Some easy ways. Identify all guns via a serial number or similar means. When someone buys a gun, the serial number is recorded. If that gun is ever used in a crime or accidental shooting, the buyer goes to jail for a long, long time. Responsible gun owners, of course, will not be burdened by this. Zero tolerance on accidental shootings. You accidentally shoot your gun in a school (for example) you lose the right to carry weapons, forever - and spend a long time in jail. Again, does not impact responsible gun owners. Nope. But more regulation of doctors and hospitals might be in order. Good thing we are doing our best to uninsure people and remove mental health treatment, then. They can't. They can just ensure that irresponsibility carries a very heavy penalty. "I can't understand it! He seemed so normal. I never knew he could . . . ."
You actually have no idea of how you respond in these discussions, do you? What does this even mean? *Guffaw!* Good grief, you must be joking! Because over the years, the one thing has been constant with you when it comes to this subject matter. You have consistently argued against anyone you know supports gun control when this subject arises. Each time. Without fail. I mean, the delusional streak runs deep: You actually haven't really provided any argument on the side of gun control. All you have done consistently throughout the years, has been to argue against gun control, whine about the NRA and the right on this issue and defend the 2nd. So you'll excuse me if I don't take your claims seriously. You spend the majority of your time on this subject, abusing and insulting anyone you perceive to believe is a gun control advocate. I mean, your record stands on this site and it goes back years when it comes to this issue. You keep saying that you hold these positions, without ever having said you hold positions that sway towards gun control. In short, you never actually ever argue for it in any way, shape or form. You just keep telling us that you do, while accusing us of being everything from what is tantamount to stupid, right through to threatening under various guises.. We keep asking for clarification and get nothing in return. Well, I got you saying that you are "the predominant forum poster of suggestions for effective and popular legislation and enforcement that would reduce gun killings in America".. It's goddamn hysterical! I mean, lets even look at the "no accident forgiveness" being written into law... How do you think that will prevent more gun related deaths? Particularly when research has shown that more guns = more gun deaths. So how do you think having "no accident forgiveness" being written into law, is going to reduce the number of gun deaths? And would this apply to guns or just about anything or everything that can cause an accidental homicide or death? Have you gone into this to look at how some States have this as a standard measure, while others do not? Have you considered the racial disparity in what you support? That's interesting because that has not actually been my position on the issue of gun control. But please, by all means, let's talk about the "attempted slander of anyone not on "your side""... That's just to name a few, from you, in this thread, over a few pages. So yeah, you were saying? And I am still waiting for you to describe where and against who or what I posted a threat in this thread, as you accused me of earlier. Can you please point this out. I've had to ask this a few times now and all I get in response is a vague non-answer and dodging. Thanks!
You definitely don't. You can't make sense on the topic of my responses, at the simplest levels. And that is the first step toward acquiring trust - making sense about simple things well known to one's reader. Followed by a list of posts on various tangent matters, none of them slanders, with a total addressed population of I think two? (You overlooked a couple of posters ready to hand, not on "my side": Vociferous, for example. Any idea why?) Now you can't tell slander from objecting to it, or from accurate description of a posting. Now you have failed to comprehend the subjects of posts. Again. And now, once again, you can't count. One, two, -> "anyone"? Yes, I was. And you are illustrating. Exactly. That is one of its points - that your position on actual, specific gun control measures is all but invisible here, especially compared with (say) my active and repeated promotion of them. You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend posts, invariably followed by disparagements and slanders of the imaginary posters you have created to have posted the bizarre crap you have imagined they posted, so that the patterns in your bs about other people and the posts you can't follow and the aspects of reality you deny is pretty much all there is to go on. And that's your "side", exemplified. That's how it operates in the political arena. You need to quit confusing yourself with the general public, or the fraction of those capable of reason in this matter. Your fraction of the American public is not yet large enough to