Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    We do not have the right to own RPGs and we should not have the right to own semi automatic weapons. By the way I have a semi automatic weapon. I'm sorry if this loss of this right interferes with someone's hobby but large magazine assault rifles are too dangerous in the hands of an idiot to allow them to be readily available for someone's hobby.
    Magical Realist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    What a stupid statement! If the military decided to take over, all the guns we have would be useless, the country would be under their control in in a few days. You clearly have no idea of how powerful our military is. Good luck fighting an apache helicopter with your AR-15.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The way we keep the government in check is electing responsible leaders. OK, so maybe we're screwed....
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Fear of losing your guns also keeps our government tyrannical.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    waterfowl hunting season and I hear:
    And I shout as loud as I can:
    And the person who just fired(or a companion) answers back:
    so semiautomatic/autoloading shotguns are really quite common
    a few years ago, I chanced upon some deer hunters, one of whom I knew
    He had a semiautomatic shotgun with a rifled barrel
    When fitted with a rifled barrel, does a shotgun become a rifle?
    and, by extension a rifled semiautomatic shotgun becomes a semiautomatic rifle
    Would you ban these too?
    I shoot with a rifle that can hold 5 rounds
    I never load more than one
    and that only when I see the intended prey animal
    (personal choice)
    Also, it just may well be that:
    A well armed citizenry is the/it's only defense against tyranny.
    Try as you might, you can not legislate morality.
    Pretending that you would arrive at the same destination through prohibition completely ignores historical evidence.
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
  8. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, there's still no good reason semi-automatic weapons can't be banned.

    And if they come for you, wave as you go past.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Article V:
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

    OK so an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment is possible
    (good luck with that)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I ain't gonna vote for it.
    Vociferous likes this.
  10. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Look how long it took for the Equal Rights Amendment to pass.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The only reason the government can get away with some of the crap it pulls with cars is that there is no Constitutional right to drive.

    And that is not lost on US gun owners. That's one reason so many people don't trust their government to control guns - they suspect it would become another camel's nose matter, the way seat belts and driver's licenses and DUI offenses did. The argument from cars to guns is a threat, to anyone already sensitized to the capricious and arbitrary imposition and enforcement of car regulations. Threaten people, and they will oppose you. It's a tactical error, at best.
    That's a straw man. If you look at how actual tyrannies and despotisms take and keep power, you will not see conquering regular army involved very often. The usual means is death squads and and packs of thugs, drawn from the police and local criminal gangs. (Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Philippines, these places all had armies. The oppression came from the Tonton Macoutes, the death squads, special departments of the National Guard or police, etc) An armed citizenry does present a significant obstacle to this - which is why authoritarian rule always disarms its citizenry, in advance if possible. This was personal experience and family knowledge among those writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I sometimes hear that during deer season and I always think, "well that guy didn't get his deer"!
    No still a shotgun.
    Really? I thought the max round you could hold was 3 for hunting - it varies from state to state of course.
    Ha ha, right the trained, body armored soldiers in tanks with air support from fighters jets are going to never defeat a bunch guys with AR-15s.
    Who is talking about morality? I am talking about keeping weapons of mass killings out of the hands of morons. Country's with out these liberal gun laws do not have the problems we have with mass shootings. It is kind of common sense.
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Personally, I am glad that the government is trying to keep drunk people from driving cars.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Except not, of course, by running transit after bar close.
    And in your gratitude are you willing to overlook - say - random traffic stops of legal, well-behaving drivers without cause for the purpose of running a dog through their cars, searching their records for outstanding warrants, and testing them for impairment ?
    Are you willing to overlook resources and time spent prosecuting people who endangered nobody, while drunks with multiple violations and a record of complete irresponsibility go free if they can afford the best lawyers?
    The latest proposal is to lower the trigger level from .8 to .5, btw - a large fraction of human beings is not detectably impaired at that level, and poses no measurable threat to anyone.
    Strawman argument. Using it casts doubt on one's agenda.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  15. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Only if people voluntarily complied, which criminals don't.
    I just told you that background checks don't hamper criminals, because they're criminals.
    We don't know who is a straw buyer until we find the gun in the wrong hands, usually after a crime.
    The ATF is already informed of multiple guns purchased at the same time, and unless someone is on the ATF/FBI radar, there's no way to tell who is amassing guns.
    Yes, start an investigation after you've already caught the wrong person with a gun, usually after a crime.
    Who is keeping straw man purchases legal?
    Even without a background check, transferring a gun to anyone not allowed to own one is highly illegal, for anyone.
    Like restricting the gun rights of those on a "no fly" list, this Obama policy removed Constitutional rights without due process of law, itself a violation of Constitutional rights. And the ACLU was even against this Obama policy, on those exact grounds.
    Before that, and still, the NICS already covers those "adjudicated" (due process) mentally defective or committed.
    Nope. You're just ignorant. The federal government cannot keep such records because that would be a de facto national gun registry, that would be a first step in any confiscation scheme. The record retention I posted are the requirements for every FFL (gun dealer). So with a court order/probable cause (due process), law enforcement can check those records.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nonsense. It allows prosecution of straw purchases, for example, whether the buyer wants to be prosecuted or not.
    You were wrong about that.
    Everyone who opposes tightening the background checks and extending them to all sales is protecting them from prosecution.
    Knowingly. That's what the background check takes care of.
  17. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    There were six replies waiting for me in this thread this morning, but I will reply to yours.

