And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The issue is, and I am not trying to make this a shit throwing thing because I have been amazed at how level headed this has been so far, is that the NRA feels attacked right now. They see themselves as the last bulwark between freedom and lunatics who hate THEM. Rightly or wrongly.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides).
I'm more cynical about the NRA than you are. While Democrats are shitty and not making the problem better, it's not their fault that the NRA isn't doing anything to help the problems, the NRA is accountable for their actions. The NRA is there to promote gun manufacturers. That's not where they started, but that's where they have been the last 20 years.
I disagree. It's perspective. I would say the Democrats who constantly demonize them and press for more gun control are responsible for their actions. This is absolutely a two way street. The Brady Bill started it in earnest, and the Federal Assault Weapon ban institutionalized it. That is when the DNC en masse went against the NRA, and the NRA did the same to them. It has been a hate hate relationship ever since, and neither side has any incentive to close the gap.
But laying all this at the NRAs feet is BS. They are certainly a party to it, but the DNC is an equal partner in the acrimony.
I do agree, as a Life NRA member and guy who got my first real professional safety training from them in the early 80's as a kid, that the NRA has strayed from their core mission the last couple of decades. That change also coincided with the AWB I might add. The NRA saw safety in money, and cozied up to the gun manufacturers as a way to increase their power. I am very much nonplussed that half the shit I receive from the NRA now is offers to buy insurance or some other bullshit. That is not their mission - it is gun safety and the last 30 years protection of the 2nd Amendment. But, they are still the best game in town to protect my rights, even if they aren't what they once were.
Yes. They’re accurate. It’s also accurate to say that you, me and Tom Brady have 6 Super Bowl wins between us.
That's some super Kunt logic you have working there O'Keefed. We are told that most all of these mass shootings are carried out by whites. Why does it make your snatch so sore to have facts that refute that claim?
Does it challenge your narrative O'Keefed?
Yeah, when some fucker kills his whole family or a drug deal goes South, that’s exactly like a Build the Wall white dude slaughtering Hispanic shoppers in a Wal-Mart because of Replacement Theory.
Gay Bob is going to spend all day making excuses and defending white nationalists and then gets offended when someone calls him a racist.
And it appears you're going to spend all day fucking strawman ass. Where did I defend anyone or anything? I simple provided numbers that obviously made your snatch sore.
You're a white nationalist/neo nazi sympathizer. You downplay the fact that they're the biggest domestic terror threat and you cherry pick numbers to back up your claim. go fuck yourself
Good thing you're opposed to "hate talk."
How have I down played anything? What have I cherry picked? Obviously, accurate numbers make your snatch very, very sore. Maybe you should go lay down and let O'Keefed or El Monte tongue your ass.
GayBob insists that others answer his questions. He’s such a coward.
...says the legendary pathological triple-questioning retard. Kreist.
I make this post once a year so I guess it's time for the annual DNC guns dissertation.
Are there other factors here? Sure.
Do mental illness, video games, single parent homes and the breakdown of families play a role? Absolutely.
But other wealthy, developed countries have all that same shit but don't have near the rate of mass shootings that we do. Pretending the reason we experience this stuff at significantly higher rates than the rest of the first world is something other than access to guns is denial at best, pure dishonesty at worst.
That doesn't mean we should start banning guns. The right has one argument here that holds up and it's a damn good one - the Constitution guarantees us the right to defend ourselves as a protection from tyranny.
There's a real argument that all this shit we see on the news every other week (if we're lucky) about another mass shooting is worth it because one day we? can protect ourselves from hypothetical tyrants.
But the right needs to own it and the debate needs to center there. Is all this shit worth it for Americans to remain armed and free?
I lean yes.
But pointing to anything else other than that is simply wasting people's time and distracting from the reality here.
And sledog, please spare me the "but you can people with knives and cars and bombs too!" responses. I'm in no way pretending that guns are the only weapon out there. But there's a reason they're by far the most frequently used weapons for this kind of shit.
