What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Big Blitz]

On 6/3/2022 at 6:17 PM, Tiberius said:

Yes! 

 

 

 

 

 

Now do vaccines.  

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Now do vaccines.  

No. Let's leave them alone. Screw you guys 

[ALF]

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Now do vaccines.  

 

Covid vaccine would have never made it to market without liability protection because it was so new. Being high risk I was willing to accept the risk. There should be a fund to help anyone hurt by the vaccine. 

[Orlando Tim]

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Easy access to guns mean more gin deaths 

I believe you truly believe what you preach but I also think your odd obsession with the gun and not the reason for the murderer is inappropriate. My goal is to eliminate the murders, not the way they happen. The link below shows Norway and Switzerland have the lowest murder rates in Europe while having much more lax gun law that most European countries, and the ones with the most murders several have rather strict gun laws. 

[Big Blitz]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No. Let's leave them alone. Screw you guys 

 

 

This isn't the Ukraine and their fiery ordeal thread.   

 

 

Have we solved that yet btw?  Maybe we should ship them the type of guns we have here I'm told no one needs.   

19 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I believe you truly believe what you preach but I also think your odd obsession with the gun and not the reason for the murderer is inappropriate. My goal is to eliminate the murders, not the way they happen. The link below shows Norway and Switzerland have the lowest murder rates in Europe while having much more lax gun law that most European countries, and the ones with the most murders several have rather strict gun laws. 

 

 

I love how they think there are no guns in "Europe."  

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

This isn't the Ukraine and their fiery ordeal thread.   

 

 

Have we solved that yet btw?  Maybe we should ship them the type of guns we have here I'm told no one needs.   

Ukraine might have a million people in uniform by next month as the move to destroy the invaders, so ya, send the guns 

[Big Blitz]

Play on a loop forever

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

The Unspoken Wisdom of the Second Amendment

American Thinker, by Anthony Matoria

 

The Second Amendment is again being scrutinized as the recurrent gun control/gun rights debate heats up. Gun control advocates emphasize the words "well-regulated militia," and gun rights–supporters highlight "shall not be infringed." The significant meaning and philosophical foundation of the amendment, however, is found in a phrase that gets relatively little attention: "necessary to the security of a free State." A free state implies necessary restraints on the armed agencies of government that are vested with the authority to use force. These restraints lessen the risk that such entities will become agents of tyranny,

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/06/the_unspoken_wisdom_of_the_second_amendment.html

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

Good article

 

Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous
Opinion by Michael Fanone

 

Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, "We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That's part of our Second Amendment right." Personally, I think that's ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.

What side would the US military be on ?

 

The bullet fired by the AR-15 is capable of defeating the average police officer's body armor, like a knife slicing through butter. SWAT teams and some of the more specialized units typically are equipped with level IV Kevlar or steel-plated armor, which would stop maybe two or three direct hits, but eventually body armor breaks down after being hit with multiple rounds.

 

A person wielding an AR-15 has a range beyond 300 yards. For an officer armed with a 9 mm pistol, hitting a target beyond 50 yards is going to be difficult, even for the most accomplished marksman.

 

The bullet that comes out of the barrel of an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle can easily penetrate the target -- the intruder or whatever person you are using deadly force to defend yourself or others from.

 

But it also will go through the wall behind that person, and potentially through that room and into the next wall. That power and accuracy are useful for military purposes, which is obviously what they were designed for. But it's far more power than should ever be in the hands of the average civilian.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

LOL, bullsh*t 

The media and left (and many on the right) have zero clue about ballistics. None. 
 

I love to read how the AR round “explode” and “fragments” to cause the most damage and now it goes through the wall through another wall and another 🙄😂🤦🏻‍♂️

 

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

All those innocent bystanders killed and wounded, but who cares, it was supposidly "gang" violence, so who cares? 

 

Wasn’t saying that. I’m saying the guns used were handled by gang members/drug dealers who likely got them illegally. 
 

No new gun control law would stop those people. 

[ChiGoose]

15 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

No new gun control law would stop those people. 

 

Under this logic, there is no point to making any laws because bad people would ignore them. So let's just get rid of all laws then.

