Lots of calls for gun control to stop mass shootings and gun violence.

[GL97]

What new laws would have prevented this?

There have already been a number of new laws proposed on this thread that would help address mass shootings like this. With that said, can we ensure that there will never be another mass shooting with more gun control laws? No. Just like other laws seeking to stop certain activities are not always 100% effective either.

That doesn't mean though we shouldn't try. It is getting absurd that we can't have common sense gun control laws in the face of all these mass shootings/gun violence. One would have thought the death of 20 six and seven year-olds would have galvanized this nation to pass more gun control laws, but instead, we got nut jobs claiming it was a hoax or a false flag (which unfortunately will most likely occur with this shooting too).

How many more people have to die before we decide to act?

 

[poke2001]

There have already been a number of new laws proposed on this thread that would help address mass shootings like this. With that said, can we ensure that there will never be another mass shooting with more gun control laws? No. Just like other laws seeking to stop certain activities are not always 100% effective either.

That doesn't mean though we shouldn't try. It is getting absurd that we can't have common sense gun control laws in the face of all these mass shootings/gun violence. One would have thought the death of 20 six and seven year-olds would have galvanized this nation to pass more gun control laws, but instead, we got nut jobs claiming it was a hoax.

How many more people have to die before we decide to act?

How do you explain Chicago?

Also, not a single mass shooting in recent history would have been prevented with any of the current proposed legislation.

 

[GL97]

Google “gun control in Nazi Germany, gun control in fascist Italy, gun control in the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela” and you might begin to understand why so many people are opposed to gun control in the USA.

Google Australia too while you are at it.

Not to mention the fact that if you think your guns are any match against the modern day weapons of our government, you must be smoking something real good.

 

[CowboyPhil]

Where will the US govt get the trillions of dollars in cash to buy all of the privately owned guns in the US? Australia is and unrealistic and unobtainable comparison.

 

[GL97]

How do you explain Chicago?

http://www.politifact.com/illinois/...o-toughest-gun-control-claim-shot-full-holes/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...l-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

Also, not a single mass shooting in recent history would have been prevented with any of the current proposed legislation.

See my first post.

btw, I believe the Second Amendment is speaking of a collective right (i.e. maintaining a militia) not an individual right in the sense that it was interpreted in Heller. Thus, I would go even further than what has been proposed on this board vis-a-vis gun laws.

 

[poke2001]

http://www.politifact.com/illinois/...o-toughest-gun-control-claim-shot-full-holes/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...l-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html



See my first post.

btw, I believe the Second Amendment is speaking of a collective right (i.e. maintaining a militia) not an individual right in the sense that it was interpreted in Heller. Thus, I would go even further than what has been proposed on this board with the gun laws.

Well, you are absolutely wrong.

 

[GL97]

Well, you are absolutely wrong.

I assume this is directed at my collective rights statement, and I would fully expect you to disagree. btw, I think you are wrong about the individual right interpretation, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Suffice to say, we could at least have some compromise on this and pass some common sense gun control laws. If you don't think they will help, that is your opinion. But what if they did? What if they saved just one life?

Shouldn't wouldn't hurt to try something in the midst of all this craziness.

 

[poke2001]

I assume this is directed at my collective rights statement, and I would fully expect you to disagree. btw, I think you are wrong about the individual right interpretation, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Suffice to say, we could at least have some compromise on this and pass some common sense gun control laws. If you don't think they will help, that is your opinion. But what if they did? What if they saved just one life?

Shouldn't wouldn't hurt to try something in the midst of all this craziness.

I ****ing hate the "common sense" tag line.

 

[CowboyJD]

I assume this is directed at my collective rights statement, and I would fully expect you to disagree. btw, I think you are wrong about the individual right interpretation, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

The Supreme Court agrees with @poke2001.

Does that get us anywhere?

 

[poke2001]

The Supreme Court agrees with @poke2001.

Does that get us anywhere?

Boom!

Seriously though...it is "common sense" Bill of Rights.

 

[Medic007]

Suffice to say, we could at least have some compromise on this and pass some common sense gun control laws.