We didn't see this when spanking, hazing and bullying were allowed. Sure, they caused other problems, but was the tradeoff worth it? I don't think so.
I make this post once a year so I guess it's time for the annual DNC guns dissertation.
Are there other factors here? Sure.
Do mental illness, video games, single parent homes and the breakdown of families play a role? Absolutely.
But other wealthy, developed countries have all that same shit but don't have near the rate of mass shootings that we do. Pretending the reason we experience this stuff at significantly higher rates than the rest of the first world is something other than access to guns is denial at best, pure dishonesty at worst.
That doesn't mean we should start banning guns. The right has one argument here that holds up and it's a damn good one - the Constitution guarantees us the right to defend ourselves as a protection from tyranny.
There's a real argument that all this shit we see on the news every other week (if we're lucky) about another mass shooting is worth it because one day we? can protect ourselves from hypothetical tyrants.
But the right needs to own it and the debate needs to center there. Is all this shit worth it for Americans to remain armed and free?
I lean yes.
But pointing to anything else other than that is simply wasting people's time and distracting from the reality here.
And sledog, please spare me the "but you can people with knives and cars and bombs too!" responses. I'm in no way pretending that guns are the only weapon out there. But there's a reason they're by far the most frequently used weapons for this kind of shit.
The problem is that the left never says "let's repeal the 2nd"
They do crap like make things double secret illegal or difficult for no good reason other than to try to ban inch by inch
The left knows gun control doesn't work. They rule all the worst places with the highest murder rates in the country that coincidentally have the most stringent gun control if not outright defacto bans. Doesn't stop a thing. Criminals don't buy their guns at the store.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
Why did you fucking lie? I never claimed blacks are more dangerous because of their skin color. Fuck you. Your claims about poor whites and poor blacks are based entirely on your unsupported opinions.
You're just engaged in the standard virtue signalling where you think it makes you sound more enlightened to make statements that aren't supported by the facts. I never said anything about the projects and there are plenty of poor rural living black people.
Okay then Mr "I demand everyone agree blacks are more dangerous". What is your reasoning why they are more dangerous (IYO) then?
I just fucking gave you the numbers that you obviously didn't look at. What do you have that shows whites are more dangerous other than your opinion? And I never said blacks are more dangerous because of their skin color asswhole.
Then why are they more dangerous?
You've already ducked the question once.
I answered that question already. I even gave you statistics in support of my answers that you then lied about.
Can we agree that people who commit violent crime are more dangerous on average than people who don't commit violent crimes?
I haven't lied about your statistics, I pointed out exactly what your statistics don't state.
Still waiting on your answer. For somebody who doesn't believe blacks are more dangerous because they're black you sure seem to like stating that blacks are more dangerous. I'd think you would want to explain your reasoning.
As I already stated I believe that blacks are more dangerous because on average they commit more violent crime. I even gave you statistics to back up that claim and yes you did lie about about what the statistics said.
You're conflating raw totals with rates.
So far, you've cited nothing in support of your opinion and you've lied repeatedly about my position while dodging each question I've put to you. Would you agree that people who commit violent crime are more dangerous than people who don't commit violent crime? Yes or no?
Geez, Bob, it sure looks like you're arguing that blacks are inherently more dangerous or deadly, and that's pretty goddamn'd racist if you ask me, and likely not true of the personal experiences most white folks who've interacted with black folks frequently have had.
The number of whites arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,192
The number of blacks arrested for Murder in 2016 was 4,935
Since we know there are more poor whites in this country than there are poor blacks if whites were committing murder at an equal to or greater rate than blacks those numbers would be different.
This does nothing to split out for levels of property, increases of murder rates as people live in close proximity, etc.
I'm saying poor white people living piled on top of each other in a trailer park are just as dangerous as poor black people living piled on top of each other in the projects.
You're saying nope, one is more dangerous because skin color.
Good job, good effort.
