Politics 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

It is. And it is backed up by every available legitimate fact.

 

Or a pickup truck that almost nobody actually uses for anything other than trips to the grocery store. Or a SUV.

Both pick-ups and SUVs are far more dangerous than cars.

 

Ok I'm curious...

Where can you buy a gun without a background check?

How would a waiting period stop mass shootings? Virtually every single person who has committed one of these high profile mass shootings was stockpiling guns and ammo.

Raising the minimum age..... not even sure how that's supposed to make a difference, as most of these shootings occurred with guns stolen from their parents.

Banning "assault rifles" while Columbine and Thurston were done during the original assault rifle ban.

I have yet to see any kind of legislation from the left that would address the root cause of these school shootings, which is attacking the obvious mental illness that is causing people to resort to this kind of violence. Show me that amendment.

 

Focus on what we can. Improve access to education, healthcare, and improve the social safety net.

The left doesn't even propose these as potential solutions to the problem and they are the thing that separates us from every other country with lower violent crime rates. Far more consistently than access to firearms.

How does this make guns more dangerous?

Self guiding bullets aren't standard issue for infantry, so I don't think they are covered under the 2A.

Shit like this is definitely already regulated and a felony for the general population to buy or sell.

All of that is already regulated. Some of it is even a felony unless you have gone through a very strict and expensive background check and permitting process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have laws and regulations which can address all of this?

 

You're ignoring countries where not being able to purchase a gun is successful and has been for decades...and the FACT that our gun policies are NOT working here...you can type all the finalities you like but change only occurs when you move past current situations and start the process to change the culture...you're holding onto your gun rights like they are going to change society for the better...they are not going to do that. Arming the world has not made the world more peaceful...quiet the contrary. People who want to use arms to protect the nation should join the police force or the military or the National guard. Become well trained and have your usage filmed with body cams so you are held accountable for wrongdoing. It has to start somewhere...selling more nukes is not going to make the world safer from nukes either. There are weekend warriors...gun nuts who take their AR rifles on the weekend out to the BLM property that borders my land...nothing I hate worse than a nice Saturday afternoon trying to play guitar on my deck while these idiots are shooting hundreds of rapid fire rounds for hours on end...forcing the locals to listen to that shit invade their privacy. Whatever adrenaline rush it gives them, it's not something I can mute with a remote ..not a fan...

 

But that isn't an accurate portrayal of the obstacles. We have hundreds of years of settled constitutional law and culture that has been upheld by the supreme court multiple times.

Big hospital wins when democrats are fighting against hundreds of years of settled protected rights that the supreme court has reviewed and upheld not once, but multiple times.

There is. Guns have to have a metal firing pin to be legal. Specifically for that reason. It's a felony to possess or build a gun without a metal firing pin.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/4445

That's debatable. Wasting political capital on it the way we have been is certainly a bad thing. Wasting political capital in efforts to add more restrictions when we already have laws that work is very bad.

Nobody is being killed with assault rifles (again, this means fully automatic according to the US Army as well as Encyclopedia Britannica). Not many are even being killed with semi-automatic rifles. In fact, far fewer are being killed with semi-automatic rifles than are being killed with knives.

These efforts can't have a big impact. We aren't even targeting things which could have a statistically significant impact in on overall gun crime or deaths in a perfect scenario.

It's semiautomatic. No. IMO, there shouldn't be further restrictions on how fast you can pull the trigger. You can do the same thing with a hanger and your belt clip. However, if it is marketed as a tool for killing people I'm fine with the manufacturer being sued out of existence.

Also, being a short barrel shotgun there is extra regulation on this shotgun.

So it costs an additional $200 over the price of the gun and there is a 12-14 month wait.

I think this one is very sufficiently regulated.

 

But I'm not ignoring any countries. The US has had higher violent crime and murder rates than other first world countries for it's entire history. There is no evidence of gun control in any country reducing violent crime or murder rates more in those countries than we have seen here in the US by simply improving the situations of the middle class and the poor (as we saw happen after the cold war, even though we doubled the number of guns and let the assault weapons ban expire).

None of these proposals would change anything significant. A waiting period isn't going to prevent any mass shootings, those people hoard that stuff for years. An age limit? For what? So they can steal a gun from their friend or their parent? Or have a friend buy the gun, sell it to them, and turn it in as stolen? Come on... These people are motivated. These laws can't make a significant impact. More people are killed with knives than rifles of any kind. And that includes hunting accidents...

Actually I'm not. None of these proposals would even impact me personally. I see the damage these assholes (the DNC and their ilk) are causing by focusing on these proposals which simply can't make a significant difference. Even if we could get them passed nation wide. Which I firmly believe we can't do in any time frame that would matter. And it's all taking away from efforts for actual change (improving access to education, healthcare, improving the social safety net, and improving our abusing police force) that would help FAR more people than any gun law ever could.

I firmly believe that getting the left to actually work to protect and give the people more rights (without trying to further restrict peoples rights) would bring tens of millions more voters firmly within the ranks and destroy the MAGA TRUMP GOP.

I'm not afraid of anything, unlike some gun nut you may be used to discussing these things with. I support the rights of the people. I support educating the population so they can be responsible with those rights. I do not support further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. That only pushes people away from the left and costs the trust of millions.

This is not true. Arming the world has resulted in the earth being the safest it has been in all of our history. The military power of the US has created a worldwide economy by protecting shipping lanes for the world.

The US is the safer than it pretty much ever has been. So is the rest of the work, thanks largely to the US.

Yes, it does have to start somewhere. And from my perspective, it starts with education, healthcare, and a generous social safety net that ensures no American has to fear starvation or homelessness.

I don't think nuclear weapons are relevant here. That is a weapon of mass destruction, and far beyond the scope of this conversation. Though if you have interest in a discussion about that, I'd be interested in your take. Not sure if we'd agree or disagree, or if I know enough about it to even have an educated discussion with you about it. If nothing else, I'd be interested in learning.

Yeah, can understand how that may be annoying. It doesn't bother me at all. But to each their own.

 

Déjà vu

 

The part about trying to make new laws restricting law abiding citizens (disproportionately impacting poor and minorities) when we already have laws that could be used to accomplish the same goal? The part about putting a ton of energy into making redundant or impotent laws that target a fraction of a percentage of gun deaths and an even smaller fraction of a percentage of violent crime deaths?

Or the part where we're wasting a ton of energy and political capital trying to make these effectively insignificant changes while lying to the population about the facts, causing distrust to increase, thereby at best driving voters away from the left, and at worst driving them into the arms of the GOP?

I agree. It's Déjà vu. I wish we had a party that didn't lie to the population in an attempt to get them to vote against their own interests and would instead focus on empowering the population through education and access to social services including universal healthcare.

 

We could accomplish so much more by just not pissing into the wind...

 

The way it is being done costs the left political support. Hillary would have won if she had the support of the gun loving rust belt. Her stance on guns cost her the blue collar union vote.

This single issue may well have given us Trump.

 

Her stance on guns was one reason (I didn't say primary, and I didn't say only) that if Hillary had the opposite position she WOULD have beaten Trump.

I know many blue collar union members. None of them are diametrically opposed to any other left wing position more than gun rights.

 

Nobody suggested she be a gun nutter. Nobody suggested Trump voters would have to switch.

Yes, I do know that enough people in the rust belt who didn't vote for Hillary because of the gun issue and who also didn't vote for Trump would have won the rust belt for Hillary and saved us from Trump in 2016.

It's honestly illogical to blame the fact that she is a woman. There is nothing that can be done about that. Except, you know, increasing access to education...