acquire legitimate political power - and for that I for one am grateful - but it has been loud enough to do significant political damage, and part of that stems from its lack of self-awareness. The accusation, against not only you but the demarcated fraction of political obstacles I have been specifying throughout as your "side", complete with quotes and descriptions and specifications and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, has been a central feature of my gun control posting for years on this forum. What you claim to be "waiting" for has been posted to you dozens of times. Your continued demonstration of your inability to comprehend these matters, to follow these quite simple arguments and observations, and then, on top of it, to slander and rant about the moral failings of those who can comprehend them, as if the mere observation of physical reality and ability to reason from it were a moral failing, is part of why you - your "side" - is deeply mistrusted by a very large fraction of the reasonable, gun control favoring, sensible American citizenry. The good guys don't trust you - to the point of viewing your endorsement of a cause as a reason to be wary of it, and cooperation with you as a risk to be weighed heavily. And that mistrust is my nomination for one reason America has poor governance of its firearms. It's the central reason, imho. The NRA leadership is demented, corrupt, clearly isolatable. The gun nuts are a small minority. Everyone else - including 80% of NRA members, most assault rifle owners, veterans and hunters and pretty much everyone - wants sane, reasonable gun control. The Constitution allows it (enables it, even). The histories and traditions of the country exemplify it. The lists of measures I have posted here are almost entirely majority supported. Hello?
The really troubling thing is the coincidence of firearm advocacy with people who don't seem to intend to be taken seriously. Except, apparently, they do expect others to take them seriously: Who would support university and graduate study as prerequisite to licensure of firearm possession and use? No, really. The AMA? Another bogeyman of right-wing and "libertarian" politics? While it is true any comparative metaphor, any such simile or juxtaposition, has finite application, sometimes the failure to think about the implications is just that much more apparent, and when it's something this clownishly stupid, yeah, it's kind of worrying when it coincides with something about firearm ownership and use. It's almost like gun advocates want people to not trust them. And maybe that works in a fantasy of huffy pretense whereby everyone is civilized, at last, because everyone is packing for being terrified of the shootout that starts every time the wrong people meet each other's eyes, but, no, in more realistic contexts the AMA argument sounds like a mean-spirited caricaturization of dumbassed gun-toting yokels bitterly clinging to their Bibles and AR's.
btw: You can't. You would have to recognize them first, and formulate responses to them. And there is no real excuse for your abusive behavior. It's willful, on your part - as with any abuser, the excuses begin after some modicum of self-awareness becomes visible. I have argued - reasoned from evidence - that rapid fire weapons can and should be severely restricted regardless of whether such restrictions would reduce gun deaths substantially or not. I have agreed and argued that legislated accountability for accidents would have a wide range of benefits short and long term. I have argued that various gun and ammunition restrictions would have significant long term benefits beyond the immediate lives saved - that the relatively small number of lives immediately saved, the base of the "criminals can still get them and people will murder anyway" type arguments however sound, are only a fraction of the lives saved and other benefits gained in the long run - and therefore a higher price in money, time, trouble, and risk, is justified. I have argued that plain and correct reading of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude significant restrictions on firearms, especially military grade weapons designed to abet mass murder and indiscriminate assault - that the conflict between the Constitution and gun control is an illusion, largely created by propaganda. I have posted extensive lists of soundly based and beneficial laws and regulatory restrictions that can be enacted almost immediately, with the voting majority and legal framework already in place. And so forth. In the main, though, I have argued against various aspects of what I regard - with reason and evidence - as the most significant and most immediately removable obstacle to sane gun control in the US: the threat of irrational and arbitrary abuse of power from a government in the hands of self-righteous authoritarians, of a government not accountable to reason, and laws enforced by the same. All those arguments are on the side of gun control. And they make up the bulk of my posting on the topic. Probably hundreds of posts, over years now.