[B-Man]

 

 

CBS News Poll claims 44% of Republicans accept mass shootings are ‘part of a free society’ using sneaky, biased questions 

 

Funny how you can word questions on a poll to get JUST the right answers for your narrative …

 

 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/06/06/cbs-news-poll-claims-44-of-republicans-accept-mass-shootings-are-part-of-a-free-society-using-sneaky-biased-questions-check-this-out/

 

 

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CBS News Poll claims 44% of Republicans accept mass shootings are ‘part of a free society’ using sneaky, biased questions 

 

Funny how you can word questions on a poll to get JUST the right answers for your narrative …

 

 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/06/06/cbs-news-poll-claims-44-of-republicans-accept-mass-shootings-are-part-of-a-free-society-using-sneaky-biased-questions-check-this-out/

 

 

 

It would be nice if the article actually showed all of the questions and crosstabs. Generally polls will ask respondents which party the identify with and that's how the pollsters do the party breakdown. I would expect CBS did the same here but, while the article shows some of the questions, it does not provide a link to all of them, so we cannot say for certain how CBS came to the partisan breakdown on the questions.

[B-Man]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

Easily found for those who are truly interested.

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mLulXV9rXGLevVOI_XnHJBYsWd_CVqLq/view

 

 

 

 

But the important thing was to get these headlines which no one will read past.

 

Nearly half of Republicans think US has to live with mass shootings, poll finds

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/06/us-mass-shootings-republicans-poll

 

 

Poll: 4 in 10 GOP Say 'We Have to Accept' Mass Shootings in ...

https://www.insider.com/poll-4-in-10-gop-accept-mass-shootings-free-society-2022-6

 

 

Nearly Half of GOP Accept Mass Shootings as 'Part of a Free ...

https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-gop-accept-mass-shootings-part-free-society-poll-1712960

[T&C]

Just posing... the bad guys don't give 2 ***** about this or any other law.

 

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ny-state-of-politics/2022/06/06/hochul-approves-gun-control-package-in-wake-of-mass-shootings

[Irv]

33 minutes ago, T&C said:

Just posing... the bad guys don't give 2 ***** about this or any other law.

 

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/ny-state-of-politics/2022/06/06/hochul-approves-gun-control-package-in-wake-of-mass-shootings

 

Another set of grandstanding, unconstitutional laws passed by the communist party in NY.  They trick the public into thinking this will only minimize the purchases of AR-15 and AK47 type guns.  They don't tell you about the Ruger 10-22, or Nylon 66 you first learned to shoot, or semi-auto deer rifle grandpa  handed down to his son and his son to his son.  Now we need two licenses?  One for pistols and one for your grandpa's .22.  This is a ***** joke. 

 

Meanwhile the losers in the hood, released without posting bail, keep whacking out each other and shooting little kids over drugs.    

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Irv

[muppy]

a comment from Rochester NY.  I wonder if such a thing is even possible.........

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, muppy said:

a comment from Rochester NY.  I wonder if such a thing is even possible.........

 

Not a good idea as it will probably result in dead Ukranians. An AR-15 is not an M-16 (of which I was a certified Marksman in the USMC) even though they look like they are.  AR-15s heat up and jam up.  That's why the Las Vegas shooter had 14 of 'em.  Once one jammed he could go to the next one.  The Parkland, Columbine, New Zealand, and San Diego Synagogue shooters AR-15s all jammed.

 

From 2018:

Quote

So, this is the second time in recent memory that either a failure to feed or failure to eject malfunction put a stop to a mass shooting (the other notable one being the Parkland Mass Murder). In this case, a heroic citizen managed to take advantage of the jam, ripping the rifle away from the murderer and setting him to flight, whereas in Parkland, the mass murderer dropped his weapon and blended into the escaping students after it malfunctioned.

 

https://medium.com/@jere.krischel/the-ar-15-jam-o-matic-edeb77545766

Edited June 7, 2022 by reddogblitz

[Tiberius]

Sounds like they want to kill people 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/american-firearms-association-battle-capitol-gun-control_n_629f673ce4b07aa9389e6d5d?uxz

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

[Beast]

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Beast said:

Damn, having background checks will really just destroy us?? 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Damn, having background checks will really just destroy us?? 

