'Murica! (236 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

Idk man. There are different definitions. Nevada law says yes, the dictionary says no. I would go with no.

if no one hears about the events who got terrorized? The whole point of it is coverage

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ronn]

I love that the thing is an amendment but somehow perfect and cannot ever be changed.

It's an amendment for a different reason than, say, 18th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you, but it's a fait accompli, it won't be changed, we just have to live with it.

but you don't need to repeal the amendment to have sensible gun laws.

 

[Seven]

The bill of rights is sacrosanct in the US

I know. And I understand why. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to think of careful and well thought out modifications. But even if you refuse to change it, you could still try to reconcile it with tougher gun laws.

- - - Updated - - -

but you don't need to repeal the amendment to have sensible gun laws.

Exactly. You don't. But the entire debate is being framed as such by corporations who have a financial interest in this. Btw this is often where it goes wrong in political debate in the US...

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's an amendment for a different reason than, say, 18th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -



but you don't need to repeal the amendment to have sensible gun laws.

I know. And I understand why. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to think of careful and well thought out modifications. But even if you refuse to change it, you could still try to reconcile it with tougher gun laws.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. You don't. But the entire debate is being framed as such by corporations who have a financial interest in this. Btw this is often where it goes wrong in political debate in the US...

Frame a constitutional gun law that would have prevented the vegas incident

 

[Ronn]

Exactly. You don't. But the entire debate is being framed as such by corporations who have a financial interest in this. Btw this is often where it goes wrong in political debate in the US...

Ummm... I'm not sure if it's only corporate interest. NRA gets a big amount of donations from gun industry but it also has a small but passionate membership who really believe in second amendment, and think any gun legislation is a step closer to its repeal.

- - - Updated - - -

Frame a constitutional gun law that would have prevented the vegas incident

Assault rifle ban?

 

[Seven]

Frame a constitutional gun law that would have prevented the vegas incident

See, that's an intellectualy dishonest angle. And it's what some people on the right keep regurgitating. None of this is about preventing one specific incident. It's as if they require of proponents of tougher gun laws to be able to design a law that would somehow retroactively undo the act. That's just bullshit. It is about making it more difficult to get your hands on guns, making events such as this less likely and most importantly less frequent in the future.

 

[campionesidd]

Frame a constitutional gun law that would have prevented the vegas incident

A federal NY style restrictive gun law like the SAFE Act of 2013. It wouldn't work without being enforced on a federal level, without any exceptions and would probably only succeed only after an extensive gun buyback program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Ummm... I'm not sure if it's only corporate interest. NRA gets a big amount of donations from gun industry but it also has a small but passionate membership who really believe in second amendment, and think any gun legislation is a step closer to its repeal.

- - - Updated - - -



Assault rifle ban?

AR 15s are not assault rifles since they can't fire automatically

- - - Updated - - -

A federal NY style restrictive gun law like the SAFE Act of 2013. It wouldn't work without being enforced on a federal level, without any exceptions and would probably only succeed only after an extensive gun buyback program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York

He still would have been able to get the rifles, just not as many fatalities with magazine restrictions.

- - - Updated - - -

See, that's an intellectualy dishonest angle. And it's what some people on the right keep regurgitating. None of this is about preventing one specific incident. It's as if they require of proponents of tougher gun laws to be able to design a law that would somehow retroactively undo the act. That's just bullshit. It is about making it more difficult to get your hands on guns, making events such as this less likely and most importantly less frequent in the future.

Mmh your conclusion contradicts your first 2 sentences. It's called a Post mortem analysis.

 

[Ronn]

AR 15s are not assault rifles since they can't fire automatically

- - - Updated - - -



He still would have been able to get the rifles, just not as many fatalities with magazine restrictions.

Of course he still could fire with a pistol and kill 3 people. Reducing the number of fatalities is a big deal. You just brush it off like it doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

You can also restrict the number of guns one can buy. Restrict the size of magazines, etc. To say nothing can be done is dishonest.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Of course he still could fire with a pistol and kill 3 people. Reducing the number of fatalities is a big deal. You just brush it off like it doesn't matter.

He'd still be able to buy AR 15s is my point.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course he still could fire with a pistol and kill 3 people. Reducing the number of fatalities is a big deal. You just brush it off like it doesn't matter.