Such as what? There has been lots of gum flapping from the left for years about passing some "common sense gun laws" without anything to define what exactly those are. Make it illegal to shoot people except in self defense? Background checks to make sure you aren't a felon? Age requirements? Citizenship requirements? Waiting periods? Require a transaction through an FFL dealer to sell private party to private party? Tight control of automatic firearms?

 

[MegaPoke]

Big win for tinnitus.

 

[Medic007]

Big win for tinnitus.

View embedded media

I'm shocked. Completely shocked. Those evil silencers.

 

[GL97]

The Supreme Court agrees with @poke2001.

Does that get us anywhere?

Yes, at this moment in time, due to a 5-4 ruling, the holding in Heller is law (just as the 7-1 holding in Plessy at one time was law).

Of course, one can believe and argue the holding and interpretation are wrong though. I thought Stevens' dissent was more persuasive than Scalia's opinion. Scalia was a masterful writer though.

 

[GL97]

Such as what?

Read back through the thread, there were a number of good ideas, including from you...

Slide Fire stocks can also produce similar irregularities. Quite a few reports have mentioned a "stock allowing automatic fire." Either way, the heat is going to be turned up on those devices even though they are legal. Outside of tearing up your rifle and a cheap way to burn through ammo for the sake of burning through ammo, those devices really have no use and should be banned immediately.

I agree on the owning a large amount of firearms. Outside of sneaking 23 guns into a hotel room to use in a shooting spree, what is the point of owning 30 something or more firearms?

 

[Medic007]

Read back through the thread, there were a number of good ideas, including from you...

Yawn...

Let's hear your ideas, Chief. Common sense gun control should be as easy as, well, common sense. What is the law student made of?

 

[GL97]

Let's hear your ideas, Chief.

So essentially you want to rehash this whole thread?

I agree with many of the ideas that have been discussed (some endorsed by you) on this thread as a start. They are common sense IMO and seem to have consensus support for the most part, which in this political environment, is hard to come by.

Really, at this point, I will take about anything. Would I like more? Sure. But anything is a start and better than doing nothing.

 

[Medic007]

So essentially you want to rehash this whole thread?

I agree with many of the ideas that have been discussed (some endorsed by you) on this thread as a start. They are common sense IMO and seem to have consensus support for the most part, which in this political environment, is hard to come by.

Really, at this point, I will take about anything. Would I like more? Sure. But anything is a start and better than doing nothing.

So, nothing? Not one original thought?

 

[GL97]

So, nothing? Not one original thought?

I agree with you and you still want to argue. Not surprising.

Have a good night Meds.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

How many gun deaths in gun-controlled Chicago this year?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Google Australia too while you are at it.

Not to mention the fact that if you think your guns are any match against the modern day weapons of our government, you must be smoking something real good.

Very good point. Like everybody else I am trying to make sense out of a senseless act. I don’t understand what more gun control laws will accomplish. And, frankly, most of the advocates for more gun control admit it will accomplish nothing. I don’t see how another gun control law can be expected to end the violence.

But what I can see it accomplishing is adding to the already overpowering access to force our government has over us. Do you remember the Branch Dividians in Waco? 76 people, including children, mercilessly slaughtered - incinerated! - by law enforcement agencies that used tanks and flame throwers, tear gas, heavy rounds of ammunition against US citizens. Not so much as a single concern about their constitutionally protected rights. Government force bulldozing, trampling on rights as if they were mere hinderances. I’m NOT trying to hack this thread and turn it into a history argument. I’m using Waco as awake up call to those who seem to want to disarm the public in the name of safety. As for me, I fear government tyranny much more than the occasional deranged lunatic.

Good for Australia if they have gun control without a belligerent government. I wish them well. I do not trust government to look out for anything but itself. I appreciate an armed citizenry. I prefer a government that fears us rather than the other way around.

 

[Medic007]

I agree with you and you still want to argue. Not surprising.

Have a good night Meds.

Who is arguing? I'm just acknowledging the usual leftist gum flapping with zero substance offered.

I'm not surprised though. The stock lefty talking points are very shallow and devoid of body. Your lefty 2nd Amendment take is plenty of evidence of your lack of individual thought. Enjoy your oatmeal. Let me know when you find your teeth, rookie.

