prices for "assault rifles"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well here is my ideas for curbing gun crime.

Economics- Gun crime in general can be linked to poverty. The economically depressed often are forced to turn to crime. We need to get the economy resurrected again....the economy that allows for a rising tide that raises all ships, not just some ships. We can have that debate without wading into a discussion on stripping away the Bill of Rights.

Crime- We can certainly do some criminal justice reform. I am all for ending the drug war. It worked for prohibition. The ending of prohibition along with a stabilization of the American economy(to a degree) did more to curb violent crime than the 1934 NFA.

Foreign Policy- We need to stop fighting wars we either A. Should not be involved in and B. Ones we are not willing to properly see an end to. This of course will help curb recruitment of terrorists as we will win the peace along with the war. We can tie this to more stringent and efficient immigration policies. We need a less porous system and we probably should re institute quotas for certain regions of the world with terrorism/massive organized crime problems.

Mental Health- In the 1960's instead of fixing our system of mental health institutions, we simply shut them down. People that were dangerous and used to be removed from society were being put back out there with little or no treatment or oversight. Those that seek help often find themselves out in the cold. We have a lot of depressed, anxious, and desperate people out there these days. They lose hope and some of them snap and lose their minds. Along the way they may have sought help and not found any...so when they go off their rocker, they lash out hurting themselves and/or others.

All of these problems are known social and economic drivers of violence. If we fix some or all of them we will see a much steeper drop in gun crime which is already down 50% from its peak in 1993. About half of all gun related deaths are suicides. Around 1% is mass shootings. We should probably start trying to cure the disease (drivers) instead of just treating the symptoms (gun control)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

F**** you and everyone in Great Britain. I will not lower myself to attempting to reason with your insanity. F**** you. I don't need your permission to have the ability to defend myself or my family from either criminal activity or tyranny.

If Great Britain wants America's guns, come and take them. Or do I need to remind you what happened last time you tried that?


.
 
Robenstein - all good points. I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

For all ... what about people who are identified as having possible terrorist ties or some kind of violent agenda? In the old days, people who made threats and spewed about killing people, etc were essentially ignored because a "He must just be blowing off steam or just kidding about it" kind of attitude existed. Law enforcement would say "Hey, he hasn't done anything so we can't do anything".

Should they be given legal 'due process' in order to officially put them on a watch list to try and prevent them from owning or buying guns? As I said before, maybe it wouldn't matter if they couldn't buy guns legally or not, as they will always find a way if they are that syco about conducting a mass killing. But making it more difficult through the legal channels of obtaining a gun may result in preventing some of this crazy mass shooting (and other crime) from happening.

It just seems like a better idea to try and identify and possibly stop someone that raises the right red flags instead of waiting until something happens. Too late then except to look back and realize all the signs that were there and what might be done in the future to prevent it from happening again. Every time there's a mass shooting, that is the process that seems to happen.

I believe any logical thinking gun owner would agree that keeping guns out of the wrong hands without infringing on the 2nd amendment for those who deserve to own guns is what the ultimate goal is ... but is it even possible? Sure doesn't seem like it. Good people need to protect themselves because bad people will always exist - I think everyone agrees on that. I always liked this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5WrYMcaKfQ#t=163.32424

Maybe going back to the 1800s 'Old West' days where almost everyone packed a gun is the way to go. That would be interesting ...
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I believe any logical thinking gun owner would agree that keeping guns out of the wrong hands without infringing on the 2nd amendment for those who deserve to own guns is what the ultimate goal is ... but is it even possible?


In a single word, NO. If there is one thing that has been proven without any doubt what so ever, it is the FACT you cannot give a single inch to the anti gun crowd, without them trying to take a mile. A perfect example of this was the old, "Assault Weapons Ban". It existed for a full decade from 1994 until 2004 when it expired.

It was proven, and even many anti gun politicians admitted, that it did absolutely NOTHING to lower the crime rate with guns. Now, fast forward to today. The liberal anti gun crowd led by Obama & Co. want to reinstate it. Why would they want to reinstate a law we've already tried, and was proven by their own admission not to work? If that in itself doesn't defy logic all the way to stupid, I don't know what does.