- - - Updated - - -

You can also restrict the number of guns one can buy. Restrict the size of magazines, etc. To say nothing can be done is dishonest.

Where did i say nothing can be done? It is way too complicated is my point

 

[Ronn]

He'd still be able to buy AR 15s is my point.

Your point is taken. He could buy them, but why should he allowed to own 42 of them?
And more importantly why AR-15 is untouchable?

 

[Seven]

He still would have been able to get the rifles, just not as many fatalities with magazine restrictions.

Mmh your conclusion contradicts your first 2 sentences. It's called a Post mortem analysis.

No, it doesn't. The question isn't if you can prevent all gun violence (you can't), but if you can prevent some or make it less deadly. A lunatic who wants to hurt people might always find a way. If he can't easily get his hands on a gun, he might use a knife. But instead of killing three, he might wound one. Same goes for assault rifles v handguns.

The argument of the pro gun lobby is basically that a madman is going to be a madman. And that's true. But I'd rather face a madman with a knife than a madman with a machine gun.

 

[Ronn]

Where did i say nothing can be done? It is way too complicated is my point

Oh I interpreted that way from your "frame a law" question. Sorry if you didn't mean that.
Of course it's complicated, but very very important, and probably not more complicated than a lot of other legal challenges US has faced.

 

[Maddy]

sandy hook mass murders pretty much killed any debate on firearm control, bans etc.; when it's accepted that the killings of children is less important than some imaginary freedom. das it. doneso. good night.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Your point is taken. He could buy them, but why should he allowed to own 42 of them?
And more importantly why AR-15 is untouchable?

It has nothing to do with untouchable, it's the misconception surrounding it.

No, it doesn't. The question isn't if you can prevent all gun violence (you can't), but if you can prevent some or make it less deadly. A lunatic who wants to hurt people might always find a way. If he can't easily get his hands on a gun, he might use a knife. But instead of killing three, he might wound one. Same goes for assault rifles v handguns.

The argument of the pro gun lobby is basically that a madman is going to be a madman. And that's true. But I'd rather face a madman with a knife than a madman with a machine gun.

I understand the desire to want to find an easy solution to something so repugnant, but the truth is there isn't. Also fyi it is almost impossible to acquire a machine gun legally in the US and i don't think one was ever used in any of the mediatised mass shootings.

 

[Ronn]

It has nothing to do with untouchable, it's the misconception surrounding it.

What misconception? By untouchable I mean why can't AR-15 be banned?

 

[Seven]

It has nothing to do with untouchable, it's the misconception surrounding it.



I understand the desire to want to find an easy solution to something so repugnant, but the truth is there isn't. Also fyi it is almost impossible to acquire a machine gun legally in the US and i don't think one was ever used in any of the mediatised mass shootings.

Of course there's no easy solution. But what bothers me is that many in this debate are trying to make it look as if people who want tougher gun laws are just being silly and that they are so naive to believe that this will solve everything. That's not what it's about. It's about making things more difficult.

Also, one of the things conservatives have recently pointed to is mentall illness. It's not about guns, it's about mental illness. Remember that? Well, it's true, isn't it? I mean, on the surface at least it seems to be. Obviously only a nutcase would start shooting a crowd for no reason. So why, if they have correctly identified the issue as being a mental health problem, are they doing nothing to resolve it? In fact, I'd say that with them making healthcare even less accessible, they're making it worse.

This entire debate is so incredibly fucked up. And people are fucking it up on purpose to push through agendas. Surely you can see that.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Of course there's no easy solution. But what bothers me is that many in this debate are trying to make it look as if people who want tougher gun laws are just being silly and that they are so naive to believe that this will solve everything. That's not what it's about. It's about making things more difficult.

Also, one of the things conservatives have recently pointed to is mentall illness. It's not about guns, it's about mental illness. Remember that? Well, it's true, isn't it? I mean, on the surface at least it seems to be. Obviously only a nutcase would start shooting a crowd for no reason. So why, if they have correctly identified the issue as being a mental health problem, are they doing nothing to resolve it? In fact, I'd say that with them making healthcare even less accessible, they're making it worse.

This entire debate is so incredibly fucked up. And people are fucking it up on purpose to push through agendas. Surely you can see that.

On both sides for sure, it's that old sausage making in action.

 

[Enron]

There's no serious debate about fire arms in this country. It's always been a joke, always will be.

 

[Ronn]