Why did you fucking lie? I never claimed blacks are more dangerous because of their skin color. Fuck you. Your claims about poor whites and poor blacks are based entirely on your unsupported opinions.
You're just engaged in the standard virtue signalling where you think it makes you sound more enlightened to make statements that aren't supported by the facts. I never said anything about the projects and there are plenty of poor rural living black people.
Okay then Mr "I demand everyone agree blacks are more dangerous". What is your reasoning why they are more dangerous (IYO) then?
I just fucking gave you the numbers that you obviously didn't look at. What do you have that shows whites are more dangerous other than your opinion? And I never said blacks are more dangerous because of their skin color asswhole.
Then why are they more dangerous?
You've already ducked the question once.
I answered that question already. I even gave you statistics in support of my answers that you then lied about.
Can we agree that people who commit violent crime are more dangerous on average than people who don't commit violent crimes?
I haven't lied about your statistics, I pointed out exactly what your statistics don't state.
Still waiting on your answer. For somebody who doesn't believe blacks are more dangerous because they're black you sure seem to like stating that blacks are more dangerous. I'd think you would want to explain your reasoning.
As I already stated I believe that blacks are more dangerous because on average they commit more violent crime. I even gave you statistics to back up that claim and yes you did lie about about what the statistics said.
You're conflating raw totals with rates.
So far, you've cited nothing in support of your opinion and you've lied repeatedly about my position while dodging each question I've put to you. Would you agree that people who commit violent crime are more dangerous than people who don't commit violent crime? Yes or no?
Geez, Bob, it sure looks like you're arguing that blacks are inherently more dangerous or deadly, and that's pretty goddamn'd racist if you ask me, and likely not true of the personal experiences most white folks who've interacted with black folks frequently have had.
Hmmmm, if I were actually arguing that I would have said that.
But statistically speaking, if you're in a poor black neighborhood your odds of being visited by some form of physical violence is greater than if you're in a poor white neighborhood. I'm sorry if those facts bother you.
Trust me, I interact with black folks every day, and I don't fear for my safety nor do I think they are "inherently" more dangerous but there is no reason to deny black neighborhoods have much higher rates of violent crime than white neighborhoods even when you factor for income.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.
Don't miss the point, @OBK. It's not the laws that matter, and we know some will be passed after all this. It's the people who get to enforce them, or not, that ultimately matter. Including and especially the judge's who will decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.
Don't miss the point, @OBK. It's not the laws that matter, and we know some will be passed after all this. It's the people who get to enforce them, or not, that ultimately matter. Including and especially the judge's who will decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
Would these be the same judges who think its unconstitutional to have a border and deport illegals? Even if 'the right people' were in place to enforce such laws, eventually the wrong people will get their own guys in there. Slippery slope.
What is this? Two cherry picked mass shootings? One is in Africa. We're talking about fucking America here.
A Turkish immigrant? Cool, nobody said ONLY white people commit these mass shootings. Just that the majority of them are committed by young white men here in America. White people need to get control of their fucking children and the government needs to do something to help prevent this from happening. This shit is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable for our country.
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
The process should be easy for responsible, knowledgeable gun owners. There's got to be a way for those owners to have easy access. At the same time, people who don't have training or respect for guns, have a few more loopholes before they can exercise their rights. The thinking there is: very very few of these Mass shootings are by gun owners with the proper training. It's usually fucked up people who decide to buy a few guns with little to no barriers.
I wish the NRA would step in to fix it.
The issue is, and I am not trying to make this a shit throwing thing because I have been amazed at how level headed this has been so far, is that the NRA feels attacked right now. They see themselves as the last bulwark between freedom and lunatics who hate THEM. Rightly or wrongly.
