But don’t forget that “trying something” also means “not trying something else.”
It behooves us to try the most effective means.
It also doesn’t mean sit around for 50 years trying to figure out the best method.
But from everything I’m hearing – closing gun-show loopholes doesn’t sound like it will solve anything, and cost non-involved people (and everybody else, by tax implications. Except for the rich.).
Does it? That’s assuming a lot about government budgeting. The cost for this could come from all sorts of places. It could come from a defense fund, a construction fund, or any sort of place. Hell, it could come from not replacing the toilets in the Pentagon for another few months.
Closing gun-show loopholes isn’t a huge change (and it’s only one part of this action) but it’s an important one; it’s a loophole that the GOP used to harp on about how important it was to close, even. Guns used in assaults have absolutely come from gun shows in the past. If it impacts people’s hobby of buying and selling tools designed to kill people, well, boo hoo.
The important thing to remember is that this is literally the most the President is allowed to legally do on this issue. The White House is stressing this and reminding people that if they want strong action, that has to come from Congress, but that’s not happening, thanks to the NRA.
ftfy yr wlcm
Saying there is advocacy for unrestricted ownership isn’t true.
Not everyone is allowed to buy a gun. True
Not every gun is available for civilian ownership. True
Use of guns is highly regulated. True - thre are many rules in place about where firearms can be used.
Guns are generally not subject to annual inspections. - DIFFERENCE
Lots of paperwork is involved in selling or transferring ownership of a gun, even in a private sale between individuals. True in California, not in most states.
Gun ownership looks already looks quite a bit like reasonable aviation regulations.
I can’t walk into an airshow with nothing but a big wad of cash and my good word and fly out with my very own airplane.
And those gangs are fueled by prohibition lucre. The majority of gun violence could be fractioned, by cutting gang funding through decriminalisation.
Those of you who are for gun control are missing several relevant points.
First, police are people, they’re not better people than anyone else, in fact power corrupts and they’re well defended from any attempts to hold them accountable for wrongdoing. By this measure they should have Less of a right to own guns than the rest of us, not more.
Second, the courts have said the police have no constitutional mandate to protect you. I can’t imagine why else they exist but in any case, if they don’t have to defend you then you certainly have a right to defend yourself, with or without guns, background checks, or whether you’re a felon.
Third, the right to bear arms protects our right to revolution. As long as the government cannot be truste, as is the case when it ignores it’s mandate (in this case “not infringing” your constitutional rights without clear necessity and last restrictive means) we need to be able to protect ourselves against it, and we Always need that right because the government Always be wrong. Just because they’re vastly more powerful doesn’t mean we ought to relax into slavery.
The effectiveness of the right is a separate topic which a sensible person will see gives the same answer. The less powerful a right is, the more important that we hold on to what’s left or it will disappear forever.
“Most effective means” is slavery. That’s not what we agreed to.
I agree - it isn’t exactly the same. But the broad strokes are there. Out of curiousity, what prevents people from making a private sale to an unlicensed individual when it comes to planes? I’m really only familiar with private sales of guns and cars.
Maybe, maybe not.
Prohibition led to a great rise in organized crime, but the repeal of prohibition did not lead to the demise of organized crime – they instead found other sources of income. Other illegal recreational chemicals, primarily.
Except that to come up with the sound bite “mass shootings nearly every day”, the gun control advocacy groups expand their definition to include incidents where nobody was even injured. To come up with “school shootings every week”, they include 3AM drug deals gone wrong, because they occurred in a university parking lot.
Once an advocacy group starts in with word games like this, it’s all about manipulating emotions, not about reality, or addressing actual problems.
Other illegal recreational chemicals ARE prohibition. If organised crime is always funded by prohibition in some form or another, then decriminalisation is the logical answer.
I think so. FFLs already keep meticulous records. They’re trusted members of the firearm-owning community, and can provide data for investigations as needed. The fedgov will keep a record of which serial numbers pass through which dealer and when, or else they’ll keep a record of who had a background check done by which dealer. Either way that can be cross-referenced against the more complete record kept by the dealer.
Two questions:
1 - does he shed any tears over the innocent women and children (thousands by now) killed by the drones he authorised?
2 - Every time I see him, he is surrounded by 6 to 12 Secret Service agents. Each one of them is armed. So is Obama’s stance “I need guns to protect me, but the rest of you? You’re on your own.”?
Citation?
Nothing in the executive action takes guns away from people.
No. Nor was it President Reagan’s stance when he advocated for stricter gun control. But Reagan realized that “surrounding yourself with guns for self-protection” is no substitute for “keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.”
(Photo taken seconds before an event that would help influence Reagan’s views on the subject.)
Not to mention that he’s part of the government and, the last I checked, he is in charge of the military.
Ah, by “we” I mean us individuals collectively, not “we the people”. We as a collection of humanity.
If the right to life is not held sacred, nothing else matters at all.
Which is indeed a major issue with human rights in the USA.
