Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow - what you are describing sounds a lot like a "well regulated" system, no? The militia part could be a requirement in the regulations for assault style weapons. Want to play with the big boy toys? Then you train and work with the big boys as a reservist.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Right, because gun ownership requires so much bravery and bad-ass. Why don't we glorify gun ownership even more? Maybe because I am an old guy now as well, but in my days, it was fight and you stopped when you submitted him and helped him get up. That was bad ass, not using weapons and shooting someone in the back. I have never owned a gun, and never felt insecure and unprepared because I didn't have a gun. Having a gun would have made me insecure.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
The fact that I am agreeing with you on this point is making me wonder if I am thinking about this all wrong.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist.
I love this idea. Require evidence of liability insurance with minimum coverage before ownership of a gun. Once a private, for-profit, organization gets a hold of this business, they will do a much better job of vetting the crazy folks than the government could. Make it illegal to sell a gun (including in a private transaction) prior to certified evidence of insurance. This no longer is a second amendment issue. It is an economic issue to make sure that the government doesn't have to pick up the cost of damage from irresponsible gun usage.
Yup. Much of the pressure to make cars safer comes from insurance companies who don't want to have to pay out a lot of money in claims. With a little push from the government, the system can self-regulate to some degree.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist.
I love this idea. Require evidence of liability insurance with minimum coverage before ownership of a gun. Once a private, for-profit, organization gets a hold of this business, they will do a much better job of vetting the crazy folks than the government could. Make it illegal to sell a gun (including in a private transaction) prior to certified evidence of insurance. This no longer is a second amendment issue. It is an economic issue to make sure that the government doesn't have to pick up the cost of damage from irresponsible gun usage.
I would agree with this proposal except I believe it is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says, "well regulated", I don't believe it is "well regulated" to hand off the service to a private company.

I am all for amending the 2nd amendment though
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist.
I love this idea. Require evidence of liability insurance with minimum coverage before ownership of a gun. Once a private, for-profit, organization gets a hold of this business, they will do a much better job of vetting the crazy folks than the government could. Make it illegal to sell a gun (including in a private transaction) prior to certified evidence of insurance. This no longer is a second amendment issue. It is an economic issue to make sure that the government doesn't have to pick up the cost of damage from irresponsible gun usage.
I would agree with this proposal except I believe it is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says, "well regulated", I don't believe it is "well regulated" to hand off the service to a private company.

I am all for amending the 2nd amendment though
Not sure I agree. Well regulated militia doesn't mean that a person does not have to be fiscally responsible for the damages that he creates. The second amendment doesn't mean that the government has to be responsible for paying the cost of the gun and the second amendment doesn't mean that you can go to a gun store and take it without paying. Likewise, the second amendment doesn't mean that the government can't make sure that a gun owner be fiscally responsible for the damage he may cause.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


Not sure I agree. Well regulated militia doesn't mean that a person does not have to be fiscally responsible for the damages that he creates. The second amendment doesn't mean that the government has to be responsible for paying the cost of the gun and the second amendment doesn't mean that you can go to a gun store and take it without paying. Likewise, the second amendment doesn't mean that the government can't make sure that a gun owner be fiscally responsible for the damage he may cause.
It's ultimately for the courts to decide but I certainly think it's plausible to say that the second amendment would permit states to require gun owners to register their firearms and to require proof of insurance and having taken a licensed safety course for registration.

The problem is that the gun lobby has purchased the fealty of our government for a rather paltry sum. You would think we are talking about billions or hundreds of millions being spent to control our politicians, but it's actually more like $10 million per year.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


The problem is that the gun lobby has purchased the fealty of our government for a rather paltry sum. You would think we are talking about billions or hundreds of millions being spent to control our politicians, but it's actually more like $10 million per year.
To me it's less about the gun lobby purchasing politicians. It's more that they have successfully convinced large swaths of VOTERS that they need to have the right to purchase military-grade weapons, as many as they want and whenever they want, and anything else is a grave infringement on their freedom. Until very recently, those have been the loudest voices in the gun debate.