I ask seriously, why is it that you are not pushing for the laws that are on the book currently to be enforced properly? The kid in Uvalde lived at an address where he should not have been allowed to buy them by law, why are you not livid with the federal government for screwing that up?

[BobbyC81]

EVERYONE should read this blog by a former cop.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

[SoCal Deek]

14 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Damn, having background checks will really just destroy us?? 

Tibs…it’s a great talking point but will it really do anything? How much of a ‘background’ does an 18 year old have? As I’ve said before…I’m not a gun guy. Given the most recent trend in younger shooters I’m all in favor of simply raising the age to 21…for everyone.

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

EVERYONE should read this blog by a former cop.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

The bullet fired by the AR-15 is capable of defeating the average police officer's body armor, like a knife slicing through butter. SWAT teams and some of the more specialized units typically are equipped with level IV Kevlar or steel-plated armor, which would stop maybe two or three direct hits, but eventually body armor breaks down after being hit with multiple rounds.

A person wielding an AR-15 has a range beyond 300 yards. For an officer armed with a 9 mm pistol, hitting a target beyond 50 yards is going to be difficult, even for the most accomplished marksman. A bullet fired by an AR-15 travels at three times the velocity as one fired by a 9 mm handgun. And magazines that can feed dozens of rounds into the weapon in the space of minutes clearly were meant for use only on the battlefield.

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Tibs…it’s a great talking point but will it really do anything? How much of a ‘background’ does an 18 year old have? As I’ve said before…I’m not a gun guy. Given the most recent trend in younger shooters I’m all in favor of simply raising the age to 21…for everyone.

Background checks have stopped many lunatics from acquiring guns

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Background checks have stopped many lunatics from acquiring guns

I’m not opposed to background checks but if you’re truly trying to see results I wouldn’t put your eggs in that one process-heavy basket. Instead, or along with, simply raise the legal age to purchase a firearm. It’s way easier, and requires zero administrative oversight. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/2/2022 at 12:36 AM, Buffarukus said:

since you see yourself as a progressive im more interested in your response to what most of my post was on.

......

......

......

but its republicans and gun laws that are the main culprit?  the same power grabs you see for them are the same ones that have legislators condoning the above. not alot of talking about that. why is that? ive put a few sensible gun control laws in this thread but why does inner city violence from criminals that illegally carry rarely come up in the conversation. i think because that killing is normalized so people see the blip on the news and then heres bill with the weather. pretty frustrating to see the outrage turned on and off and finger pointed in one direction only constantly. not to mention the flat out lies and gov overreach that progressives have applauded the last 2 years. not fostering good rationale for those who specifically want gun laws untouched for that reason alone. gun sales are WAY up because a collapsing economy and ignoring criminals is a combo that kind of make people uneasy not to mention, desperate.

 

i acknowledge gun laws need to be looked at and changes made but we all play a part in this. progressives, as usual, dont seem to want to look at the role they have played and the reprocussions of it. is there going to be demand to stop the gun violence in places that have the strictest laws or have dem thrown thier hands up and pointing at law abiding citizens been that effective that all gun violence is their fault alone, nothing to see here. 

 

it shows how unserious we are as a country. more so egotistical. always the other sides fault. when DA throw the book at illegal gun carry or progressives don't bring up "rights" when it comes to something like stop and frisk while telling others they should give up theirs it would be more impactful.

 

Yes, absolutely! Lax gun laws and the Republicans who perpetuate this status quo are the main culprit! That’s what the gun control policy research is telling us, research which is based on comparative studies with other countries around the world. All the right-wing explanations fall apart in the comparative international research: drug use, atheism, single-parent households, COVID lockdowns, school security measures, transgenderism (lol…), and video games. A mental health explanation may not be entirely far-fetched since we stand alone as the only industrialized country without universal health care programs, but it’s completely disingenuous of right-wingers to raise this issue because they are the ones who will be against any future “subsidization” of poor people’s mental health care.

