All-purpose gun legislation thread


#5125

They NEED guns? Nothing else will do? Who absolutely requires a semiautomatic weapon to function on a daily basis?


#5126

How exactly does one eliminate every gun in America? You could ban the sales, but there are still millions of guns out there. How would a ban on selling guns work any better than other forms of prohibition? Sure, one can’t buy marijuana at a store, but that doesn’t mean a person can’t get it if they want it.


#5127

The Democrats tried in 1994. They lost Congress.

Look at the make up of Congress in 1994. Then look at it in 1996.


#5128

You are now moving the goalposts.


#5129

Not trying to be sneaky. Who needs a gun at all then? Let’s assume cops and soldiers are exemptions for their job.

I get your point about the elections, just really annoyed that there’s not much we can do about the violence.


#5130

All I’ve ever needed is my love gun.


#5131

Hunters? Ranchers? Farmers?
People in rural areas actually use guns as tools.


#5132

Not to mention anyone who is physically weaker or smaller than anyone else.

Unless one believes no one should have the right to defend themselves I guess.

Also cops get exemptions, even though they’re killing people for the color of their skin on a fairly regular basis?


#5133

Hell, I’m all for a NO guns policy with cops too. Agree? Deal!

But I give up, don’t feel like rehashing the guns debate for the billionth time. It’s not like things will ever change, post-Sandyhook.


#5134

I mean, that’s a fair position. I disagree with it, but it’s an honest one.

Politically, it’s a dead issue at the moment though. Pursuing it gives the reins of government to, apparently, literal pedophiles and their supporters.


#5135

Yeah, it’s a mess. As mentioned earlier, this is going to be something that will build up over time until it hits a threshold. Until then, it can’t be the hill Democrats choose to die on if they care about anything else whatsoever, despite the victims doing precisely that. A bitter pill, but necessary for now.


#5136

It will require time and Democrats that under stand firearms. Banning shit like folding stocks and the like screams, “I don’t know anything about the subject, but I’m going to aggressively legislate it anyway.” It flips a switch in people. It’s like when you refer to the internet as a series of tubes. No one takes you seriously on the subject of the internet anymore.

Feinstein already played this card and was torn apart for the ignorance of it. She comes back, over 20 years later, and plays the same exact card. The card that lost the Democrats Congress, when it’s a even more divisive issue that it was last time. It’s just political suicide and stupidity at this point.

Want a smart play? Start with bump stocks. Even the NRA is willing to throw them under the bus. Almost all gun owners are fine with it. It’s a technicality getting around a law we long ago accepted. It’s a single step, but it’s a step that nearly everyone agrees on. I can already see myself arguing with gun people as they elect a child molester to office because of this.


#5137

Really? So we’re saying that if people don’t understand something perfectly, they should not pursue and will actually lose elections due to it. COPA anyone?


#5138

I’m saying if you’re going to go after something actually knowing what you’re talking about or talking to people who do is kind of a good idea.

I’m saying they WILL lose elections. They already lost them from this exact issue, hell, this exact bill.

Feinstein’s bill doesn’t show even a cursory understanding of the issue. Folding stocks make a weapon more dangerous? Barrel shrouds do? Cause active shooters might have been stopped if they’d burned their hand or something?

You want to go after magazine capacity? Fine. It at least makes some sense. There is a logic to it. More rounds before a reload, so it’s more dangerous. Great. Most gun people aren’t going to like it, but the logic is there.

But threaded barrels? What? Do those make the bullets more powerful? It’s a pointless “looks scary” check, which is what the original ban got torn apart for. Functionally identical weapons, one looks “scary” or “cool” and that one is illegal, even though they’re functionally the exact same thing.


#5139

I assume you know what COPA is (not COPPA). This idea that the only way Congress and our President can proceed is to thoroughly know what they’re talking about and have a the electorate know what they’re talking about or else they are doomed to fail elections… history shows us that is simply not true.

What you need is what the GOP did, to sell your soul to the devil and make sure your supporters are so ignorant and receive their information only from your sources so they’re too stupid or too angry at the targets you’ve set-up too even care that you have no idea what you’re talking about… then they’ll vote for you still.


#5140

I’m not familiar with the term. I am talking about what actually happened, though.

If I walked into a hospital and started regulating and mandating stuff without any knowledge, I would expect to be mocked and people to not like me for it. It’s the same thing. As Edwards said, “It’s about independence.” You’re going after what people view (I’d argue rightly) as one of their core rights. You have to make a really good case if you’re going to convince someone that something they see as being in the Bill of Rights is something they shouldn’t have.

If you use that to go after folding stocks. They’re going to see you as ignorant and dangerous. They’ll vote to keep you from taking away their rights. You’re not doing it because it’s the right thing to do, you’re doing it because you’re scared and stupid (in their view).

You can disagree, but I live with these people. Have my whole life. Hell, I’m one of them to some extent. You want to talk magazine sizes? Bump stocks? We can maybe have a discussion. If you think a pistol grip magically turns something into a “weapon of war”? At no point am I going to take you seriously and if you’re running for election you’d better hope the other guy is pro-baby eating or something because odds are I’m not voting for you.

And I’m one of the rational ones. A lot of people will vote for that baby-eater because odds are he wont eat any babies anyway, but you’ll sure as fuck come for their guns, you’ve done it before, you’ll do it again and insult their intelligence the whole time you’re doing it.


#5141

Me too.

Child Online Protection Act. Someone think of the children, pushed by a whole bunch of people who just don’t understand the Internet. I am sure you know what happened because, as a hint, I will tell you we don’t have it anymore, but it was passed. What exactly was the consequence of that?


#5142

That’s a whole different issue though.

“We need to protect kids from online predators.”

Everyone is behind that. You might fuck up the execution, but at the end of the day, everyone agrees with the concept. It’s not a divisive issue for the vast majority of people. If it doesn’t work, well you tried and your heart was in the right place, etc, etc.

Try applying that to abortion or gun control? Half the nation disagrees with your base premise. You’d better have a convincing and logical argument. Show up with easily dismissed ignorant horsecrap? Not a chance.


#5143

No it’s not different. You’re implying that our elected officials have to know about something before they pursue laws against or for it. Like we have this unwritten law that says if they are not experts on something and they sound like idiots when they talk, some Congress monster will show up and eat the House and Senate… except they talk about shit they don’t understand ALL the time. They push for laws about things they don’t understand ALL the time. It’s not even infrequent.

I really do think porn and adult material online is a lot more divisive than you think. You want me to start listening the number of laws they’ve tried to push to control it?


#5144

If you think anything is more divisive than gun control, I strongly disagree.

Abortion comes kind of close, except it’s all posturing because the SCOTUS decided that already, but nothing else does.