This is why red flag laws can't work.
For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Sadly it looks like they are going down the path of getting more attention and could become the law of the land.
I don’t want to give up our freedoms and have due process damaged. I also don’t like people being shot and killed, however, the bad actors always find a way to skirt the law. Solutions should be based on processes that get guns out of the hands of criminals and those that want to do harm, not law abiding citizens.
Much easier in theory than in practice.
I guess my point is that why only take guns away if someone is hell bent on killing? Why not just remove that person from society? You know, like in a psych hold - that already exists. Why only abridge their 2nd amendment rights and not all their others?
Oh I agree. What’s stopping a mentally ill person from renting a UHaul and running over kids at a crossing zone?
And why isn’t enforcement of the laws we have on the books looked at with a fine toothed comb? Prosecution of someone lying on a background check to get a weapon should be a slam dunk case and would seemingly have support by all. On top of that, are we going to hold the government agencies accountable if they fail to process certain relevant information for the background check? I believe the Sutherland Springs shooter was a dishonorable discharge from the Navy with assault allegations against his then wife. Someone can correct my memory on that, but if that was the case, that guy should have never been able to legally purchase a weapon due to his violent past. The Navy should be held responsible in part for the deaths of those he killed.
Sorry. Late to the party. Haven't looked at 24/7 for quite a while. It has gotten monotonous.
I only skimmed this thread, and admit that I don't have all the answers. I'm sure no one does. But, for me, there is one overriding point that needs to be accepted and agreed upon by everyone.
Something has to change.
The problem of mass shootings is getting exponentially worse, and there is no reason to believe that it is going to start heading in the opposite direction at any point in the future.
So, when I read this thread, and see righties poo-pooing every suggestion made by a lefty, and responding with derision, excuses or deflection, I find it to be some combination of sad and reprehensible.
Something has to change.
Let's start here. No one is taking away everyone's guns in this country. It is so unrealistic, that the concept is not even worth discussing.
With that out of the way, I have a question for gun owners/proponents. Is it possible for you to own certain types of guns and feel that you have what you need to protect yourself/your family, and to enjoy hunting on the weekends, while not owning other hand held weapons? Clearly the answer is "yes", as I doubt any of you own a grenade launcher or flame thrower (or, if you do, you might be willing to admit that you don't "need" that weapon to feel safe or for hunting).
So, if the answer to that question is "yes", the next logical step is where do we draw the line? Admittedly, I know very little about guns. I'm fairly certain that some weapons have been used in mass shootings that had high capacity magazines and a high rate of fire. It seems to me that those are characteristics that are not necessary for the average citizen to feel safe, or to enjoy hunting. Sure, it may be fun to shoot them at a gun range, but that is not a good reason for those types of weapons to be readily available and easily accessible.
I think it makes sense to make those types of weapons less accessible. I know that I can buy a grenade launcher as long as I pass the necessary background checks and go through the appropriate registration process. I see no reason to not adjust the line of demarcation to treat certain guns the same way.
Beyond that, I think there is more that can realistically be done. Waiting periods. Background checks. Applying for a special license to own certain weapons. Requiring prospective owners to take a class before they can take possession of their weapon. Increasing the cost of ammunition. You can tell my why those ideas won't work or why they are unfair, but that does not mean they should be off the table.
Something has to change.
You can tell me that the issue isn't the guns, it is the mentally ill person carrying the gun. You can tell me that person will just use a truck full of fertilizer, or run a group of people over with a vehicle, and I will probably agree with you. But, I think those points hold no water when you admit that a grenade launcher is not readily available or easily accessible. Clearly, some weapons are considered to be too destructive/dangerous. Clearly some weapons are not considered to be subject to 2nd Amendment rights. The question is which ones should fall into that category.
In my mind, changing nothing because of reason X, Y or Z is a copout, and a shortsighted way of looking at the problem.
Last edited:
The first thing that can change is getting rid of ‘gun free zones’. These only create soft targets.
My only logic exercise is to test whatever you propose as a control against your other rights. If you would require a license, training, etc. in order to vote, assemble, or speak out; then great - go for it. Otherwise, it isn’t Constitutional and therefore, off the table.