 

Your attempt to establish an impact equivalency between lax gun regulations and progressive attitudes toward law and order is equally weak, and it’s weak for two main reasons:

 

1.  Across-the-board progressive activism is far stronger and louder in many other countries that have much lower gun violence and many fewer mass shootings. Antagonism towards police officers and deep suspicions of police are pervasive elsewhere and somewhat ubiquitous because of the nature of the types of personalities that gravitate toward the law enforcement profession, but we simply don’t hear about these international problems here in America often because Americans, by and large, don’t care about what happens in other places. With specific respect to gun control activism, the rest of the civilized world looks at gun access as a privilege and not as an inalienable right. It’s a huge distinction between our country and others that is definitely reflected in the stark differences in gun laws.

 

2. Progressive politicians have negligible political power (at the moment…) in this country, ESPECIALLY compared to the rest of the world. While the AOC and Bernie types are mere fringe political pawns to the Pelosi and Biden types in the United States, they would be considered well-established centrists in, say, mainland Europe or outright right-wingers in Scandinavia. Moderate Democrats in our country always do the bare minimum to court progressive voters, and they are simultaneously always working behind the scenes to undermine actual progressive power (latest example among many: Bakari Sellers raising big money to defeat Rashida Tlaib in Michigan this August). No law-and-order progressive activism ever actually makes it into the broader Dem political platform. No meaningful gun control legislation, I believe, has been passed at the national level since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Cori Bush was the only national Democrat who ran on a “Defund the Police” call, and that’s because her district infamously includes Ferguson, MO. No national politician ran on an “Abolish ICE” call.

 

Bottom line: Team GOP is just trying to run out the attention clock on gun control legislation until the country becomes preoccupied with other major current events. They don’t want to listen to the 70-90% of Americans who want meaningful gun control laws. They only want to obey their NRA donor masters. So I can’t take any of their red herring explanations for gun violence seriously, and that includes progressive antagonism toward law enforcement.

 

You asked for my opinions on a few specific issues that you listed, but I don’t think you’d find my opinions terribly interesting because I’m more of a centrist on law-and-order politics. I identify as progressive because of other things (environment, energy, social democratic macroeconomics, health care, foreign policy, etc.). However, I’ll still try to add a few thoughts:

 

1. Demonization of Police: The “Defund the Police” movement was never about not having any law enforcement agencies. It was about breaking corrupt police unions and reconstructing these institutions with a more streamlined set of responsibilities. The in situ incompetency and subsequent coverups in Uvalde are highlighting for the rest of the country just what these progressive activists were talking about back in 2020.

 

2. Police Demilitarization: There is simply NO WAY that our domestic law enforcement agencies require all of the military equipment that they’ve been allowed to possess in order to do their jobs. Furthermore, military and domestic law enforcement have two very different sets of responsibilities. The military mindset that has been allowed to carry over into police departments since Reagan’s Drug War days (~20% of U.S. police have military backgrounds) is undoubtedly aggravating a host of civilian law-and-order situations. All of this is yet another tragic consequence of our country’s sh!tty imperialistic foreign policy, by the way…

 

3. Lax District Attorneys: I agree that violent offenders shouldn’t be granted any leniency, but I would go easy on nonviolent victimless crime offenders such as those caught up in drug use or those found in the sex industry. U.S. law and order should still ultimately aspire to reflect the spirit of human redemption in order to discourage recidivism.

 

4. Villainization of Border Patrol Agents: I’ve found many of the detention practices toward illegal aliens detestable and unnecessarily inhumane. This was true throughout the Trump presidency, also true during Obama’s reign, and unfortunately these problems persist under Biden’s administration.

[B-Man]

 

 

FRUITS OF A DREADFUL GOVERNMENT: Why Black Americans Are Buying More Guns:

 

The people who bear the brunt of rising violent crime are taking steps to protect themselves.

 

Voters have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation probably isn’t the solution because criminals by definition don’t respect laws. Many of the same people likewise find it unconscionable that elected officials would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods to arm themselves for protection. . . .

 

It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005.