I understand why there is a push to reveal how much the NRA has donated to particular political candidates, because it can be an effective shaming strategy. But really, politicians (as a group, not always individually) will go whichever way they think will win them elections. The real work is to convince more average people that the need for public safety now outweighs personal freedom, and that's why it's time for gun control. If people are willing to vote on that issue, then you'll see the change happen at the top.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Given the purpose of guns is to kill or maim, liability insurance is not an unreasonable requirement to ownership.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

Right, because gun ownership requires so much bravery and bad-ass. Why don't we glorify gun ownership even more? Maybe because I am an old guy now as well, but in my days, it was fight and you stopped when you submitted him and helped him get up. That was bad ass, not using weapons and shooting someone in the back. I have never owned a gun, and never felt insecure and unprepared because I didn't have a gun. Having a gun would have made me insecure.
Why on earth would you glorify violence as a means of self expression and problem-solving? You're supposed to be a civilized human being, not some young male elephant seal fighting over a harem of cows.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

calbear93 said:

Right, because gun ownership requires so much bravery and bad-ass. Why don't we glorify gun ownership even more? Maybe because I am an old guy now as well, but in my days, it was fight and you stopped when you submitted him and helped him get up. That was bad ass, not using weapons and shooting someone in the back. I have never owned a gun, and never felt insecure and unprepared because I didn't have a gun. Having a gun would have made me insecure.
Why on earth would you glorify violence as a means of self expression and problem-solving? You're supposed to be a civilized human being, not some young male elephant seal fighting over a harem of cows.
I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

calbear93 said:


Not sure I agree. Well regulated militia doesn't mean that a person does not have to be fiscally responsible for the damages that he creates. The second amendment doesn't mean that the government has to be responsible for paying the cost of the gun and the second amendment doesn't mean that you can go to a gun store and take it without paying. Likewise, the second amendment doesn't mean that the government can't make sure that a gun owner be fiscally responsible for the damage he may cause.
It's ultimately for the courts to decide but I certainly think it's plausible to say that the second amendment would permit states to require gun owners to register their firearms and to require proof of insurance and having taken a licensed safety course for registration.

The problem is that the gun lobby has purchased the fealty of our government for a rather paltry sum. You would think we are talking about billions or hundreds of millions being spent to control our politicians, but it's actually more like $10 million per year.
That seems like an incomplete analysis. I would assume they spend a lot more on communication and campaign activities than they do on campaign contributions.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


Finally, the extent of BearsWiin's firearms knowledge has me thinking he may be former Tier 1 Operator and that anyone that insults him on this board does so at their own risk.
This should explain all (if my avatar memory serves me):

BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

BearsWiin said:

calbear93 said:

Right, because gun ownership requires so much bravery and bad-ass. Why don't we glorify gun ownership even more? Maybe because I am an old guy now as well, but in my days, it was fight and you stopped when you submitted him and helped him get up. That was bad ass, not using weapons and shooting someone in the back. I have never owned a gun, and never felt insecure and unprepared because I didn't have a gun. Having a gun would have made me insecure.
Why on earth would you glorify violence as a means of self expression and problem-solving? You're supposed to be a civilized human being, not some young male elephant seal fighting over a harem of cows.
I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
You just did. You think it's OK to respond with violence when somebody makes you angry. Awesome.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
Sounds good. Sort of like the legislative version of Marco Rubio's self-own here:



I also think we need to start thinking about gun ownership like car ownership. Lots of people have cars, but you have to get a license and renew it regularly. You have to register every car you buy, and renew it regularly. You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist. Thanks partially to that last point, tons of safety measures are now required for any car you take on the road (seat belts, air bags, etc.). Drive drunk, and you lose your license. Have health problems that make you a danger on the road? No more license. And of course, certain kinds of cars are not allowed on public roads (no Formula One racers zipping around the highway).

Does that prevent all car accidents or deaths? Of course not. But incremental changes to the law have helped reduce them significantly.

I think getting this stuff passed on the national level is going to be a long haul, but one thing people can work on for now is getting stronger laws passed in the states where the gun laws are lax.
Watching Rubio stammering and getting savaged by that crowd showed me that the NRA is beginning to lose their control of the gun argument. Arming teachers at a school has the potential to go horribly wrong should they encounter a shooter. I have a law enforcement firearms expert in my family and you would be absolutely astonished at the rate of shots that missed their target fired by law enforcement let alone those who aren't professionals. What happens when a teacher hits one or more kids or teachers in a shootout? Who is going to take on that financial responsibility when the school district and the teacher gets sued in a wrongful death suit? Are the teachers who carry guns going to get combat pay? Where are the guns going to be stored? What happens when one of those guns is stolen and used in another crime? Whose going to absorb the insurance cost for this little plan. Where's the money going to come from for the training that teachers will undergo. What agency is going to be responsible for this program? Small government just got bigger with arming teachers.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
Sounds good. Sort of like the legislative version of Marco Rubio's self-own here:



I also think we need to start thinking about gun ownership like car ownership. Lots of people have cars, but you have to get a license and renew it regularly. You have to register every car you buy, and renew it regularly. You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist. Thanks partially to that last point, tons of safety measures are now required for any car you take on the road (seat belts, air bags, etc.). Drive drunk, and you lose your license. Have health problems that make you a danger on the road? No more license. And of course, certain kinds of cars are not allowed on public roads (no Formula One racers zipping around the highway).

Does that prevent all car accidents or deaths? Of course not. But incremental changes to the law have helped reduce them significantly.

I think getting this stuff passed on the national level is going to be a long haul, but one thing people can work on for now is getting stronger laws passed in the states where the gun laws are lax.
Watching Rubio stammering and getting savaged by that crowd showed me that the NRA is beginning to lose their control of the gun argument. Arming teachers at a school has the potential to go horribly wrong should they encounter a shooter. I have a law enforcement firearms expert in my family and you would be absolutely astonished at the rate of shots that missed their target fired by law enforcement let alone those who aren't professionals. What happens when a teacher hits one or more kids or teachers in a shootout? Who is going to take on that financial responsibility when the school district and the teacher gets sued in a wrongful death suit? Are the teachers who carry guns going to get combat pay? Where are the guns going to be stored? What happens when one of those guns is stolen and used in another crime? Whose going to absorb the insurance cost for this little plan. Where's the money going to come from for the training that teachers will undergo. What agency is going to be responsible for this program? Small government just got bigger with arming teachers.
Also, where is this money going to come from, given that teachers already can't afford their own school supplies?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

calbear93 said:

BearsWiin said:

calbear93 said:

Right, because gun ownership requires so much bravery and bad-ass. Why don't we glorify gun ownership even more? Maybe because I am an old guy now as well, but in my days, it was fight and you stopped when you submitted him and helped him get up. That was bad ass, not using weapons and shooting someone in the back. I have never owned a gun, and never felt insecure and unprepared because I didn't have a gun. Having a gun would have made me insecure.
Why on earth would you glorify violence as a means of self expression and problem-solving? You're supposed to be a civilized human being, not some young male elephant seal fighting over a harem of cows.
I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
You just did. You think it's OK to respond with violence when somebody makes you angry. Awesome.
I guess I did kind of advocate a little bit of violence (even if I would still no longer partake) for those truly deserving. It was awesome.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearNIt said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
Sounds good. Sort of like the legislative version of Marco Rubio's self-own here:



I also think we need to start thinking about gun ownership like car ownership. Lots of people have cars, but you have to get a license and renew it regularly. You have to register every car you buy, and renew it regularly. You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist. Thanks partially to that last point, tons of safety measures are now required for any car you take on the road (seat belts, air bags, etc.). Drive drunk, and you lose your license. Have health problems that make you a danger on the road? No more license. And of course, certain kinds of cars are not allowed on public roads (no Formula One racers zipping around the highway).

Does that prevent all car accidents or deaths? Of course not. But incremental changes to the law have helped reduce them significantly.

I think getting this stuff passed on the national level is going to be a long haul, but one thing people can work on for now is getting stronger laws passed in the states where the gun laws are lax.
Watching Rubio stammering and getting savaged by that crowd showed me that the NRA is beginning to lose their control of the gun argument. Arming teachers at a school has the potential to go horribly wrong should they encounter a shooter. I have a law enforcement firearms expert in my family and you would be absolutely astonished at the rate of shots that missed their target fired by law enforcement let alone those who aren't professionals. What happens when a teacher hits one or more kids or teachers in a shootout? Who is going to take on that financial responsibility when the school district and the teacher gets sued in a wrongful death suit? Are the teachers who carry guns going to get combat pay? Where are the guns going to be stored? What happens when one of those guns is stolen and used in another crime? Whose going to absorb the insurance cost for this little plan. Where's the money going to come from for the training that teachers will undergo. What agency is going to be responsible for this program? Small government just got bigger with arming teachers.
Also, where is this money going to come from, given that teachers already can't afford their own school supplies?
Discounts for teachers. Come on...there are solutions there if you bother to look for them.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

BearNIt said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
Sounds good. Sort of like the legislative version of Marco Rubio's self-own here:



I also think we need to start thinking about gun ownership like car ownership. Lots of people have cars, but you have to get a license and renew it regularly. You have to register every car you buy, and renew it regularly. You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist. Thanks partially to that last point, tons of safety measures are now required for any car you take on the road (seat belts, air bags, etc.). Drive drunk, and you lose your license. Have health problems that make you a danger on the road? No more license. And of course, certain kinds of cars are not allowed on public roads (no Formula One racers zipping around the highway).

Does that prevent all car accidents or deaths? Of course not. But incremental changes to the law have helped reduce them significantly.

I think getting this stuff passed on the national level is going to be a long haul, but one thing people can work on for now is getting stronger laws passed in the states where the gun laws are lax.
Watching Rubio stammering and getting savaged by that crowd showed me that the NRA is beginning to lose their control of the gun argument. Arming teachers at a school has the potential to go horribly wrong should they encounter a shooter. I have a law enforcement firearms expert in my family and you would be absolutely astonished at the rate of shots that missed their target fired by law enforcement let alone those who aren't professionals. What happens when a teacher hits one or more kids or teachers in a shootout? Who is going to take on that financial responsibility when the school district and the teacher gets sued in a wrongful death suit? Are the teachers who carry guns going to get combat pay? Where are the guns going to be stored? What happens when one of those guns is stolen and used in another crime? Whose going to absorb the insurance cost for this little plan. Where's the money going to come from for the training that teachers will undergo. What agency is going to be responsible for this program? Small government just got bigger with arming teachers.
Also, where is this money going to come from, given that teachers already can't afford their own school supplies?
Discounts for teachers. Come on...there are solutions there if you bother to look for them.
Instead of food stamps . . . gun stamps.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
93, sounds like back in the day you won all these beatdowns of other men over the use of certain hateful words. Curious, you ever lose in a physical fight? If so, how is that possible? Does your enduring power come from overwhelming size and strength or do you happen to be skilled in the pugilistic arts? What defines your particular ass-kicking capabilities?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

BearNIt said:

sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
Sounds good. Sort of like the legislative version of Marco Rubio's self-own here:



I also think we need to start thinking about gun ownership like car ownership. Lots of people have cars, but you have to get a license and renew it regularly. You have to register every car you buy, and renew it regularly. You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist. Thanks partially to that last point, tons of safety measures are now required for any car you take on the road (seat belts, air bags, etc.). Drive drunk, and you lose your license. Have health problems that make you a danger on the road? No more license. And of course, certain kinds of cars are not allowed on public roads (no Formula One racers zipping around the highway).