So, the only solution that makes sense to you is "more guns"?
That's the same as doing nothing, IMO. Probably worse.
Would you feel safe attending the Super Bowl if anyone who wanted to bring a gun was able to do so? If you were playing in the game, would you feel safe on the field?
Yes. Gun free zones only prevent honest people from being armed in them. Someone intent of hurting people will gravitate to those places.
I assume you mean "constitutional"
Fact: You are required to get a license to purchase a grenade launcher.
I assume that you don't find that to be unconstitutional since you are not bitching about it.
You are arguing arms vs. ordinance. I don’t think anyone in this thread is saying that ordinance is covered by the 2nd amendment.
You are assuming that everyone is as logical, responsible and values human life as you are/do. That is not the case.
Those that don’t have those values are going to take arms into those gun free zones anyways. What issue are you solving with the gun free zone? So far, nothing.
That is a really bad straw man argument. The standard cannot be what any one person or group of people feel they "need". The COTUS is the standard and is quite clear here. I personally do not own any guns. I do not feel I need them to protect my property or family. But the COTUS protects my rights to not own a gun and your rights to own one. There are no "ifs, ands, or buts" in the COTUS on this subject. Just because I don't feel like I "need" that weapon, it doesn't usurp your right to own that kind of weapon.
This is an arbitrary classification distinction. Ordinance is not mentioned in the 2nd amendment. A flame thrower is not considered to be ordinance.
It is possible to adjust the line of what requires a special license without stepping on your 2nd amendment rights. You might not agree where the line is drawn, but not everyone has to be happy.
You can own a hand grenade launcher or flame thrower, or a tank. You just have to jump through some hoops to do so.
It's blatantly obvious. You are a smart dude. I shouldn't have to explain to you why there are metal detectors and bag searches at large concerts/sporting events.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
And I have no problem with voluntarily not carrying a firearm into a private location for a private event.
That’s not what you are proposing.
Nobody would use a grenade launcher, flamethrower, or a tank for self defense. None of those are designed nor are they intended for use in civilian self defense. Bringing those weapon systems into a conversation about the ownership of firearms, including the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle, seems very intellectually dishonest IMO.
@Been Jammin do you support Beto O’Rourke taking away the weapons he sees to be as not needed? If so, what does that process look like to you?
Arms are what a military soldier would carry with them, on their person, into battle. I have a right to own and carry any of those armaments.
I don’t think it is realistic. I’d be more inclined to require new purchasers of certain weapons to jump through more hoops before they are allowed to take the weapon home.
Let’s face it. Most of these shootings are perpetrated by guys under the age of 25. I think going after guns owned by people who have been responsible gun owners for years would only cause anger/unrest while doing almost nothing to reduce shootings.
We already know you don't know anything about guns outside of what Rachel Mannow has told you. I have no doubt that you think that grenade launchers, tanks, and flamethrowers are similar to AR15s.
Except that the word "arms" is explicitly used in the Second Amendment. Cannons were known as ordinance in that time period.
“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
(emphasis added)
It seems clear that Alexander Hamilton intended for 'arms' to be equivalent to what the military has.
It “seems” clear. Arbitrary and convenient.
Does the military not have tanks, flame throwers and grenade launchers?
I'm not the one that brought tanks, flamethrowers, and grenade launchers into the conversation as if they are comparable to semi-automatic rifles.
It's an arbitrary differentiation. You are simply drawing a line between a range of weapons and saying this weapon belongs with this group while this other weapon belongs with a different group.
Are all weapons that fire bullets included in your grouping? What about this one? https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-fastest-gun-2016-2
You are acting like I am being idiotic, but clearly the weapons we are discussing were differentiated from handguns and hunting rifles by the U.S. government in the not too distant past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
I'm going to restate what I said in my initial post ITT.
But, for me, there is one overriding point that needs to be accepted and agreed upon by everyone.
Something has to change.
The problem of mass shootings is getting exponentially worse, and there is no reason to believe that it is going to start heading in the opposite direction at any point in the future.
No one has responded with anything constructive. Just a lot of "that won't work", "but whatabout the 2nd A?", "you moron", etc.