I don't understand why people can't comprehend that the political reality means that any attempt by the Democrats to tackle the 2nd amendment means failure at the polls and ultimately no to very little nation wide gun control regulation. Just wanting to clarify why all the angst: iceaura states: I have argued that rapid fire weapons can and should be severely restricted regardless of whether such restrictions would reduce gun deaths substantially or not. I have agreed and argued that legislated accountability for accidents would have a wide range of benefits short and long term. I have argued that various gun and ammunition restrictions would have significant long term benefits beyond the immediate lives saved - that the relatively small number of lives immediately saved, the base of the "criminals can still get them and people will murder anyway" type arguments however sound, are only a fraction of the lives saved and other benefits gained in the long run - and therefore a higher price in money, time, trouble, and risk, is justified. I have argued that plain and correct reading of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude significant restrictions on firearms, especially military grade weapons designed to abet mass murder and indiscriminate assault - that the conflict between the Constitution and gun control is an illusion, largely created by propaganda. I have posted extensive lists of soundly based and beneficial laws and regulatory restrictions that can be enacted almost immediately, with the voting majority and legal framework already in place. and the most important argument is: I have argued against various aspects of what I regard - with reason and evidence - as the most significant and most immediately removable obstacle to sane gun control in the US: the threat of irrational and arbitrary abuse of power from a government in the hands of self-righteous authoritarians, of a government not accountable to reason, and laws enforced by the same. ...which I can agree seems to be the nub of the problem. Essentially the Citizens fear of losing control of government which is what the 2nd is primarily about. Fix that issue and the problem goes away... iceaura's position seem pretty clear to me...gosh.. he has repeated it often enough. ====== One possible Solution: To empower the people to be able to force an elected government back to the polls in a vote (poll) of no confidence. (thus creating an additional amendment.) This would then allow the USA to enjoy similar benefits and associated stability of the Westminster system where a vote of no confidence can force a change in national leadership. The potential threat of such leading to a more responsible and representative government. btw this is not necessarily a new idea. A number of wealthy European nations have similar, if I am not mistaken. ...and given what is happening currently with the existing Government, one that the USA ( and the world by default) could really benefit from.
the problem with ice arguments is not one clarity but of honesty. people refuse to believe he holds the views he now claims to hold honestly and truly. mainly because he has a long history of saying the exact opposite of what he now claims have been his beliefs along. to put in absolute clarity he is fucking liar and trust needs to be earned. if wants to be believed he needs to quit attacking and slandering gun control advocates as well as quit making shit up. also some who whines they are being ignored and no one is listening to what they are saying like he is should probably listen and ask what the people he is slandering actually believe. he paints me as his delusional anti gun people who wants to do away with all guns despite the fact my views would actually legalize more weapons than he would have the difference is he wants people to have the right of irresponsibility while i expect people to be responsible.
If you could quote evidence of a "solid" hypocrisy then please do so... I have read much that can be interpreted poorly by those upset by a posters style. I think that the most difficult issue, one that is necessarily controversial is the point that any attempt to compromise or other wise invoke the 2nd amendment will doom that party to failure at the polls leaving it ineffective in being able to pass ANY legislation into law and whilst this may seem evidence of a pro-gun status quo it is not necessarily so. Iceaura is more concerned about effective results than about political posturing. As far as I can tell. His position wins no favor from any side of the debate, as a consequence. Even the recent student march made no attempt to compromise the 2nd (directly) but sought to have certain military style weapons banned or in the very least heavily regulated, nation wide, for very obvious reasons. It is also a open warning to the adults that are facilitating the mass slaughter of students. That they the students will make the changes when they have the voting power to do so.