The NRA could fix this tomorrow. If they called every member of the GOP and said look, we are now for closing all background check loopholes it would be done in a day. The issue is, to me, that some Dems have so vilified the NRA (and its members) that the NRA brass would now refuse to piss on those Dems if they were on fire. I think, perhaps wrongly, that if some of the DNC toned down the rhetoric and actually tried true engagement with the NRA to work toward incremental solutions, something might get done. But in the current climate where Bloomberg and others trash them and their membership every single day, and the NRA gives it right back to them, there is zero chance of that happening.
As others have mentioned, I sometimes wonder if the gun debate is about making real changes, or just a campaign issue to keep everyone pissed off, fired up, and donating (on both sides).
I'm more cynical about the NRA than you are. While Democrats are shitty and not making the problem better, it's not their fault that the NRA isn't doing anything to help the problems, the NRA is accountable for their actions. The NRA is there to promote gun manufacturers. That's not where they started, but that's where they have been the last 20 years.
I disagree. It's perspective. I would say the Democrats who constantly demonize them and press for more gun control are responsible for their actions. This is absolutely a two way street. The Brady Bill started it in earnest, and the Federal Assault Weapon ban institutionalized it. That is when the DNC en masse went against the NRA, and the NRA did the same to them. It has been a hate hate relationship ever since, and neither side has any incentive to close the gap.
But laying all this at the NRAs feet is BS. They are certainly a party to it, but the DNC is an equal partner in the acrimony.
I do agree, as a Life NRA member and guy who got my first real professional safety training from them in the early 80's as a kid, that the NRA has strayed from their core mission the last couple of decades. That change also coincided with the AWB I might add. The NRA saw safety in money, and cozied up to the gun manufacturers as a way to increase their power. I am very much nonplussed that half the shit I receive from the NRA now is offers to buy insurance or some other bullshit. That is not their mission - it is gun safety and the last 30 years protection of the 2nd Amendment. But, they are still the best game in town to protect my rights, even if they aren't what they once were.
GOA shout out.
I was a member back in the 90's or early 2000's. Maybe I should revisit.
Once again, this isn't about public safety. This is about disarming American citizens. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and smile. Switzerland was a nut that Hitler didn't want to crack. Massively armed citizenry. Still today.
Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here.
If the people in charge of regulating guns weren't terrified of guns and didn't hate all guns with a passion, this problem would be much easier to solve and reasonable safe compromises would've happened decades ago. But who's gonna listen to a veteran wearing a MAGA hat or even an NRA hat? What would he know, right?
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.
Disagree. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Please to be showing where in Constitution does it allow for 'reasonable confiscation' of firearms?
Show me where it says you can essentially ban and register all fully automatic weapons.
It say very plainly "shall not be infringed". Look the fucking word up.
Don't miss the point, @OBK. It's not the laws that matter, and we know some will be passed after all this. It's the people who get to enforce them, or not, that ultimately matter. Including and especially the judge's who will decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
Would these be the same judges who think its unconstitutional to have a border and deport illegals? Even if 'the right people' were in place to enforce such laws, eventually the wrong people will get their own guys in there. Slippery slope.
Comments
But statistically speaking, if you're in a poor black neighborhood your odds of being visited by some form of physical violence is greater than if you're in a poor white neighborhood. I'm sorry if those facts bother you.
Trust me, I interact with black folks every day, and I don't fear for my safety nor do I think they are "inherently" more dangerous but there is no reason to deny black neighborhoods have much higher rates of violent crime than white neighborhoods even when you factor for income.
Instead the anti-gun forces count every tragedy as a notch in their belt for more "gun control" against law-abiding citizens instead of "gun confiscation" from crazy fucks who make threats against people and get all gassed up on line to go out and kill people in large numbers. All the gun owners I know, including myself, have no problem with the state setting up reasonable confiscation rules and putting fair-minded people who know something about guns in charge of deciding who gets their guns taken, for how long, and under what terms they get them back.
But, unfortunately, that ain't how our democracy works anymore, if it ever could've worked. Instead we'd get some liberal dyke who's never held a gun deciding which man gets to keep or lose his guns. And sorry, but fuck that.