The fact of the matter is it bans guns, and that is what they want. They could care less about the crime rate. If they did they wouldn't be stupid enough to support a gun law that, like so many, has PROVEN TO FAIL. Again, this has nothing to do with "public safety", and everything to do with banning guns. Gun ownership does not fit into the liberal, Democratic socialist agenda anywhere. If it did you would not see such complete foolishness displayed by them in this regard. The socialist liberal Democrats in power in Chicago have all the gun control they could possibly want. It is some of the strictest in the entire nation. Yet the south side of that city is a public slaughterhouse. They have done nothing, and will continue to do nothing to stop it. Does that even remotely sound like leadership that is genuinely concerned about the safety and welfare of the public they're in charge of?
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing.

It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.


What? This sensible question never appeared to be answered.

Shocking.


No it really means most liberals are under educated when it comes to the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendment that the Democrats insist on destroying....wise up idiots. And I mean you guys are real idiots.


If you can't comment without name calling, then don't comment at all. I asked to keep it civil.

So how does the 5th and 14 amendment protect people from better background checks and suspected terrorists from not legally buying guns. Buying and owning guns has many associated qualifiers defined by gun laws. Having better background checks should certainly not infringe on the people who deserve to own guns, only on those who don't. And allowing possible terrorists from easily obtaining weapons in this country seems pretty asinine.


see you just made my point.....due process...go look it up duh..people like you are the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to own computers without a high school equivalency test. DUH!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
You cannot have an individual right abridged or revoked without due process. That is basic legal 101. It is the reason the ACLU has been after the watchlist system for years. As it exists now, there is no clear cut reasons that qualify you to get on the list. It is indeed rather subjective. Indeed Senator Ted Kennedy got on it for a while and even little kids have been stuck on it. While Kennedy could call up the Justice Department and chew butt until he was off it, there is no way to challenge being listed for the average citizen. Therefore if you are put on a list and denied guns as it is, you are guilty until presumed innocent and there is no system in place that allows you to prove your innocence.

With how many cases of innocent people being stuck on the watchlist system, it is THE LAST thing you want tied to any rights, let alone gun rights.





This is the entire concern of those that understand the importance of our Bill of Rights. You've illustrated it very well and simply.

Why can't the "press", when reporting the rejection by the Republicans of the last proposal, give the same explanation?? Why, when in question and answer sessions with the press, aren't the Democrats asked these tough questions instead of letting them ramble on about how the other side (and the NRA) is somehow "responsible" for the violence? What happened to a REAL press? What happened to a populace that can think for themselves?

Very sad.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Why can't the "press", when reporting the rejection by the Republicans of the last proposal, give the same explanation?? Why, when in question and answer sessions with the press, aren't the Democrats asked these tough questions instead of letting them ramble on about how the other side (and the NRA) is somehow "responsible" for the violence? What happened to a REAL press?


The press in this country is vehemently slanted far left, with MSNBC being the worst. They will always tarnish the conservative point of view. Going as far as to report false statistics to do so. Especially when it involves guns. For example, CBS reported a poll last night of 1,000 people that 57% now favor an Assault Weapons Ban.

That's pure nonsense. Who did they poll? Certainly not a cross section of the country. They don't like guns anymore than the liberal left does. Because they're part of it. The only exception to a point is Fox News. And even they have a lot of left leaning broadcasters like Butch Kelly, Juan Williams, and Greta Van Sustren.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
LOL

Faux News, the voice of reason

crackmeup2.gif



Better than CNN much of the time, but yes....also, nearly void of a REAL press where reporters ask the tough, relevant questions. They do have a few really good reporters and also allow the left to be a part of the regular broadcasts.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Why can't the "press", when reporting the rejection by the Republicans of the last proposal, give the same explanation?? Why, when in question and answer sessions with the press, aren't the Democrats asked these tough questions instead of letting them ramble on about how the other side (and the NRA) is somehow "responsible" for the violence? What happened to a REAL press?


The press in this country is vehemently slanted far left, with MSNBC being the worst. They will always tarnish the conservative point of view. Going as far as to report false statistics to do so. Especially when it involves guns. For example, CBS reported a poll last night of 1,000 people that 57% now favor an Assault Weapons Ban.

That's pure nonsense. Who did they poll? Certainly not a cross section of the country. They don't like guns anymore than the liberal left does. Because they're part of it. The only exception to a point is Fox News. And even they have a lot of left leaning broadcasters like Butch Kelly, Juan Williams, and Greta Van Sustren.