Your responses has been to defend and then switch completely and attempt to say that you were arguing something else altogether. I mean, you parrot the NRA's talking points for years, then declare that you have provided lists, when you actually haven't. Your record on this site stands, iceaura. There's a reason why no one who has gone through the rounds with you over the years on this subject, is buying this latest version. That's the thing. You are well known to all of us who have discussed the issue of gun control with you, over the years. And yes, it has been years. Trust is earned. You haven't earned trust when it comes to this subject, certainly not to the point where we are expected to buy this sudden about face and claims that you have posted lists and argued for gun control, when all we have seen you post is argue against gun control and abuse anyone who holds a position for gun control, over a matter of years. Right, so your insults and slanders, weren't that at all... As I said, no one's buying your bullshit on this subject matter. Your sudden turn around about being pro-gun control doesn't wash. You still don't see it, do you? My views on gun control is well known here. I have never hidden it, in any discussion that I have participated in on the subject. What is invisible, however, is your "list" and your arguments for gun control, you keep claiming you made such a list and arguments, we ask you what they are, you say you have posted it... It's your claim, back it up. For example, look at your zero accidental shooting tolerance. One of the biggest issues with that is the way in which it is currently implemented and the racial disparity, as linked previously, that is currently in play. In other words, a black child accidentally finds a gun in his or her home and shoots another child, their parents are far more likely to face jail time than if the parents of the child were white. Would you seek to ensure all parents of children who find an unlocked gun in the home and shoots another, face time for that crime? Would it only apply to guns? Does that mean you support legislation that would have gun safe's in the home, to ensure firearms are not accessible to children or others who might use them or play with them and accidentally kill another? Do you support legislation that would require all firearms to be registered to their owners in a national gun registry, as another example? Do you support stricter background checks and a waiting period and thorough checks of the person's mental health, domestic violence records (if they have one), criminal record, to determine if they are to be allowed to own any firearm? Do you support mandatory training on firearm safety for people who wish to purchase firearms and yearly safety courses and storage facilities that are under lock and key for when the firearm is to remain in the home? Do you think semi-automatics should be more strictly regulated in the US in regards to their sales, storage and usage? Do you think bullets should be equally regulated in regards to how and where they are sold? Aside from removing the accident clause when it comes to firearm ownership, what other forms of gun control do you support? I am not confusing myself with the general public. You seem to confuse me with everyone else though. Why is that? And you are still to actually qualify your stance on this issue, instead referring to vague 'this is what I argue' without actually telling us what it is you actually support, just what you don't support and then telling us how wrong we are, how illiterate we are, etc.. And yeah, when you spend so much of your time slandering others, and don't try and pull the 'it wasn't slander' crap, not buying it, you don't get to complain about you facing the same kind of crap you say to us. Something something about glass houses apply here. What "side" is this, again? Is this another type of vague 'your faction' rubbish again? You just touted yourself as *chortle!* "he predominant forum poster of suggestions for effective and popular legislation and enforcement that would reduce gun killings in America", without actually providing "suggestions for effective and popular legislation and enforcement that would reduce gun killings in America".. For example, we all know your views of statistics when it comes to gun violence: So I'll put it this way.. When you talk about accidental shootings not getting a pass as an 'accidental shooting', are you diverging from your previous opinion? That quote was from 2014. When you talk about accidental shooting, are you talking about making guns unavailable in private homes? Switched opinions? I think your biggest problem is that you are taken at face value. Huzzah! The list!
You don't. You can't read my posts on this topic with comprehension. You can't paraphrase a single view of mine on the matter of statistics and gun violence. example: No. btw: That quote was from a long thread, which included many posts from me. Out of curiosity, I paged through the first thousand posts and a couple of the pages near the quote, and here is a list of the post numbers in that partial survey that contain specific or reasonably explicit recommendations for gun control measures such as I have mentioned posting: 179;213;275;278;323;500;526;626*;651*/661/666*/689*/713*/727/730/902/953*/981/986/991/997/1020/1207/1223/1403 There is no "about face". I have posted exactly like this, as I am posting now, down to specific phrases, for years here. You have also posted that kind of bs response, before. You will do that again, I predict. As before, you are simply wrong. I have posted exactly as I describe, exactly as I am posting now, many times, right in front of you. Every item on it has been posted by me at least twice before. Right in front of you. And denied/misrepresented/ignored, by you, before. Can you really not know better? Is it reasonable to presume you have overlooked that entire body of my posting here? I have never posted NRA talking points, except to disagree with them. How did you miss that obvious fact? I have posted lists of possible and effective gun control measures I favored, several times. Including, if memory serves, in direct response to you. How did you miss that, as well? Yes, you are. Inveterately. Reflexively. All the time. You do it a lot. I have quoted you doing it here, and many times before - it's been a frequent comment of mine, bemused, on your posting - you don't take personal responsibility for your bs. What you have posted so far I described - and you denied. So - - - - - . I think this is one of your more obvious blind spots - what it looks like is that the specific measures you in fact want are insupportable and redolent of police state bs, so you alternately suggest them by innuendo - sort of a vague handwaving, without specifics, "look what we did in Australia" - and then deny the implications. And then you pretend to have argued for substance - but it was never there. Then you deny the threat you have made. Again with the "we" - see above. Many frogs, many pockets. Meanwhile: Any idea how many times I would have to do that, before you quit asserting I have not done it? Half a dozen so far, at least, has not sufficed. So that's too long - why would all this matter? For starters, because it exemplifies too well the behavior of a "side" in the gun control arena. It's a fair example of one of the sides in the bothsides jamb that has paralyzed the US in an insane position. And in the past, I have expressed deep pessimism - waiting for the sides to die, basically, seems the likely workable response. I don't want to lose any more good politicians on gun control. But maybe things have changed?