Does that prevent all car accidents or deaths? Of course not. But incremental changes to the law have helped reduce them significantly.

I think getting this stuff passed on the national level is going to be a long haul, but one thing people can work on for now is getting stronger laws passed in the states where the gun laws are lax.
Watching Rubio stammering and getting savaged by that crowd showed me that the NRA is beginning to lose their control of the gun argument. Arming teachers at a school has the potential to go horribly wrong should they encounter a shooter. I have a law enforcement firearms expert in my family and you would be absolutely astonished at the rate of shots that missed their target fired by law enforcement let alone those who aren't professionals. What happens when a teacher hits one or more kids or teachers in a shootout? Who is going to take on that financial responsibility when the school district and the teacher gets sued in a wrongful death suit? Are the teachers who carry guns going to get combat pay? Where are the guns going to be stored? What happens when one of those guns is stolen and used in another crime? Whose going to absorb the insurance cost for this little plan. Where's the money going to come from for the training that teachers will undergo. What agency is going to be responsible for this program? Small government just got bigger with arming teachers.
Also, where is this money going to come from, given that teachers already can't afford their own school supplies?
Discounts for teachers. Come on...there are solutions there if you bother to look for them.
Instead of food stamps . . . gun stamps.
I like where you are going with this. More fundamental right than food and life.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

calbear93 said:


I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
93, sounds like back in the day you won all these beatdowns of other men over the use of certain hateful words. Curious, you ever lose in a physical fight? If so, how is that possible? Does your enduring power come from overwhelming size and strength or do you happen to be skilled in the pugilistic arts? What's defines your particular ass-kicking capabilities?
Of course I got my ass kicked. All the time. One of the main reasons my parents got me to take martial arts and compete while growing up. I also know that once I knew how to fight, I no longer felt the need to fight to prove anything. The last time I got into a fight was in law school when bunch of ignorant racists were trying to start something with an awesome classmate and an even better friend who just happened to be black. Even then, it was just a simple submission before they walked off saying more stupid ***** I know what it is like to be bullied and to learn to fight back. I also know that every single fight I ever was in, and every single competition I was in, we stopped before someone really got hurt. That doesn't mean that there aren't certain idiots who couldn't benefit from an ass whooping, even if I would no longer do that myself. If I did, I would pick them back up and hopefully shake hands. You can't do that with a gun.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

calbear93 said:


I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
93, sounds like back in the day you won all these beatdowns of other men over the use of certain hateful words. Curious, you ever lose in a physical fight? If so, how is that possible? Does your enduring power come from overwhelming size and strength or do you happen to be skilled in the pugilistic arts? What's defines your particular ass-kicking capabilities?
Of course I got my ass kicked. All the time.
I believe this
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

calbear93 said:


I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
93, sounds like back in the day you won all these beatdowns of other men over the use of certain hateful words. Curious, you ever lose in a physical fight? If so, how is that possible? Does your enduring power come from overwhelming size and strength or do you happen to be skilled in the pugilistic arts? What's defines your particular ass-kicking capabilities?
Of course I got my ass kicked. All the time.
I believe this
You should. And maybe if you weren't so sheltered and if you had gotten your ass kicked once in awhile, you could have become a decent human being. For some of us coming from blue collar families, fighting was an unfortunate reality growing up.

But none of this is relevant. What is relevant is that I most likely would have been shot if I had been born 10 or 20 years later. As such, I don't think of gun ownership as some bad-ass move.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

calbear93 said:


I would no longer advocate or partake any longer (unless one were to say it in front of a child), but a little bit of ass kicking of cowards who think they could use certain hateful words to someone's face without retribution is quite civilized and enforces polite behavior. That type of ass kicking should be glorified in all society.
93, sounds like back in the day you won all these beatdowns of other men over the use of certain hateful words. Curious, you ever lose in a physical fight? If so, how is that possible? Does your enduring power come from overwhelming size and strength or do you happen to be skilled in the pugilistic arts? What's defines your particular ass-kicking capabilities?
Of course I got my ass kicked. All the time.
I believe this
You should. And maybe if you weren't so sheltered and if you had gotten your ass kicked once in awhile, you could have become a decent human being. For some of us coming from blue collar families, fighting was an unfortunate reality growing up.
Oh, I fought. And I lost. But not a lot of fighting. And nobody ever accused me of growing up sheltered before you.

I do actually agree with you that some fighting can lead to some socially corrective behavior. I always say, we didn't have many bullies in my public schools in San Bernardino. That smaller kid might pull a knife. There was plenty of violence but it wasn't just kids being picked on for no reason. Real spats just seem to escalate in some communities, unfortunately.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So essentially you are calling to look at a problem...and then take some reasonable steps to solve that problem. Rather than being so beholden to an ideology that you refuse to look at a problem and only take unreasonable steps to hide the problem. Interesting. Seems worth a try.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:


Watching Rubio stammering and getting savaged by that crowd showed me that the NRA is beginning to lose their control of the gun argument. Arming teachers at a school has the potential to go horribly wrong should they encounter a shooter. I have a law enforcement firearms expert in my family and you would be absolutely astonished at the rate of shots that missed their target fired by law enforcement let alone those who aren't professionals. What happens when a teacher hits one or more kids or teachers in a shootout? Who is going to take on that financial responsibility when the school district and the teacher gets sued in a wrongful death suit? Are the teachers who carry guns going to get combat pay? Where are the guns going to be stored? What happens when one of those guns is stolen and used in another crime? Whose going to absorb the insurance cost for this little plan. Where's the money going to come from for the training that teachers will undergo. What agency is going to be responsible for this program? Small government just got bigger with arming teachers.
If it were a genuine suggestion instead of just a deflection, it would be a remarkably bad idea. The intent is to change the subject and conveniently to do so in a way that conveniently posits that the answer to the vast number of guns in circulation is actually more guns.

Why stop at arming teachers with guns, perhaps we would be safer still if we fortified every school like max security prisons.

The audacity of the gun lobby to ask this country to take such extraordinary measures so that they could continue to sell unnecessary murder weapons to an ever-shrinking yet more ardent portion of our populace is remarkable. Unfortunately I think the second amendment jurisprudence is what it is and that to truly make a change we will need a nationwide effort to amend the 2nd amendment to permit reasonable restrictions. I have little faith that will happen.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Unfortunately I think the second amendment jurisprudence is what it is and that to truly make a change we will need a nationwide effort to amend the 2nd amendment to permit reasonable restrictions. I have little faith that will happen.
If that's what it takes, I'm game to try.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

...The last time I got into a fight was in law school when bunch of ignorant racists were trying to start something with an awesome classmate and an even better friend who just happened to be black. Even then, it was just a simple submission before they walked off saying more stupid ***** I know what it is like to be bullied and to learn to fight back. I also know that every single fight I ever was in, and every single competition I was in, we stopped before someone really got hurt. That doesn't mean that there aren't certain idiots who couldn't benefit from an ass whooping, even if I would no longer do that myself. If I did, I would pick them back up and hopefully shake hands. You can't do that with a gun.

