Or concern about impotence and fluoridation.
At this point, yes, I’m all for it. I think the last few years have proven that Americans can’t be trusted with high-powered automatic and semiautomatic weaponry. The 2nd Amendment certainly wasn’t crafted with firearms of more than one bullet per trigger-pull in mind, 226 years ago. I don’t think all private firearms should be confiscated, but I’m very much in favor of a mandatory nationwide buyback of military-grade weaponry. Not that it’ll happen, but still.
7 Likes
I didn’t know that, so thank both of you.
4 Likes
Indeed, on a strict interpretation no weapon capable of firing at a rate of more than one bullet per minute is covered by the Constitution. Perhaps that would be a start.
1 Like
So you are now speaking on behalf of everyone, based upon a guess, and are as a result steering the discussion away from the question I responded to somebody else with. Do I understand your position accurately?
If you live as part of a minority or impoverished population, especially in a city, it is not at all unusual. Like housing projects, for instance.
Point being that I do not have a firearm for self defense. But if I did need one, it would not be to protect myself from a scared mugger, but an actual trained and armed force of many people. With one exception, all of the people who have ever threatened me with firearms have been police, and they are typically well-armed.
If it hasn’t been a problem in your life, then congratulations, I guess.
2 Likes
This is always a specious argument. There are enough mass shootings in the US that it’s always the day of or a day so after one. The Las Vegas massacre was not even the only mass shooting that day (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting).
9 Likes
That position is untenable. You’re essentially saying that civilians should only be allowed to own muzzle-loading firearms. Even the pro-gun control hunters wouldn’t stand for that.
And isn’t required.
Despite what the NRA will tell you, guns are not illegal in Australia. Getting one is not at all difficult.
But you have to go through thorough training and licensing, and you’re restricted to guns that are sensible for the job you’re putting them to.
14 Likes
TL;DR summation of this entire thread…
- another “lone wolf” has gone off and killed a lot of people for reasons we do not and may not ever fully know/understand.
- gun control/gun regulation will be decried as “Not the time to discuss it!” by the right and “when is a good time to discuss it then?” by the left. aka: status quo rhetoric.
- guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people and they are overwhelmingly MEN. While the reasoning for it being a primarily male issue, it is more nuanced than that and no one is suggesting it isn’t. aka: just because someone rightly points out that masculine stereotypes and power structures are a good place to start, doesn’t mean they think that is the only issue or that it’s “all men’s fault”
- banning all guns is not a real or viable solution (more rhetoric)
- praying doesn’t help
- We are all freaking emotionally spent and are sick of this kind of incident repeating itself over and over.
Someone let me know if I missed anything.
10 Likes
There’s no problem whatsoever with this, and to speak against it would be violating the very foundation of a democratic society /s
2 Likes
OTOH, if you’re willing to let Trumpists have any involvement at all in establishing or administering a licensing or training scheme, you’re completely fucking insane.
Fascists out, then gun control.
8 Likes
This is one of many criteria that have to be met before I would even consider disarming.
1 Like
Banning all guns everywhere isn’t a real or viable solution. Banning and/or confiscating many guns is definitely a real and viable solution, but (a) not under this administration and (b) not while the NRA wields such lobbying strength in Congress.
Unless some Democrats or rogue Republicans step up, I doubt any progress will happen for now. What I’d like to realistically see as a first step is the NRA’s lobbyists kicked out of the legislature and the group classified as a terrorist organization. I don’t say that glibly, I mean it honestly.
7 Likes
But you don’t give a reason other than that “people wouldn’t stand for it.”
I was making a point about strict construction of the Constitution.
3 Likes
right…so that line is correct…yes?
That is the current situation, yes. I guess I’m just adding more rhetoric.
2 Likes
No. I was merely summarizing the really high level stuff. Certainly is more to each point, and yours is absolutely true…just trying to be succinct.
2 Likes
The reason being that there wouldn’t be enough support from the people to make that happen.
Please elaborate on what you mean by “a strict construction of The Constitution.” Do you mean a textualist reading, an originalist reading, or something else?
As far as i’m aware the only portion of a gun that is tracked, registered and subject to background checks etc is the receiver, being the operative part of the gun. All other bits and pieces are just sort of out there.
That’s fairly unlikely. He was firing from 300 or 400 yards away. Which seems to be the far end of the “effective” range for high rate shooting with your typical ARs and similar weapons. if that’s what he was using, I haven’t caught any real detail about the weapons. And he was shooting from a fixed, elevated position with tripods. He basically picked a situation where automatic fire would cause the most mayhem. Then built himself a machine gun nest. From the on the scene accounts he doesn’t seem to have been doing much aiming. But he does seem to have been firing in controlled bursts.
I don’t think he would have killed or harmed more people by aiming more carefully and firing more slowly at that range. With that set up. If he had been closer. If he had been more on a level with the crowd. If he had fired longer. Maybe if he’d had an out and out machine gun. He could have done a lot more damage. But that shooting was pretty much predicated on maximizing damage from automatic fire. Even as our military doesnt hand an automatic weapon to every soldier anymore. We still field them, And have actual full on machine guns. Because they’re pretty effective at some very particular things. This guy did one of those things.
3 Likes
Because they have a secret monitoring device on every such weapon that immediately notifies them that the modification has happened?
5 Likes