I just want facts and truth to be given on issues we hear about on a daily basis. I'm tired of all the slant.

Just report the news...the facts...fairly describe the different views of the story....and stop manipulating the public.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Better than CNN much of the time, but yes....also, nearly void of a REAL press where reporters ask the tough, relevant questions. They do have a few really good reporters and also allow the left to be a part of the regular broadcasts.


The best thing about Fox News is how much the liberals whine about it. So you know, just based on that, they must be doing something right. The more the left complains about Fox, the better I like them. Trump all but lives on O'Reilly, while the Hildabeast won't go near him. If they don't throw softballs at her, she runs from them like a rabbit.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Just report the news...the facts...fairly describe the different views of the story....and stop manipulating the public.


That will NEVER happen. I think the old Soviet TASS News Agency was more truthful and realistic than our current left wing press could ever hope to be on it's best day.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
..... not infringe on the people who deserve to own guns, only on those who don't. And allowing possible terrorists from easily obtaining weapons in this country seems pretty asinine.


Gun ownership is a right, not something that is "deserved" or undeserved, so your argument begins from a false premise.

Denying a "possible terrorist" ( however that might be defined, which by itself will be problematic ), not otherwise a prohibited person, the right to buy a gun begins as a dubious proposition because of due process's companion, equal protection.

Assuming that problem can be surmounted, the only due process that seems tolerable to me would be someting like this: the affected person gets a preliminary hearing within forty eight hours of being declined; the burden of proof is on the government to show that the desired gun will be used in a crime, and that burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence - the highest civil standard. And that gun needs to be waiting in the courtroom so the person can walk out with it after they win - otherwise, the government will just drum up another pretext to stop delivery of the weapon and violate the right, and the process will be repeated ad infinutum. They also need to have a checkbook ready to pay the person's legal feres - also on the spot.

The government, of course, and many legislators who are utterly and completely unfit to hold elected office, simply want to put people on a secret list, without menaningful recourse, and obliterate fundamental rights. Give that enough time, probably won't take long, and everybody that hasn't already bought a gun will be on that list.

Totally unacceptable. These secrets lists should scare anybody who values freedom.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
LOL

Faux News, the voice of reason

crackmeup2.gif



Liberals have no voice of reason......look at MSNBC....total mental illness
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Just report the news...the facts...fairly describe the different views of the story....and stop manipulating the public.


That will NEVER happen. I think the old Soviet TASS News Agency was more truthful and realistic than our current left wing press could ever hope to be on it's best day.
The political class knows the majority of voters are lemming like idiots.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Just report the news...the facts...fairly describe the different views of the story....and stop manipulating the public.


That will NEVER happen. I think the old Soviet TASS News Agency was more truthful and realistic than our current left wing press could ever hope to be on it's best day.
The political class knows the majority of voters are lemming like idiots.


Yes, you are right.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't want to start a huge argument, but I want to hear the reasons why having better background checks and not allowing suspected terrorist from buying guns is such a bad thing.

It doesn't sound to me that these laws would have taken guns away from people or prevent people who are 'good citizens' from buying a gun. Keep it civil.


No it really means most liberals are under educated when it comes to the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendment that the Democrats insist on destroying....wise up idiots. And I mean you guys are real idiots.


If you can't comment without name calling, then don't comment at all. I asked to keep it civil.

So how does the 5th and 14 amendment protect people from better background checks and suspected terrorists from not legally buying guns. Buying and owning guns has many associated qualifiers defined by gun laws. Having better background checks should certainly not infringe on the people who deserve to own guns, only on those who don't. And allowing possible terrorists from easily obtaining weapons in this country seems pretty asinine.


see you just made my point.....due process...go look it up duh..people like you are the reason liberals shouldn't be allowed to own computers without a high school equivalency test. DUH!


Your responses are so childish. We're trying to have an adult conversation here, so either act like it or don't respond at all.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
..... not infringe on the people who deserve to own guns, only on those who don't. And allowing possible terrorists from easily obtaining weapons in this country seems pretty asinine.


Gun ownership is a right, not something that is "deserved" or undeserved, so your argument begins from a false premise.