    There is inherent risk in liberty. I personally don't see any need for a semi-automatic weapon, but I also see no need to deny that privilege for my neighbor. I suppose what it comes down to is whether we trust ourselves as a society to have such liberties, to manage them in a responsible manner. There will always be those who abuse liberty in a harmful manner. Do we want their actions to dictate our freedoms?

    I don't have a problem with background checks, but I see limits in how we can reasonable control gun ownership.
  18. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    How do you think straw purchases are found out?
    It's by finding the gun in the wrongs hands, usually AFTER a crime.
    There you go just making noise again. Oo, oo, oo!
    How do background checks MAKE criminals not buy from straw man purchasers?
    Again, how are you going to keep criminals from avoiding those background checks.
    Person to person sales would still require honesty people complying with the law.
    Do you think people can't sell a gun if they're not at a police station or gun store?
    That's just silly.
    No, it's illegal either way. Knowingly doing so just makes you more legally liable.
    Again, only honest people would comply with any person to person background check.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Of course.
    By deterring straw buyers.
    Only with large penalties attached to non-compliance.
    And with background checks required, you would be knowingly doing so.
    And those who feared the penalties of breaking the law, if the gun were found in a crime (or accident, or concealed carry application, etc).
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Holy Christ on a Pogo Stick are you paranoid and delusional...

    Seriously, if the US Military decided to take over, your precious five round rifle wouldn't do jack shit. You'd piss them off at best, and if it had come to an active military takeover, if you managed to piss them off enough to bother with you, I doubt you'd ever even hear the drone coming before you were dead.

    I'm sorry, but if it came to a warlike action... the average US citizen is fucked if the Military were to disavow their pledge to defend the Citizenry...

    By your logic, then, we should do away with laws regarding drinking and driving, licensing for driving an automobile, and requirements for medical malpractice insurance, because we should just trust that our neighbors are intelligent, caring, and non-malicious people.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Strawman argument.
    That kind of argument renders suspect the entire agenda it is posted to support.
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Holy Christ on a Pogo Stick----------------------sandals long robes and all--------lol

    2 million in the us military including reserves.
    What percentage would enforce tyranny?
    How many citizens would fight for their freedom?
    It seems that over 40 million US citizens are armed

    and then
    circa 1776 Britain had the strongest military-------it was said at that time that only a fool would face the British army in the open field.
    they lost
    (Washington had a secret derived from lessons he learned from his inept leadership as a British officer--------He knew that he did not have to win every battle, what mattered most was that he not loose the army.)
    circa 1960s the us had the strongest military-----------did we win in Vietnam?
    circa 2000s the us had the strongest military----------did we win in Afghanistan? Or Iraq?

    While it seems easy to destroy a country's leadership, conquering the country as a whole seems to be a different matter

    Maybe in some situations size does matter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Maybe not so much so in military affairs.

    that being "said" I am not impressed by my perception of the intelligence of the current "militia types".
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    The USA parades its own Ego about talking about how great its Soldiers are and how they Cant thank them enough for their service etc etc etc.. and on and on it goes.
    yet where the talk becomes the walk ..
    they only pay them about $25,000.00 per year and they under cut their medical cover when they get injured so they cant afford medical treatment or medication incured while they were serving...

    soo quantifying your comment to be their actual words of "we cant change it"
    is in fact a completely different fact.
    it is just a convinient lie that serves their purposes.

    The Patriot Act ?
    A Jury of their Peers ?
    Right of assembly ... Right to gather in public(or private) spaces ?

    whats that law about "Profiting from crime" ?
    yet private prisons "profit from crime"

    a selective excuse that panders to the psychopath...

Share This Page