Reply With Quote
The history of gun laws clearly illustrates that these things do make it into the verbiage of the laws, else I'd have nothing to use as an example. I didn't just make up all these evil features I've been mentioning. Of course I know layman talk doesn't make it into law, but laymen are what congressmen are trying to appease, and if you think it's all been taken care of because of your ignorance, you'll likely feel appeased even if the gun lobby and manufacturers all know it's status quo.
You're comparing apples to oranges. There was never a time in the life of that car when it wasn't required to be registered. No one is walking around displaying gun serial numbers for cops to see. The logistics behind registrations are not all the same. If vehicle inspections were done on a system of trust instead of a system of verify, how many cars would get inspected? How many people would pay hundreds to get that O2 sensor fixed? Pretty hard to conceal a car you're driving.No it isn't. We're talking about enforcement of regulations. I brought up cars because they're also personal property, they're regulated and there's effective enforcement. Even license plate readers and computers on police cars are a relative novelty considering the lifetime of vehicles, yet people historically had no problem abiding by regulations.
You can lampoon it, that's fine. It doesn't change the fact. Your example is for cars which are absolutely nothing like guns. Just because it's property you think they are the same, but they aren't. You can no sooner regulate untraceable things than you can regulate thoughts which are also property. All that can be done is a law, and laws that cannot be enforced are worthless. "Suicide is illegal!". Good luck with that.The notion that we just shouldn't regulate because there's soooooo many weapons and it would be soooo inefficient or ineffective, flies in the face of that example.
If the ROI isn't there, it's just a feel good measure. Sorry, I cannot buy into that. Might as well buy guns yourself and hope the guns you buy (and destroy) makes a dent in the overall gun population. People buy and sell guns, they don't replace their old guns with new ones. Gun sales are additional guns for the buyer, not replacement guns. They might trade for something they are interested in having, but they don't just get rid of old guns to get new ones. This is why the number keeps growing and is now at over 400 million.I don't think old weapons matter because in the worst case it's exactly what we have now, nothing. They're not consumables, but they are fungible. Gun sales haven't stopped nor are struggling. People do buy new guns, transact their old ones, sell them or pass them on. So maybe we won't make a dent on the old guns, but if we can make a dent going forward, let's do it.
It's mostly placebo stuff. Not trying to be a but that's just a fact. Adam Lanza didn't own the firearm he used, nor did the kid up north who took his dad's gun to school.This shooter might've not been stopped by this, but there were other proposals, like not being able to purchase until you're 21, or even if he could purchase legally and pass a mental health examination, he shouldn't be able to have as many bullets, etc. Again, this isn't about a silver bullet (pun intended), it's about a comprehensive package that addresses a number of problems.
What probable cause exists for a search simply because of a traffic stop? "I smell gun oil"? Airport searches? Who's carrying a gun through a security checkpoint?Out of the examples I cited, none require a warrant. Car stops only require probable cause, airport searches are exempted from 4th protection, if you submit yourself to a frisk, you're waiving your right. Zero cases of infringement on the 4th there.
If you're going to be that radical, just go for the ban. They both have about the same chance of ever seeing the light of day. With near half a billion guns in circulation, only a ban and confiscation would work. When you compare to other countries, why don't you consider they implemented that instead of reaching for placebo laws?The 2nd amendment is more complicated because it largely depends on what the law looks like. My understanding is that unless the court deems a regulation as precluding your average citizen from owning a weapon (be it due to undue burden, equal protection, etc), then it's legal and enforceable.
But obviously this will go all the way up to the SCOTUS and we'll find out.
It's been revised several times. I don't know that they got it right, per se. There weren't a rash of machine gun murders happening, people weren't being slaughtered by suppressed weapons or short barrel rifles and AOWs. They banned nothing as far as citizens are concerned, they just stuck a tax stamp on it (which at the time was crippling to people trying to survive) mostly to keep people from owning the guns and from shooting deer. You could buy a Thompson subgun with a drum magazine in a hardware store back then.I was merely responding to your argument that any law needs to be clear and concise. I cited the NFA as an example of such a law. Looks like the cats in DC got that one right. Glad we agree, you can probably stop worrying about that bit.
The NFA has been revisited a number of times, and would likely need to be revisited here as well. Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time.
Well, you're using age old arguments about "not absolute" and the next step in that argument is always "so why can't we...". These aren't new arguments.If I'm citing er vs DC, a case where a regulation was deemed uncons utional, then it's pretty clear I'm aware of that. I'm not confused about what was said in er, I'm merely pointing out what the court said in that case, which I think it's relevant when we're discussing the boundaries of regulating the 2nd Amendment (which we clearly can do, as seen in other big hits like gun-free zones, FOPA, NFA, etc).
That's how democracy works.That sounds great, but when half of the power-that-be doesn't want to do anything, then nothing gets done. When it comes to this, nothing got done.
SCOTUS refused to hear the case.The last time we had anything meaningful, it was enacted as an ATF rule without intervention from Congress, and we still don't know if it's going to stick at all. That's not how you get anything done, much less anything effective or meaningful.
Force your way through. It could be done if you didn't have people in your ranks who weren't with the program.If you're just going to take the ball and go home, there's no game to be played, period.