 

[JimmyBob]

Who is arguing? I'm just acknowledging the usual leftist gum flapping with zero substance offered.

I'm not surprised though. The stock lefty talking points are very shallow and devoid of body. Your lefty 2nd Amendment take is plenty of evidence of your lack of individual thought. Enjoy your oatmeal. Let me know when you find your teeth, rookie.

Once again, I have no idea WhoTF you're posting to, but kudos from the Dbros. for beatin' him/her/it like a rented mule.

 

[Cowpoke]

I'm shocked. Completely shocked. Those evil silencers.

Keeping silencers illegal is a bad thing?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Google Australia too while you are at it.

Not to mention the fact that if you think your guns are any match against the modern day weapons of our government, you must be smoking something real good.

Here, GL, The Humble Libertarian Says it much better than I.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2017/10/stop-politicizing-las-vegas-shooting.html

 

[GL97]

I don’t understand what more gun control laws will accomplish. And, frankly, most of the advocates for more gun control admit it will accomplish nothing. I don’t see how another gun control law can be expected to end the violence.

I don't see gun control advocates admitting it will accomplish nothing. Actually, I see the contrary. I believe more gun control laws will make us safer. I believe all one has to do is look at other countries to see this.

Can gun control advocates guarantee that more gun control laws will forever end mass shootings? Of course not. That doesn't mean though they admit it will accomplish "nothing."

But what I can see it accomplishing is adding to the already overpowering access to force our government has over us.

The government already has force over us. Has for a while now. But we are still a nation of laws, and not tyranny. More gun control laws isn't going to change this or make it any worse.

This is an argument from fear and paranoia, and frankly, it is getting old. Sitting around worrying about the overpowering access to force our government has over us while ignoring the people ALREADY dying in the streets is nonsensical.

We can have gun control and also protection of civil liberties. We can have gun control and also still have protections against tyranny.

Do you remember the Branch Dividians in Waco? 76 people, including children, mercilessly slaughtered - incinerated! - by law enforcement agencies that used tanks and flame throwers, tear gas, heavy rounds of ammunition against US citizens. Not so much as a single concern about their constitutionally protected rights.

Yes, I remember the Branch Dividians, but I don't remember it the way you do. I remember officials coming to their compund to execute valid and legal search/arrest warrants and the Branch Dividians decided to engage in a gun battle, killing and wounding ATF officials (not to mention those who died in the compound). This was a group led by a madman who told his followers he was God while abusing children. And this is the example you use to warn against government tyranny? Come on Dan.

WIth that said, I understand the desire to protect against government tyranny. I am a strong supporter of civil liberties. However, what happened at Waco was not government tyranny. Were there mistakes made? Sure. But IMO, Waco is another example of why we need more gun control laws. The Branch Dividians were armed like a small army and we saw the result.

Good for Australia if they have gun control without a belligerent government.

And we could have the same thing here if it wasn't for fearmongering and misrepresentations from certain political groups.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[Ostatedchi]

Keeping silencers illegal is a bad thing?

They aren't illegal. Just a huge pain in the ass to get due to regulation.

And yes it is stupid. They are hearing protection. They are personal protective equipment, like safety glasses.

 

[GL97]

Keeping silencers illegal is a bad thing?

Common sense to most people, but yes, a bad thing to those who think the government is coming for them and they need their silencers. Or those who can't put something over or in their ears to protect them.

Where would one find a right to silencers in the Second Amendment?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I don't see gun control advocates admitting it will accomplish nothing. Actually, I see the contrary. I believe more gun control laws will make us safer. I believe all one has to do is look at other countries to see this.

Can gun control advocates guarantee that more gun control laws will forever end mass shootings? Of course not. That doesn't mean though they admit it will accomplish "nothing."



The government already has force over us. Has for a while now. But we are still a nation of laws, and not tyranny. More gun control laws isn't going to change this or make it any worse.

This is an argument from fear and paranoia, and frankly, it is getting old. Sitting around worrying about the overpowering access to force our government has over us while ignoring the people ALREADY dying in the streets is nonsensical.

We can have gun control and also protection of civil liberties. We can have gun control and also still have protections against tyranny.