Well, when you mixed the concepts of law school and fighting you made me think of one of my favorite appellate decisions involving the State Bar of California holding up the admission to the Bar of San Francisco's very own Terry "KO" Hallinan (the former SF District Attorney) on the grounds of moral character. The judge that penned the decision must have enjoyed fight stories because the second part of the decision gives details of several fights KO got in going back to his teenage years. Hemmingway would have been impressed with the judge's writing.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1823002.html


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Hallinan
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Though I should note that even SCOTUS' ruling left open some space for gun regulation.

http://www.newsweek.com/antonin-scalia-ronald-reagan-supreme-court-orlando-shooting-newtown-sandy-hook-472460

Quote:

And how the justices would rule on the constitutionality of owning an AR-15 is up in the air. Despite his deserved conservative reputation, Scalia left some gifts for liberals in his Heller ruling. He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution's ratification and should be permitted today.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would love to know why Scalia's family had no interest in an autopsy, especially when his Right Wing brethren were peddling conspiracy theories. Methinks his family didn't want to know want might be flowing through the ole bloodstream at the dude ranch.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Though I should note that even SCOTUS' ruling left open some space for gun regulation.


Yes, there is some room in the current jurisprudence for regulation but the question is how meaningful it can be. I don't know if the dicta in that case is as meaningful as the fact that the court endorsed a right to own guns for self-defense which is a little bit different from the plain words in the 2nd amendment. I think it's relatively safe to say that the case has had a negative impact on gun control laws across the nation.

What I would like to see is more stringent national regulation because guns are really easy to transport across city and state lines. Look at NY and Chicago and how many of their murders are from out of state guns. I don't think that realistically happens without a meaningful change in the jurisprudence or an amendment. I am not confident that there will be a meaningful change in jurisprudence, particularly with the direction the supreme court is heading, so the only ray of hope I have is an amendment but that is clearly an uphill battle.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

Though I should note that even SCOTUS' ruling left open some space for gun regulation.


Yes, there is some room in the current jurisprudence for regulation but the question is how meaningful it can be. I don't know if the dicta in that case is as meaningful as the fact that the court endorsed a right to own guns for self-defense which is a little bit different from the plain words in the 2nd amendment. I think it's relatively safe to say that the case has had a negative impact on gun control laws across the nation.

What I would like to see is more stringent national regulation because guns are really easy to transport across city and state lines. Look at NY and Chicago and how many of their murders are from out of state guns. I don't think that realistically happens without a meaningful change in the jurisprudence or an amendment. I am not confident that there will be a meaningful change in jurisprudence, particularly with the direction the supreme court is heading, so the only ray of hope I have is an amendment but that is clearly an uphill battle.
These tides can change faster than you think. Again, I think that if there is great enough popular support for gun control, SCOTUS will not stand in the way. That's why they left those options open in their previous ruling.

My approach would be to just pass whatever gun control laws you can (laws with a reasonable chance of working, of course) and see what can stand up to court challenges. Keep trying until you find something that can pass muster.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

Though I should note that even SCOTUS' ruling left open some space for gun regulation.


Yes, there is some room in the current jurisprudence for regulation but the question is how meaningful it can be. I don't know if the dicta in that case is as meaningful as the fact that the court endorsed a right to own guns for self-defense which is a little bit different from the plain words in the 2nd amendment. I think it's relatively safe to say that the case has had a negative impact on gun control laws across the nation.

What I would like to see is more stringent national regulation because guns are really easy to transport across city and state lines. Look at NY and Chicago and how many of their murders are from out of state guns. I don't think that realistically happens without a meaningful change in the jurisprudence or an amendment. I am not confident that there will be a meaningful change in jurisprudence, particularly with the direction the supreme court is heading, so the only ray of hope I have is an amendment but that is clearly an uphill battle.
These tides can change faster than you think. Again, I think that if there is great enough popular support for gun control, SCOTUS will not stand in the way. That's why they left those options open in their previous ruling.

My approach would be to just pass whatever gun control laws you can (laws with a reasonable chance of working, of course) and see what can stand up to court challenges. Keep trying until you find something that can pass muster.
"It's mustard, son. It's pronounced mustard."

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All this disagreement about guns! Can we go back to simpler times, please?

×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.