You actually did. You said they care more about the NRA than about the actual guns. Again, you could be talking about officials, in which case you're probably right. You don't seem to define who you're talking about when you say "the right". There are plenty people who vote conservative who aren't members of the NRA, but still own guns. I get it that the narrative is so much easier if the caricatures are cleanly laid out, but RL doesn't work like that. It might be a losing race, but who wins? You've already acknowledged the left can't get done. Is the political landscape ripe for a third party with hybrid values?I didn't try to define the right. I'm simply stating that "Want to be left alone" hasn't worked. "Want to be left alone" is actually a deep, deep philosophical divide between conservatives and liberals, that goes beyond weapons (and probably beyond this conversation). It almost always fails outside of a rural setting. Once you're connected and what you do affects a large number of people, the "Want to be left alone" almost always invariably fails. IMO, this is a losing race for conservatives, as urbanization continues apace, demographics shift and we continue to move into a more connected world.
Sure and congress can always just vote majority needed to do away with any amendment. They've done it with certain ones. The odds are against it and I wouldn't wait around for it.Of course it has, you've just said so above with the NFA. Nobody should expect the first version of any of these things to be perfect the first time around. They can always be revised.
Who says it wasn't already started years ago. Why is it new every time we have an event?The goal is to start somewhere. If you can't even get started and have a conversation, then there's nothing to talk about. It like a ing dogma.
But you said these things are distractions. Do you not agree that sensationalizing mass murder creates copycats looking for the moment? Is the 1st Amendment completely off the table?But the proposals here weren't just about guns. We talked about mental health as well, but when it comes to "mental health that might preclude you from owning a gun", then it's back to square zero. That's not "the left" doing that, BTW.
Same congress that won't consider passing gun laws. That's the point. If the gripe is the cost, you have to decide who's more important with the funds you have, them or us. They decided. Their pla udes ring hollow as their spending goes elsewhere.I just didn't think I needed to explain how our country works. Congress has easily the most amount of power, then the Executive and Judicial share some.
Congress was in agreement that helping Ukraine was in the best interest of the US, so they passed a law approving all that help. One half of Congress doesn't think gun regulation can help, the other half does. Law doesn't pass, no help is coming.
These threads are a microcosm of just why they don't agree. "It's the guns, has to be the guns, we have to control guns more"... "no it's the way media sensationalizes murders, it's the upbringing, it's the lack of family values, it's the lack tribe - the loner since birth types" ... "If you take away the guns the other stuff doesn't matter" ... "But the 2A say we have a right to have guns... so look elsewhere" ... "You're just impossible, I'm going on break".Money isn't an issue once Congress agrees on something. And unfortunately when it comes to this they do not. But should they come to an agreement, whatever that might look like, money is not going to be the obstacle here.
There's no way to know damage has been reduced without a parallel universe where your change didn't happen. How many schools weren't shot up because of something the school put in place? There's no way to know. I cannot imagine anyone saying "yeah they shot up the place but the damage has been reduced". If there's even one dead kid, it will not be looked at as reduced damage.But nobody is looking at 100% effectiveness in prevention. The fact that we are aware that this will happen again, makes it even more logical that you would at least try to reduce the damage from these incidents.
Also unmeasurable.Even a 20% prevention rate and reduced damage in the other 80% would absolutely be meaningful.
In each instance gunmen entered uninvited and killed innocent people who are not combatants.It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Ukraine is a war zone, Uvalde, TX is not. The security expectations in both places are, objectively, diametrically different.
By addressing guns, right? Not the other distractions like factors the left wants to protect, like their right to capitalize on those deaths through ad revenue generated from plastering the information for days with every detail they can find, that's just capitalism. Freedom of the press!This is exactly what I'm talking about. None of this matters as long as conservatives don't want to play ball. And it's only going to hurt them in the long run. We've seen this with Obamacare as well.
You've only approached this multifaceted issue as a gun issue with a very brief jaunt into the mental illness arena. This is what the right sees from the left - opportunists who want to capitalize on the deaths of children to get legislation through to remove cons utional rights, but doing nothing to address underlying issues. I doubt people are sitting around in France thinking "man, if I could just get my hands on a gun I'd shoot all these kindergartners". There are some very different dynamics in this country where people want to grief society as much as possible, be it with a gun or any other instrument they can use, they get off on it.Once the Democrats had enough votes, they passed it, and then conservatives ed and moaned about it, but they're so devoid of ideas and the law proved to be popular enough, that once they had a majority to do something about it, they couldn't repeal it. They couldn't even agree how to reform it.
And instead of being part of the process, get some things they wanted in there, and get some of the credit for meaningful change, they completely fumbled it.
This is left up to the states and AFAIK, every state has provisions to keep guns away from people who have been diagnosed as being mentally ill.Not bull at all. Show me the last bill about mental health or any sort of gun regulation conservatives put on the floor. You just admitted as much above.
If you just mean people you think are mentally ill, that's a problem because a person cannot be denied their rights through unsubstantiated claims. As it stands, TROs walk a fine line in that area.
States also have gun regulations. DC has many of the restrictions you suggest above, however the gun related fatalities per capita are almost 2x that of Texas. If these work, why don't they work in DC? (hint: it's not the gun)
Either way, this has devolved into just another party bashing thread plus it's too long.If Dems had the votes a lot of these things would be in place now, and conserva s would be like "repeal, repeal, repeal"... we've seen this movie before.
Appreciate the back and forth.