Unfortunately this concept of two sided jamb paralyzing US firearms management is probably a little too hard and deep for many to comprehend. Seriously, the amount of hysteria associated with this issue would blind just about any one from comprehending the two sided jamb as you call it. This is why I suggested in the OP to escalate the issue as a possible solution to this two sided jamb: By granting the NRA semi autonomous nation wide control over gun control thus leaving registration and licensing database etc in the hands of the NRA that is supposed to represent all the gun owners. Of course this is a highly controversial step but one that would entrench responsibility both legally and ethically in the hands of a group that claim to represent those gun owners. When the NRA is finally in a position of legal responsibility and can be sued for negligence etc I think it would be impressive how quickly things would change. or alternatively ( more profoundly) Empower the people to vote on "no confidence" by amending the constitution in a way that allows the people to force the elected government to the polls ( under certain conditions), as a way of reducing the immense fear people seem to have associated with a potentially tyrannical government thus reducing the reliance on the 2nd amendment to control government behavior. The 2nd amendment appears to be an antiquated control tool and essentially it needs to be replaced by some other more sophisticated way for the people to have an ultimate say if things go duck, or should I say ape Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I believe if the politicians concentrated on replacing the 2nd with something that allows this empowerment most of the problem goes away. I would go further to suggest that all democratic republics should have this empowerment included as a par of course. It is missing and needs to be present to close off this "rise of a dictatorship" issue that seems to plague democratic republics. ie. Egypt, Russia, Syria, etc. and would if employed correctly reduced the call to bloody revolution. Typically the Westminster System already has these provisions.
Can't help it. It was always my favourite. Actually some of those have nothing to do with gun control at all. Perhaps they do in your mind, but it does not transmit that way when you put pen to paper, so to speak, or in your case, fingers to keyboard. Tell me though, did any of the ones you just cited factor in your views on the mass incarceration of black people as a means to reduce gun violence, for as one example you are on record as citing? Hmm? You mean you have posted bizarre accusations, gone on about "sides" and "factions" and whatnot and have run back and forth when it comes to this issue, citing posts and saying they are about gun control, when they aren't really.. Have you been posting like this for years here? Yeah, that's on record too. Some of the ones you favoured saw you come off as a flaming bigot. You then accused all of us who read what you wrote and took it at face value, of apparently misrepresenting your posts.. Apparently quoting you word for word is misrepresenting you.. You have posted like this for years too, funnily enough. You do post NRA talking points. You have the whole "cold dead hands" spiel hanging about you, like a dank fog, when it comes to this subject matter. It's fair to say that on the subject of guns and Al Franken, we tend to see you at your worst. Mr "faction" is accusing others of this? So cute! What we did here seems to scare you. Does the thought of no more mass shootings offend you that much, iceaura? My views of gun control are thus: Semi automatics are unnecessary, dangerous and completely and utterly overblown for the matter of self protection. Selling militarised weapons, as one example, for self protection would only be viable if one lived in a war zone. They are ridiculous hunting weapons and are designed to kill and kill quickly. I also think there should be a national register for firearms, with a minimum 30 day waiting period, which would allow for more stringent background checks which would encompass the person's mental health, domestic violence orders or convictions, violent crime conviction, the sex crime register, their home and work life (part of the mental health check) and also be required to have a psych evaluation and medical evaluation. The requirement to own a firearm should entail partaking and passing firearms safety