Some day, one of us is likely going to be personally affected by a mass shooting. I hate to think about that, but if nothing changes, they will continue to become more commonplace.
Taking off your shoes in airport security was a paradigm shift, but we all accepted it and got used to it. Paradigm shifts suck, but humans are adaptable. There is no reason that something can not be done to reduce the frequency/severity of mass shootings. We just have to figure out what will work. It is a lot more realistic to find a way to make the preferred weapons less accessible than it is to identify the prospective shooters and stop them before they carry out their plans.
But, for me, there is one overriding point that needs to be accepted and agreed upon by everyone.
Something has to change.
The problem of mass shootings is getting exponentially worse, and there is no reason to believe that it is going to start heading in the opposite direction at any point in the future.
No one has responded with anything constructive. Just a lot of "that won't work", "but whatabout the 2nd A?", "you moron", etc.
Some day, one of us is likely going to be personally affected by a mass shooting. I hate to think about that, but if nothing changes, they will continue to become more commonplace.
Taking off your shoes in airport security was a paradigm shift, but we all accepted it and got used to it. Paradigm shifts suck, but humans are adaptable. There is no reason that something can not be done to reduce the frequency/severity of mass shootings. We just have to figure out what will work. It is a lot more realistic to find a way to make the preferred weapons less accessible than it is to identify the prospective shooters and stop them before they carry out their plans.
If @Syskatine is being honest, then his call for increased school funding (including money for a disciplinarian) is far more likely to produce positive results than arbitrarily disarming law abiding citizens.
Spoon fed:
Alternative ed availability
Pragmatic barriers
Disciplinarian
Sheriff/cop buy-in (citation of guardians on the table, as well as weekend jail without it going on someone's record)
Better teacher to student ratio.
Increased Accountability for teachers
Trained, armed guards for higher risk environments
Decreased impact of unions.
Follow through in due diligence when behaviours point to an issue in a kid.
This all requires that the Left stop claiming victim status or seeing prejudice around every corner, which is a big obstacle for this to work.
No offense, but this is the problem. The arguments and pleas from people wanting additional legislation almost always come from people who don't know much about guns. It's honorable of you to at least acknowledge that up front, but everyone seems to have strong opinions about this, and there seems to be a purposeful shroud of ignorance regarding specificity when it comes to guns. That is fine in the abstract (like this board), but legislators who are proposing confiscation programs and draconian limitations are no more knowledgeable about guns than you are. That's a problem. The language needs to be very specific.
High capacity magazines have been around for over a century, and there is no real 'rate of fire' for semi-auto weapons. It's been the same rate of fire for the last century - as fast as an individual can manually pull a trigger. There is no way to speed that up via the gun. Some of them may have a theoretical rate of fire listed in their performance details, but that has no relevance in the real world. It is 100% about your individual trigger finger.
That's a big point. There is fundamentally no new gun technology being involved in mass shootings. AR's have been around since the 50's and similar functioning weapons - for the purposes of mass shootings - have been readily available for over 100 years. NOTHING has fundamentally changed about guns. So what is the problem?
It is simply not the guns. They are not part of the problem, nor part of the cure. The problem is multi-layered and has taken decades to come to fruition. There is NO easy fix, and certainly not through laws that infringe on people's existing, Constitutionally protected rights.
Also - the framers just finished a long bloody revolution against tyrannical overlords. They were not talking about "hunting" when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. There are reams of quotes and documents to support this before and after the writing of the Bill of Rights - a document specifically enumerating individual liberties. The right to life liberty etc. fundamentally requires the ability of the individual to protect his or her own life and liberty from whomever - including if necessary, the government.
Once again. Follow this line of thinking...do nothing...nothing changes....problem gets worse.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the points you made.
However, you propose nothing to fix the problem. You acknowledge that there is a problem and that the situation is worse than it was 10 years ago and much worse than it was 50 years ago.
As I noted, the overwhelming majority of mass shooters in the last 20 years have been under 25 years of age. Guns can't be purchased legally prior to age 18. We already have laws on the books preventing minors from purchasing guns, it seems realistic to have laws on the books requiring 18-25 year olds to jump through some extra hoops when purchasing guns. Would that make a difference? I don't know, but I suspect that it would.