 

Americans that they need a gun, yet the political left has spent little time reassessing woke policies that lead to such thinking. Violent crime has been rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. Meanwhile, liberal policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Antigun police units tasked with keeping illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only emboldens miscreants. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are by far the most likely crime targets.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-black-americans-are-buying-more-guns-ownership-laws-crime-violence-protection-11654635686

 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

20 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Damn, having background checks will really just destroy us?? 

We already have background checks for firearms. 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

We already have background checks for firearms. 

Not enough 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

We already have background checks for firearms. 

Just like everything else...the demand for 'background checks' is nothing more than a easy-to-type talking point.  What will be checked?  Who gets to determine your rights in the grey areas?  Have the existing checks proven ineffective? Would the existing checks have stopped the recent shootings?  Serious people see what's going on here....and the talking points are NOT serious. 

[Chef Jim]

55 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Just like everything else...the demand for 'background checks' is nothing more than a easy-to-type talking point.  What will be checked?  Who gets to determine your rights in the grey areas?  Have the existing checks proven ineffective? Would the existing checks have stopped the recent shootings?  Serious people see what's going on here....and the talking points are NOT serious. 

Talking points are not serious?  Every law, rule, restriction, employee do’s and don’ts start as talking points.  That’s the process. 🙄

[Warcodered]

 

Whatever your feelings on this issue, this has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

23 hours ago, Beast said:

Are you sure there isn't anything else before that? Just wondering at what arbitrary point I'm supposed to make this discovery.

[Tiberius]

 

 

[Buffarukus]

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

 

Yes, absolutely! Lax gun laws and the Republicans who perpetuate this status quo are the main culprit! That’s what the gun control policy research is telling us, research which is based on comparative studies with other countries around the world. All the right-wing explanations fall apart in the comparative international research: drug use, atheism, single-parent households, COVID lockdowns, school security measures, transgenderism (lol…), and video games. A mental health explanation may not be entirely far-fetched since we stand alone as the only industrialized country without universal health care programs, but it’s completely disingenuous of right-wingers to raise this issue because they are the ones who will be against any future “subsidization” of poor people’s mental health care.

thanks for the thoughtout response. regardless if we will never agree at least we are trying to have a civilized discussion. will never put anyone down for that. with that.

 

id like to link to this study. id also ask we look at how many guns have SAVED lives since that is NEVER talked about. 

you talk about universal healthcare but states have their own budgets along with their own gun laws..to a extent. any studies on if stricter gun laws make a difference in gun violence.we should see diff in red and blue states right? thats pretty important study when the one universal truth is republicans "lax" ie. universal background and adherence to state municipalities. as i said there are compromises to be made but throughout this reply i dont see any from the left.

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

Your attempt to establish an impact equivalency between lax gun regulations and progressive attitudes toward law and order is equally weak, and it’s weak for two main reasons:

 

1.  Across-the-board progressive activism is far stronger and louder in many other countries that have much lower gun violence and many fewer mass shootings. Antagonism towards police officers and deep suspicions of police are pervasive elsewhere and somewhat ubiquitous because of the nature of the types of personalities that gravitate toward the law enforcement profession, but we simply don’t hear about these international problems here in America often because Americans, by and large, don’t care about what happens in other places. With specific respect to gun control activism, the rest of the civilized world looks at gun access as a privilege and not as an inalienable right. It’s a huge distinction between our country and others that is definitely reflected in the stark differences in gun laws.

im not sure how strong or weak progressivism is elsewhere. i do know its pretty prevalent in the democratic party. i use to identify with that party until many of the features of progressives took over so im not sure where you say they are without power. give yourself credit 😁.  identity politics, soft on crime, freedom of speech abandonment.ect. ect.are prevalent. old enough to see dems stand for little they used to. san fran just ousted progressive da. how many gun victims were caused in his reign to have the most progressive city say enough? just a example many more. you may not get what you want out of the establishment but they def adopted alot of the ideas.

