Jump to content

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.


Mother Cocanuts

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Vegas serves as a good example of how little we react to these mass shootings. In the wake of Vegas it seemed like almost everyone agreed that the least we could do was ban bump stocks, the device that allows semi-automatic rifles to mimic the fire of fully automatic rifles. 

Over four months later, they're still legal in most places. 

Yeah, and I don't think it's just the power of the NRA. I think that a significant contingent of Americans simply cannot give up their guns. They like the feeling of power that it gives to have one. And it's not a false feeling, having a gun does increase your power in some ways, and therefore losing it is giving up power in that regard.

They also feel that they are responsible, which may certainly be the case. They don't know why they are being penalised for the actions of others.

I don't agree with their views, though. I don't consider my right to have a gun (which I have as an Australian, although unlike the USA we place restrictions on it) important enough to justify having more guns in society. Guns are the most efficient murder tools available to the common person and I don't want them in my community. So it starts with me, and I would never have one.

Similarly, as technology continues to evolve, soon enough civilian drones with guns on them will start to become ubiquitous. As guns fall out of fashion and are replaced by much more efficient artificial drones, most of the world will be prepared to regulate them and prevent them falling into the wrong hands. The USA, on the other hand, has no tools to stop their violent crime rate shooting up as one machine gun in the hands of a psycho are replaced by fifty automated machine drones in the hand of a psycho.

Who is ready for mass shootings on a bigger scale? Every developed nation in the world... save for the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Yeah, and I don't think it's just the power of the NRA. I think that a significant contingent of Americans simply cannot give up their guns. They like the feeling of power that it gives to have one. And it's not a false feeling, having a gun does increase your power in some ways, and therefore losing it is giving up power in that regard.

They also feel that they are responsible, which may certainly be the case. They don't know why they are being penalised for the actions of others.

I don't agree with their views, though. I don't consider my right to have a gun (which I have as an Australian, although unlike the USA we place restrictions on it) important enough to justify having more guns in society. Guns are the most efficient murder tools available to the common person and I don't want them in my community. So it starts with me, and I would never have one.

Similarly, as technology continues to evolve, soon enough civilian drones with guns on them will start to become ubiquitous. As guns fall out of fashion and are replaced by much more efficient artificial drones, most of the world will be prepared to regulate them and prevent them falling into the wrong hands. The USA, on the other hand, has no tools to stop their violent crime rate shooting up as one machine gun in the hands of a psycho are replaced by fifty automated machine drones in the hand of a psycho.

Who is ready for mass shootings on a bigger scale? Every developed nation in the world... save for the USA.

i wouldn’t dismiss the nra like that. they are no small reason people feel that way, and the influence runs in both directions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Vegas serves as a good example of how little we react to these mass shootings. In the wake of Vegas it seemed like almost everyone agreed that the least we could do was ban bump stocks, the device that allows semi-automatic rifles to mimic the fire of fully automatic rifles. 

Over four months later, they're still legal in most places. 

I heard someone say the issue was sent off for the impact of such a move "to be studied",

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unpaid comintern said:

i wouldn’t dismiss the nra like that. they are no small reason people feel that way, and the influence runs in both directions

When I first started to live in DC I was part of a leadership "group."  It was decidedly liberal in all ways - got to meet a lot of really interesting people.  One thing this "group" did over the semester, is visit the national headquarters of the NRA.  I listened to their bullshit interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but then I went outside to smoke.  I wasn't alone - (female) colleagues joined me as did many tired staffers.  Wasn't surprised at the time nor now, Marb Reds are a pretty good consolation prize.  The rest went down to the basement to see how cool it was to shoot some guns, and that's exactly what they did.  Many of them have ended up at very influential places, on both sides of the aisle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unpaid comintern said:

ah, loving david brooks’ new oped: “the real victims of parkland are our norms and civil discourse”

I dare him to repeat those words face to face with actual living breathing teachers and students, both those who have gone through the horror of being targets of a massacre, those who have lost children and colleagues to the massacres, and all students and teachers, who live 24/7 with the potential this will happen in their schools.  David Brooks, that asshole, obviously believes this can't happen to him.  It really makes a difference, ya know? when one is aware of how possible it is that it can happen to ME.  Gads, I loathe that supremely stupid smug bugger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SCOTUS has refused to review a challenge to California’s law requiring a 10 day wait to purchase a firearm.  What is interesting is that they only need 4 Justices to grant Cert.  The people challenging the California waiting period couldn’t get four Justices from this court to agree to hear their challenge.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/20/587330832/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-california-s-gun-laws?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180220

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The SCOTUS has refused to review a challenge to California’s law requiring a 10 day wait to purchase a firearm.  What is interesting is that they only need 4 Justices to grant Cert.  The people challenging the California waiting period couldn’t get four Justices from this court to agree to hear their challenge.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/20/587330832/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-california-s-gun-laws?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180220

This is a huge win.  Mandatory wait times on all firearm purchases could have a huge impact on gun deaths in America.  Second step would be mandatory background checks and denying everyone with a current restraining order or history of domestic violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

ZOMG! Trump has supported a teensy tiny bit of gun regulation! It's small, but it's something!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43135584

And it is opposed by the gun lobby, so it probably won't happen. So the question is whether this is a cynical ploy to get a headline for Trump that makes him look like he's supporting action to control guns when inaction will be the outcome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And it is opposed by the gun lobby, so it probably won't happen. So the question is whether this is a cynical ploy to get a headline for Trump that makes him look like he's supporting action to control guns when inaction will be the outcome?