classes, as well as having a gun safe in the home and all firearms kept in said gun safe at all times when not in use. If someone commits a crime, such as domestic violence crimes, sexual assault, violent crimes or robs a bank or store, etc, and they are registered as firearms owners, their guns should be removed from their control. If someone uses another person's gun to commit a crime or accidentally shoots someone, then that person should also lose their firearms for not being in control of them. Gun owners should also be required to take safety classes every 2-3 years, and gun safes checked in their homes during that timeframe and their gun license can then be renewed, after ensuring they have not been involved in any criminal behaviour as well. That's pretty much what we have here in Australia. Only the background checks tend to be a lot more thorough, and the wait time can be a bit longer. Having gone back through years of your posting on this subject, you list has changed and some of it was pretty vile.. Such as your beliefs that mass incarceration of black men would reduce gun violence. Perhaps it's your side that needs to die for effective gun control measures. I mean look, what we did here in Australia and elsewhere in the developed world would simply not work in your country. The reason being that too many of your country folk believe as you did and you are so afraid, that you cannot conceive life any other way.
Not true. Reading comprehension has never been a priority of yours, and neither has honestly in response. Not at all. Your country is far away. I wish you luck, in a spirit of benign neglect and mild envy. Are they lying, or are they stupid - the eternal question authoritarians raise, with their rhetorical tactics. Lying, or stupid? Pick one. Your posting has not changed. You continue to post stuff like that, while accusing other people of being vile. In the same breath, essentially. Two things become obvious: 1) I can see how I abetted your inability to follow an argument, fed you stuff too easily twisted in your brain, by not including the complete prior context and detailed explication each and every time I made any point, however obvious, whatsoever - - such as my continuing point that ending the current practice of mass incarceration of black men would help reduce gun violence, as would serious changes in the drug laws, etc, with less trouble and probably more effectiveness (in the short run certainly) than any reasonable gun control law. And with almost no bad aji in furthering oppressive governance. You could actually be honestly confused, there, if you have been as usual paying no attention to anything outside the noises in your head. I can see how that could happen, with someone who has no interest in honest argument and is just looking for trolling material - that's an illustration of how you go so bizarrely haywire. It explains what trigger these - what's the non-slander term? - "vile" posts of yours. In my defense, back then I had less experience with you and your kind, and their manner of "argument". I may have thought an actual argument, discussion, etc, was possible with you and yours, or I may have been tired and careless - don't remember. 2) Your claim that you were unaware of my many and extensive previous lists of gun control measures, measures favored and promoted by me, was simply a lie. A flat dishonesty, intended as all such trollings are intended to simply screw up the discussion, prevent actual argument or useful dialogue. And the takehome: You would meet intransigent opposition, among a large fraction of reasonable voters, to any attempt to elect anyone who thinks and "reasons" as you do into any position of power over anyone they care about. And so will your faction. And that is my nomination for what has happened to gun control legislation in the US. We have a retired Supreme Court Justice now, recommending repeal of the 2nd Amendment as the quickest and most viable way to break the jam - basically, throwing in the towel on reason, and going with authoritarian power, because reason will not work in his opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html That sets up the Republican Party as defender of the Constitution and rampart against an undefined, vague, emotionally supported, and therefore easily exaggerated authoritarian imposition - eight months before the midterms. Nobody needs a gun to shoot themselves in the foot, apparently. I rest my case.