 

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

2. Progressive politicians have negligible political power (at the moment…) in this country, ESPECIALLY compared to the rest of the world. While the AOC and Bernie types are mere fringe political pawns to the Pelosi and Biden types in the United States, they would be considered well-established centrists in, say, mainland Europe or outright right-wingers in Scandinavia. Moderate Democrats in our country always do the bare minimum to court progressive voters, and they are simultaneously always working behind the scenes to undermine actual progressive power (latest example among many: Bakari Sellers raising big money to defeat Rashida Tlaib in Michigan this August). No law-and-order progressive activism ever actually makes it into the broader Dem political platform. No meaningful gun control legislation, I believe, has been passed at the national level since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Cori Bush was the only national Democrat who ran on a “Defund the Police” call, and that’s because her district infamously includes Ferguson, MO. No national politician ran on an “Abolish ICE” call.

 

no just a president that has very porous southern boarder. used a photo to demonize them. posts on social media ect ect. this goes with the above. anyone know how many illegal weopons are coming in? aoc made it clear guns from the south of coarse (florida) was a culprit. how many cartel members? but lets get serious about gun crime! is this stuff negligible? if a mass shooting happens do to it, then republicans!! gun laws! the answer is yes because that is always the reason. so how serious are we again?

 

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

Bottom line: Team GOP is just trying to run out the attention clock on gun control legislation until the country becomes preoccupied with other major current events. They don’t want to listen to the 70-90% of Americans who want meaningful gun control laws. They only want to obey their NRA donor masters. So I can’t take any of their red herring explanations for gun violence seriously, and that includes progressive antagonism toward law enforcement.

 

i agree. thats probably true but the same is done every time inner city crime is brought up. but who are we kidding, it isn't. black lives matter but nothing to see here look at those evil gun laws..their fault. make the gun laws but lets not pretend it will save the lives of those effected most by gun violence since alot is carried out by illegal carry to begin with. at some point that will have to be reckoned with regardless how many times they point their finger at people who aren't even in control in these state laws. one of my org points. but it hasnt so far, maybe never.

 

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

 

You asked for my opinions on a few specific issues that you listed, but I don’t think you’d find my opinions terribly interesting because I’m more of a centrist on law-and-order politics. I identify as progressive because of other things (environment, energy, social democratic macroeconomics, health care, foreign policy, etc.). However, I’ll still try to add a few thoughts:

 

1. Demonization of Police: The “Defund the Police” movement was never about not having any law enforcement agencies. It was about breaking corrupt police unions and reconstructing these institutions with a more streamlined set of responsibilities. The in situ incompetency and subsequent coverups in Uvalde are highlighting for the rest of the country just what these progressive activists were talking about back in 2020.

 

its about the prevailing culture that was made. i make no excuse for uvalde cowards but lets not use that extreme to say "this is what we mean". plenty of examples cops who were demonized by the same progressives for doing nothing wrong. some cheered on when they were assinated, "thats what they get"..i gave just 1 example. the knife girl. plenty more. i understand the atmosphere i live in. do you think cops will be well staffed in the future with pure hatred at them regardless of record? young kids learning this? do you think the culture does not have police second guessing themselves do to calls for imprisonment, again regardless of action in a cases. 

 

if you don't think that then sorry that's nieve. these aren't robots and asking police to stand in front of a bullet for some of the people who declared they hate your guts and dont think you should have equipment to survive. its a position i don't think many will want in the future to say the least. that was the excuse in uvalde, however you perceive iti, thats what they claimed. if police dont want to go in what happens to crime? gun crime? id say it goes up.

 

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

2. Police Demilitarization: There is simply NO WAY that our domestic law enforcement agencies require all of the military equipment that they’ve been allowed to possess in order to do their jobs. Furthermore, military and domestic law enforcement have two very different sets of responsibilities. The military mindset that has been allowed to carry over into police departments since Reagan’s Drug War days (~20% of U.S. police have military backgrounds) is undoubtedly aggravating a host of civilian law-and-order situations. All of this is yet another tragic consequence of our country’s sh!tty imperialistic foreign policy, by the way…

 

no way they need that equipment. so definite for someone that isnt in the position to risk their life. i brought it up because the topic is gun violence. this goes with my above statement. now they should also risk their lives without equipment that is made for shooting situations. its pretty much a militarized event requiring military equipment, or we hope the "militarized" division is at the ready to react. different people or? now i dont think police should be militarized for everyday events but progressives never made a distinction. again i see this as cops unprepared for situations.  more of them die or stand back as a result, more innocent die. not a good thing.