Yes, I remember the Branch Dividians, but I don't remember it the way you do. I remember officials coming to their compund to execute valid and legal search/arrest warrants and the Branch Dividians decided to engage in a gun battle, killing four ATF officials and injuring 16 others (not to mention those who died in the compound). This was a group led by a madman who told his followers he was God while abusing children. And this is the example you use to warn against government tyranny? Come on Dan.

WIth that said, I understand the desire to protect against government tyranny. I am a strong supporter of civil liberties. However, what happened at Waco was not government tyranny. Were there mistakes made? Sure. But IMO, Waco is another example of why we need more gun control laws. The Branch Dividians were armed like a small army and we saw the result.



And we could have the same thing here if it wasn't for fearmongering and misrepresentations from certain political groups.

I know you have good intentions. And I wish you were right. But I think you are in grave error. And it’s not a gamble I’d be willing to take. I hope your side on this issue fails.

 

[Medic007]

Keeping silencers illegal is a bad thing?

Well, number one, they aren't illegal. Number two, they don't silence anything. Maybe you should put a little research into the topic beyond Hillary's stupidity laden talking points. Might make you appear to be smarter than that Teletubby.

 

[GL97]

I know you have good intentions. And I wish you were right. But I think you are in grave error. And it’s not a gamble I’d be willing to take. I hope your side on this issue fails.

And I think you are in grave error and all you have to do is turn on the news to see your error on display. For some reason, you want to talk hypotheticals while ignoring reality.

I trust our system of governance and our laws to protect us from tryanny. Yes, we must remain vigilant. That doesn't mean though we can't have gun control laws!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rist-changes-mind-on-gun-control-after-vegas/

 

[Medic007]

That doesn't mean though we can't have gun control laws!

Because we have no gun control laws!!???!!!!??!?! All of those guns and zero laws? Who the hell made that happen? I'll bet it was those dumbass law school students.

 

[Cowpoke]

Well, number one, they aren't illegal. Number two, they don't silence anything. Maybe you should put a little research into the topic beyond Hillary's stupidity laden talking points. Might make you appear to be smarter than that Teletubby.

Sorry, deregulating, my bad, same end effect though. Will make them much cheaper and easier/quicker to get. The rest of that was a lot of huff, puff, and bad assumptions resulting from a 7 word question.

 

[poke2001]

 

[CowboyPhil]

Pics from inside the room by police have been leaked including the dead shooter. The main board has a few but warning very graphic of the shooter. Thats why I'm not posting a link.

 

[CowboyJD]

Yes, at this moment in time, due to a 5-4 ruling, the holding in Heller is law (just as the 7-1 holding in Plessy at one time was law).

Of course, one can believe and argue the holding and interpretation are wrong though. I thought Stevens' dissent was more persuasive than Scalia's opinion. Scalia was a masterful writer though.

You can certainly believe and argue that the holding and interpretation are wrong.

When we are talking about what the Constitution presently "is" and protects, directly on point SCOTUS decisions pretty much resolve that question for now though.

 

[aix_xpert]

I assume this is directed at my collective rights statement, and I would fully expect you to disagree. btw, I think you are wrong about the individual right interpretation, but that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

Suffice to say, we could at least have some compromise on this and pass some common sense gun control laws. If you don't think they will help, that is your opinion. But what if they did? What if they saved just one life?

Shouldn't wouldn't hurt to try something in the midst of all this craziness.

I would agree with this. I'd note we should pass 'common sense' voter ID laws too. We should probably pass 'common sense' marijuana laws. We should probably pass 'common sense' tort reform. How about 'common sense' abortion laws? There are all kind of 'common sense' reforms that the government should look at. Unfortunately, if we are only willing to apply 'common sense' to someone else's sacred right/belief but not to others, we'll never get any of them.

 

[BixbyPoke]

How do you explain Chicago?

Also, not a single mass shooting in recent history would have been prevented with any of the current proposed legislation.

Sandy Hook seems preventable.

 

[mseabolt]

We just need a law that legislates morality, forces people to love one another, care for one another, value all life. It's just that simple. What the hell is congress doing by not doing this?