Opinion Should they ban assault weapons?

[jlagman]

Easy. The gun is tracked, so if it's used in a crime, you know who the rightful owner is, and you can investigate them. This has to be done in concert with making personal resale of firearms illegal, which I am also fine with.

If the owner of the gun has sold it, they are arrested. If the owner of the gun has it stolen and used in a crime, they are heavily fined.

I also want fingerprint ID gun safes to be required of all citizens who own guns.

Yeah, treat law abiding citizens like criminals, in perpetuity, great idea [/sarcasm].

 

[Greoric]

Easy. The gun is tracked, so if it's used in a crime, you know who the rightful owner is, and you can investigate them.

None of that explains how that stops him from shooting up a school.... in advance.

 

[Fawlty]

Well that's demonstrably not the case my friend. We've come to an impasse though.... Let's start talking about how we can split this bitch up.

Make it harder for crazy people to get guns. Make it easier for crazy kids to be prevented from getting them. Put more men on the job of following up on these sorts of threats. Put more money into studying the adolescent mass shooting phenomenon, etc. I think those are all reasonable things to do, without treading too much on the 2nd.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I disagree, and it can be overturned by the Supreme Court as well. It's clearly about militias. Our gun culture is way out of hand, and always has been. You're wrong, and so was the Supreme Court for reading it that way. The 2nd Amendment is a single sentence. It's not a paragraph.

That right to bear arms shall not be infringed, for the purpose of keeping a well regulated militia handy. It's really easy. People are just dumb, and afraid of change.

What is the militia?

I can give you a hint, the two words are in the second amendment.

Spoiler

The people

What would the militia be for

Spoiler

Security of a free State. That includes domestic.

 

[Greoric]

Make it harder for crazy people to get guns. Make it easier for crazy kids to be prevented from getting them. Put more men on the job of following up on these sorts of threats. Put more money into studying the adolescent mass shooting phenomenon, etc. I think those are all reasonable things to do, without treading too much on the 2nd.

Many of these cases, there are no indicators that can be used to restrict their constitutionally protected right. Why aren't we talking about making these places less of a soft target to begin with though?

 

[HomerThompson]

Yeah, treat law abiding citizens like criminals, in perpetuity, great idea [/sarcasm].

It doesn't treat them like criminals, it gives them legal responsibilities.

 

[HomerThompson]

None of that explains how that stops him from shooting up a school.... in advance.

I'm also in favor of much stricter background checks, mental health screenings, and 30 day waiting periods for all weapons.

I also want a database to track purchasing patterns(guns and ammo), and analyze anomalies for possible investigations. The best part of all, is that my ideas create a bunch of jobs too!

 

[HomerThompson]

What is the militia?

I can give you a hint, the two words are in the second amendment.

Spoiler

The people

What would the militia be for

Spoiler

Security of a free State. That includes domestic.

No. The people are supposed to be the militia, but they're not. We have a standing army now.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

It doesn't treat them like criminals, it gives them legal responsibilities.

Gun owners already have legal responsibilities.

 

[jlagman]

It doesn't treat them like criminals, it gives them legal responsibilities.

If you privately sell your second hand car to someone with (unbeknownst to you at the time because you don't have a legal obligation to perform a "background check" to sell a used car) a bunch of DUIs, do you get arrested when they crash in the future? How long should that "responsibility" last? When was the last time you asked for a prospective buyer's driver's abstract or history before you sold them a car?

 

[EZShrimpn]

No. The people are supposed to be the militia, but they're not. We have a standing army now.

The standing army is not constitutionally supported, strictly speaking.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

No. The people are supposed to be the militia, but they're not. We have a standing army now.

Seems like the 2nd would be more important than ever then.

 

[HomerThompson]

Gun owners already have legal responsibilities.

Well, obviously they need more, because 40,000 people are killed by guns in the US every year(roughly). Maybe they should be doing a better job living up to their responsibilities.

 

[HomerThompson]

If you privately sell your second hand car to someone with (unbeknownst to you at the time because you don't have a legal obligation to perform a "background check" to sell a used car) a bunch of DUIs, do you get arrested when they crash in the future? How long should that "responsibility" last? When was the last time you asked for a prospective buyer's driver's abstract or history before you sold them a car?

Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are designed to get you from one place to another with ease. This argument is laughably bad. I made my point clear.

 

[Greoric]

I'm also in favor of much stricter background checks, mental health screenings, and 30 day waiting periods for all weapons.

I also want a database to track purchasing patterns(guns and ammo), and analyze anomalies for possible investigations. The best part of all, is that my ideas create a bunch of jobs too!

Bad economics. To your last point, you're going to obligate the 100 lb girl with an unstable ex boyfriend threatening to kill her, with a 30 day waiting period?

 

[HomerThompson]

The standing army is not constitutionally supported, strictly speaking.

I agree.

Seems like the 2nd would be more important than ever then.

Not really.

 

[HomerThompson]

Bad economics. To your last point, you're going to obligate the 100 lb girl with an unstable ex boyfriend threatening to kill her, with a 30 day waiting period?

Yes. Nice appeal to emotion though. I'm sure you thought that was great point for some reason.

 

[Greoric]

The standing army is not constitutionally supported, strictly speaking.

@HomerThompson sees no issue with just concentrating all the weapons in the hands of a single group of people. It's as naive as you get.

 

[HomerThompson]

@HomerThompson sees no issue with just concentrating all the weapons in the hands of a single group of people. It's as naive as you get.

Strawman. I never said that, or advocated for it.

 

[Greoric]

Yes. Nice appeal to emotion though. I'm sure you thought that was great point for some reason.

I was just trying to play your angle... except the best part is that my appeal to emotions didn't implicate outsourcing violence and extortion for someone else to carry out.