 

 

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

3. Lax District Attorneys: I agree that violent offenders shouldn’t be granted any leniency, but I would go easy on nonviolent victimless crime offenders such as those caught up in drug use or those found in the sex industry. U.S. law and order should still ultimately aspire to reflect the spirit of human redemption in order to discourage recidivism.

 

i think we mostly agree on this unfortunately the democrats have took this thinking into all sorts of crime and it should be universally challenged by both of us. if a much tougher DA in san fran gets in and gun violence goes down then maybe im on to something...i think im on to something.

 

On 6/8/2022 at 10:39 AM, Delete_Account said:

4. Villainization of Border Patrol Agents: I’ve found many of the detention practices toward illegal aliens detestable and unnecessarily inhumane. This was true throughout the Trump presidency, also true during Obama’s reign, and unfortunately these problems persist under Biden’s administration.

 

i addressed this above.

 

so where are we at. 

my compromise.

 

1) strict classes, cheap, that one must take to get a license. 

 

2) every gun should come with a saftey devise. lock, safe ect. no device, no gun.

 

3) gun sale come with paperwork buyer signing they are legally responsible for the weapon so they better take ownership responsibility and saftey very serious?

 

good start? how about the factors i mentioned. not really making a dent. i live in a blue state/blue city, strict laws and think i know what im afraid of. im not a avid gun owner. just somone that has seen more violence then id like to admit. im not seeing anyone advocate for us. just attempting to bring awareness to the side who only points at others.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Buffarukus

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

3) gun sale come with paperwork buyer signing they are legally responsible for the weapon so they better take ownership responsibility and saftey very serious?

 

I'm all in on this.  I've been thinking for a long time that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for it.  If it is used in a crime or injures or kills someone you are responsible and do some jail time.  If someone steals your gun out of your car and holds up a liquor store and shoots someone, you are responsible for paying for injuries and do some jail time.

 

I would even go so far as to say if you have a gun you should have to have insurance to pay for the care of anyone that gets shot by it.

[SoCal Deek]

16 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Talking points are not serious?  Every law, rule, restriction, employee do’s and don’ts start as talking points.  That’s the process. 🙄

Chef….by page 353….we should be beyond talking points. I’d like to hear more specific proposals. Like, what kind of background checks and for who and when? 

[LeviF]

4 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I'm all in on this.  I've been thinking for a long time that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for it.  If it is used in a crime or injures or kills someone you are responsible and do some jail time.  If someone steals your gun out of your car and holds up a liquor store and shoots someone, you are responsible for paying for injuries and do some jail time.

 

I would even go so far as to say if you have a gun you should have to have insurance to pay for the care of anyone that gets shot by it.

 

With a couple exceptions, every gun of mine is locked in a safe that is bolted into the concrete floor in my basement. If some enterprising thief manages to cut it out of the floor and haul it out of my house, I should be responsible for whatever happens with those guns?

 

lol go ***** yourself

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Chef….by page 353….we should be beyond talking points. I’d like to hear more specific proposals. Like, what kind of background checks and for who and when? 

 

Oh so you want more specific talking points?    BTW I've seen nothing from you either.  You're free anytime you like to list your specific proposals.  

 

Ok here you go.

 

1.  A universal background check instead of state by state.  You asked for who?  Anyone purchasing a weapon.  Any future weapon purchases.  And must be renewed bi-annually.  The process?

     A.  Criminal Background.  Any violent felonies equals immediate decline

     B.  Mental health background check.  I'm not in a position to determine what specific mental illnesses should be looked at but I'd look at schizophrenia and major depression.  You have major depression you'll likely be denied life insurance.  Why?  You go off your meds you are a candidate for suicides.  We want to reduce those too don't we?

     C.  A weapons course certificate before applying.  Renewed bi-annually in order to renew permit.  

2.  Scan of all social media posts via an AI system that will need to be developed for red flags.  Once permit is issued the scan is reran constantly.  This shouldn't be hard to develop.   Hell TikTok's AI is freaky accurate.  

 

That's a start.  Feel free to add anything.  Or you can continue to B word.