Gun ownership may start out as a right, but there are laws in place today (and have been for decades) that strip that right away from people under certain conditions. If it was a 100% un-infringed right, then felons and others identified today as not able to own or buy firearms would still be able to do so. That's not the case. The 2nd amendment has already turned into who can and who can't posses guns based on laws. As time goes on, and more and more tragedies occur by mass shooters, it's just logical that laws will try to be made to close the loops to further try to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Originally Posted By: Win
Denying a "possible terrorist" ( however that might be defined, which by itself will be problematic ), not otherwise a prohibited person, the right to buy a gun begins as a dubious proposition because of due process's companion, equal protection.

Assuming that problem can be surmounted, the only due process that seems tolerable to me would be someting like this: the affected person gets a preliminary hearing within forty eight hours of being declined; the burden of proof is on the government to show that the desired gun will be used in a crime, and that burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence - the highest civil standard. And that gun needs to be waiting in the courtroom so the person can walk out with it after they win - otherwise, the government will just drum up another pretext to stop delivery of the weapon and violate the right, and the process will be repeated ad infinutum. They also need to have a checkbook ready to pay the person's legal feres - also on the spot.

The government, of course, and many legislators who are utterly and completely unfit to hold elected office, simply want to put people on a secret list, without menaningful recourse, and obliterate fundamental rights. Give that enough time, probably won't take long, and everybody that hasn't already bought a gun will be on that list.

Totally unacceptable. These secrets lists should scare anybody who values freedom.


I agree that if there was a watch list and for those to be stripped of their right to buy/own guns, there would have to be some very good legal reasons why people end up on the list. Just like a no-fly list, people could argue that those people's rights were stripped away. But on the other hand I highly doubt those same people would feel comfortable flying knowing that people raising those red flags were sitting next to them on an airplane.

What I see happening is a lack of responsible gun owners from supporting or thinking up good ways to keep guns in their own hands and out of those who shouldn't have them. As a gun owner I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't want guns in the wrong hands either if that can be accomplished.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I believe any logical thinking gun owner would agree that keeping guns out of the wrong hands without infringing on the 2nd amendment for those who deserve to own guns is what the ultimate goal is ... but is it even possible?


In a single word, NO. If there is one thing that has been proven without any doubt what so ever, it is the FACT you cannot give a single inch to the anti gun crowd, without them trying to take a mile. A perfect example of this was the old, "Assault Weapons Ban". It existed for a full decade from 1994 until 2004 when it expired.

It was proven, and even many anti gun politicians admitted, that it did absolutely NOTHING to lower the crime rate with guns. Now, fast forward to today. The liberal anti gun crowd led by Obama & Co. want to reinstate it. Why would they want to reinstate a law we've already tried, and was proven by their own admission not to work? If that in itself doesn't defy logic all the way to stupid, I don't know what does.

The fact of the matter is it bans guns, and that is what they want. They could care less about the crime rate. If they did they wouldn't be stupid enough to support a gun law that, like so many, has PROVEN TO FAIL. Again, this has nothing to do with "public safety", and everything to do with banning guns. Gun ownership does not fit into the liberal, Democratic socialist agenda anywhere. If it did you would not see such complete foolishness displayed by them in this regard. The socialist liberal Democrats in power in Chicago have all the gun control they could possibly want. It is some of the strictest in the entire nation. Yet the south side of that city is a public slaughterhouse. They have done nothing, and will continue to do nothing to stop it. Does that even remotely sound like leadership that is genuinely concerned about the safety and welfare of the public they're in charge of?


I agree ... there is probably no good answer. And also I'm not for banning any existing guns ... I'm for banning the wrong people from having guns. Guns don't kill people, the wrong people behind the guns kill people.

I agree that the whole focus on banning AR-15s for example is useless, as any semi-auto rifle with multiple high capacity magazines will do the same thing. It just so happens that the AR-15 is the rifle that fits that bill more than any on the market and the one used in all the mass shootings ... so therefore, it gets full attention from those who think it's the gun's fault.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: surfstar
LOL

Faux News, the voice of reason

crackmeup2.gif



Liberals have no voice of reason......look at MSNBC....total mental illness


I don't watch any TV news. Its better that way. I always wonder why people still do whenever I happen to see/hear it on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom