 1960s) has not seen Idaho.

 

If you have never been stalked by a wolf or cougar getting the mail at the end of your half mile driveway you simply cannot understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that I get. Really. I lived on a Texas Ranch. Some things I have killed before I was 12: three coral snakes with a shovel, a rabid racoon with a 22 and thousands of bugs. I have been chased down by an angry axis deer protecting its young, faced an angry rottweiler (in the rottweilers defense I was the antagonist as I smacked it with a rolled up newspaper and it turns out they're much faster than me), and had a bird of prey (I can't remember what type of owl it was) swoop down on me. The wolves and coyotes as well as the one brown bear I encountered were not overly anxious about me and moved along. Never have I said to myself "I need to carry a assault rifle around" though as I roamed the ranch as a kid. I think the coolest thing on our property was the bat cave we had and at night Mexican Freetail Bats would emerge. Even after my Dad filled it in with boulders to keep us from going down, A fox had her den in there until we started raising goats. Nature is nature and there is things you can do that you understand what is happening where you so you don't need a gun. At night you just take precautions. I think the donkey and two horses helped keep animals away that were looking to the goats for a meal. They only time they were spooked was when the coyotes were skirting the property. The only animals we lost were chickens because my brothers were bad at remembering to put them up in the evening so we think a big cat or coyotes or a fox got them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take precautions even in the daytime. Sure I could change the way I live instead of packing, but why should I?

 

For the last 8 years I have had an average one way commute of 85 miles across the most remote areas (besides wilderness) in the whole state. I know that I will most likely never need a weapon on that commute, but when you are at least a half hour from the nearest law enforcement officer (which you can't call because you don't have cell service) then you better be able to take care of yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your stance doesn't bother me-- it actually makes a lot of sense. I've often wondered about the idea of structuring gun laws according to environment/geography.

It's your tone and rhetoric that hit me as somewhat scary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.