Got any sources for that little anecdote? Haha! Why would you assume that? I don't even like first-person shooter games. Here's someone else making equally dumb assumptions: I don't think that either, but the two of you seem pretty desperate to straw man any dissenting opinions. What's even funnier is that you liked that post, that made a straw man contradicting your own. Again, you have a problem with adults being targeted before children? What's wrong with you? Unless you're naive, I'm sure you know you can't 100% safeguard any public place. All mass public attacks are surprise attacks. Remove guns and you'll get vehicle attacks or bombings. The difference is that a bomb in a school could do more harm before anyone knew what was going on. After the first few shots, a gun attack is no longer a surprise. Exactly. There is no such solution. You seem to like making up little "fish in a barrel" scenarios in your head that have little to do with reality. You also don't seem to understand that any shooting victim is a lot of timers and only one off switch. Because we already have existing laws, that authorities failed to enforce, that would have stopped the Parkland shooting. So your solution is to give those incompetent people all the means of protection? That doesn't follow. Haha! Straw man. I don't think video games cause violence. But I'm not sure how COD isn't what you call "gun porn." And since I did say "4.55 million" it seems you were able to find which one I meant, regardless of your "4.5 million" straw man. Europe doesn't have anywhere near as many guns as the US. No one does. So comparing "gun deaths" and "gun violence" is silly. You should know better. I brought it up to compare the relative influence: The Million Mom March was a rally held on Mother's Day, May 14, 2000 in the Washington D.C. National Mall by the Million Mom March organization to call for stricter gun control. The march reportedly drew an estimated attendance of 750,000 people at the D.C. location, but with 150,000 to 200,000 people holding satellite events in more than 70 cities across the country, the total number of participants was about one million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Mom_MarchAnd no real advancement of gun control. Instead: The #NeverAgain movement’s “March for Our Lives’’ on Saturday is both inspired and haunted by the legacy of another march on Washington 18 years ago. The Million Mom March, which brought about 750,000 people to the National Mall on Mothers’ Day 2000, was the biggest gun control rally in history. On stage, Rosie O’Donnell spoke for many when she proclaimed it “the birth of a movement.’’ In the wings, one of the march’s organizers winced. Donna Dees-Thomases says she knew even then that one march was not a movement. She was right. Today, the year 2000 is remembered not for the birth of a gun control movement, but for the start of the National Rifle Association’s two-decade domination of gun politics. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-different-effect-march-our-lives/440961002/So what's more influential? A short-lived march, or video games teens spend hours playing every single day? I'd bet the latter. Only in your imagination.
Responsible gun owners will be severely burdened by that, in easily foreseen ways. And that kind of recommendation is why gun registration itself is taken as a threat by large numbers of reasonable people in the US. Anybody who supports automatic jailing of crime victims for the use of their stolen property in subsequent crimes. Why not? People like that are whack enough to support anything. As noted before: There's a Poe's Law situation on both sides of this one. It's a "bothsides" issue. That's its distinguishing feature. That's what makes it so useful to the Republican Party. Silly boy. We're already seeing that stuff, in the one or two places that feature the "safety" of armed teachers - just as we are seeing school shootings in schools featuring armed guards, shopping malls featuring armed guards, public concerts in Las Vegas with armed guards and armed targets both, and so forth.
Not responsible gun owners who can keep track of their guns. Irresponsible owners who allow their guns to be used by others without supervision, or stolen, will of course be burdened by that. No "automatic jailing." They will be entitled to a trial just as any other accused criminal is.
Their crime being having had their property stolen, the evidence being having had a list of their possessions in the hands of the police prior to the crime, and the guilt being just that. As noted: there's a Poe's Law problem on both sides here. It's impossible to parody either side. btw: This is my guess for what will happen to any attempts to legislate responsibility and accountability in gun ownership, something favored by me and a large majority of American citizens. They will run into this: "Not responsible gun owners who can keep track of their guns. Irresponsible owners who allow their guns to be used by others without supervision, or stolen, will of course be burdened by that". And that will kill the entire approach.