Probably. If you read his comments closely, there isn't anything concrete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And it is opposed by the gun lobby, so it probably won't happen. So the question is whether this is a cynical ploy to get a headline for Trump that makes him look like he's supporting action to control guns when inaction will be the outcome?

As a thought experiment: if Trump decided to ban bump stocks and the NRA changed its mind and said it actually doesn't want them banned, who'd win the political game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fantastic. The guys at Breitbart are having a meltdown over this:

Quote

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/white-house-on-assault-weapons-ban-we-havent-closed-doors-on-any-front/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

During Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked about a proposed “assault weapons” ban and said, “We haven’t closed the door on any front.”

NPR’s Mara Liasson asked, “In 2000 [President Trump] did support an ‘assault weapons’ ban. What is his position now?” She followed her own question by asking if President Trump supports “reinstating” the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons” ban.

CNN reported that Sanders responded by saying, “I don’t have any specific announcements, but we haven’t closed the door on any front.”

 

Of course I really don't see Trump of all people supporting an assault weapons ban today. But it's fun when the nutjobs lose it over something this minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

As a thought experiment: if Trump decided to ban bump stocks and the NRA changed its mind and said it actually doesn't want them banned, who'd win the political game?

Has the NRA said it's OK with the bump stock ban?

I don't think the NRA would pick a public fight against an all Republican govt on bump stocks. They may choose to fight a rear guard action and get enough votes to kill the ban without any kind of public campaign. But they would probably live with taking the loss if they were confident the loss would be limited only to bump stocks.

How did the fully automatic ban get through? I assume the NRA was at least initially against it, since it is literally a violation of the 2nd amendment in the eyes of a lot of pro-gun people. The popularity of bump stocks is an obvious sing that many gun owners would like to be able to legally own fully automatic weapons. In fact I don't know how this ban has not been successfully challenged in the SCOTUS, unless the pro-gun folks have decided that it's not a fight they want to take (and win) because the PR would be very negative for them.

But if anyone tried to do anything more meaningful, eg. universal background checks, the NRA wold go into full on attack mode no matter who is in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Has the NRA said it's OK with the bump stock ban?

...

How did the fully automatic ban get through? I assume the NRA was at least initially against it, since it is literally a violation of the 2nd amendment in the eyes of a lot of pro-gun people. The popularity of bump stocks is an obvious sing that many gun owners would like to be able to legally own fully automatic weapons. In fact I don't know how this ban has not been successfully challenged in the SCOTUS, unless the pro-gun folks have decided that it's not a fight they want to take (and win) because the PR would be very negative for them.

On the first part, yes, they said they would support such a ban.

On the second point, gun-nuts weren't always crazy. Saint Ronald Moses Jesus Reagan is the one who oversaw the ban. And it was in a time period when people were growing up with such weapons, and therefore saw their destructive capabilities. And also in a time when even gun-toting NRA members seemed moved enough by such tragedies to do something about it.

The NRA didn't oppose the 1986 ban outright, but they did attack ATF officials carrying out the policy as draconian and overstepping their mandate, as well as alleging misconduct of various kinds.

---

Side note: my computer's dictionary recognises the initials NRA but underlines ATF as a spelling error. It has been programmed to learn the agency effectively sponsoring lone-gunman terrorism but not the agency aimed at countering such violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

On the first part, yes, they said they would support such a ban.

On the second point, gun-nuts weren't always crazy. Saint Ronald Moses Jesus Reagan is the one who oversaw the ban. And it was in a time period when people were growing up with such weapons, and therefore saw their destructive capabilities. And also in a time when even gun-toting NRA members seemed moved enough by such tragedies to do something about it.

The NRA didn't oppose the 1986 ban outright, but they did attack ATF officials carrying out the policy as draconian and overstepping their mandate, as well as alleging misconduct of various kinds.

---

Side note: my computer's dictionary recognises the initials NRA but underlines ATF as a spelling error. It has been programmed to learn the agency effectively sponsoring lone-gunman terrorism but not the agency aimed at countering such violence.

sure, they weren’t always crazy, just terrified of the image of black radicals armed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holy shit, conservative twitter is just tripping over  themselves to come up with the worst takes ever

davis brooks: check out my op ed on making sure to treat gun nuts with respect 

gatewaypundit: hold my beer

dinesh d’souza: you are both like little babies,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...