Reply With Quote
That's a different issue. Words matter. I guess electing reps that can get done is important as well. You're saying the other team keeps your team from winning. "Yay us! We got assault weapons banned" Gun owner: "This isn't an assault weapon per your description so I picked up two. It will hold the same magazines and fire at the same rate as the 'assault weapon', only it doesn't have the bayonet lug. I cannot bayonet people". Words matter.
Now you're talking about insurance but the discussion is about registration.Of course it is like that. A license plate scan is not going to tell the cop if your car insurance is up to date, for example, yet most people do have their insurance up to date because they don't want to lose the privilege of driving.
400 million firearms, these aren't consumable items. They aren't going away. If you cannot add them to the database and attach them to an owner, you're dead in the water. Also, as I pointed out before, you'd have to do away with the FOPA which opens more cans than you can close (like subguns).Every weapon has a serial number specifically for tracking purposes. If part of the regulation that needs to happen is progressively add every weapon into the NFA registry, then that's what needs to happen. The NFA also already makes it a felony to buy or posses weapons with that number removed. That would indeed make every person who owns or wants to transport, buy or sell a gun to be liable if not registered. We don't need to go back and register older guns (though I don't see a problem with that, if, for example, you want to transport those weapons). It's something that will happen over time for people that legally own guns.
How many people get pulled over with a firearm in their vehicle? The shooter didn't get pulled over. You're not going to make a dent in 400m firearms by searching vehicles after getting permission to do so (illegal search and seizure is still a thing). Even if you did a million a year, you'd need 400 years to get them all.As far as enforcement, nobody is saying you have to break or enter anywhere. You get pulled over and an unregistered gun is found in your vehicle, then it gets confiscated, and proceeds just like what happens with enforcing any illegal act. Same thing if it's found during a security check in the airport, or a frisk on an event, etc.
4th, unless you want to get a warrant. 2nd, unless you think tying a financial anchor to firearms in hopes that people won't buy them is simply a infringement, and not only that but it affects citizens disproportionately so possibly the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment. You can go for a majority to overturn those.Please enumerate which cons utional rights are violated here. I can think of zero so far.
Basically this is going to come down to our opinions.
I didn't say the NFA was confusing. Yes the NFA is pretty clear. I cannot buy a newly manufactured subgun but I can buy a pre-1986 transferrable one, pay a 200 dollar tax stamp and have even a belt fed, mounted machine gun, a 249 SAW, even a minigun. So what the NFA did was add the tax stamp. Much of subsequent revision was to protect the owner from criminal charges. It was FOPA that added the ban to manufacturing for sale to the public. It's not difficult to understand, but I'd bet even you had to go read it on the fly. That's fine and good, but the NFA has nothing to do with assault weapons (which aren't even real things, just a buzzword made up by opponents of the 2A). Assault rifles are covered under the NFA, but they are automatic weapons.We need to get to a draft of a law for this to even become moderately relevant, until then this is all irrelevant chatter.
If we were to take an example, the NFA doesn't appear to be confusing as you claim, so we have an example there where actual gun regulation is pretty clear on what it targets and means.
All regulations are legal, but they might not be cons utional. Don't confuse DC vs er to mean that, because the 2nd isn't unlimited, the infringements can also be unlimited.Based on what? Again, we have and had in the past firearm regulation that is/was perfectly legal. If there's one thing about er is that the SCOTUS itself admitted the 2nd Amendment is not beyond regulation, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't outright deny citizens with the possession of firearms.
It's in bent upon the powers that be to not just "do something" but to do something effective and meaningful. They've always been doing something.Will anything that passes be challenged in court? I expect nothing less. That's not an excuse to do nothing.
You attempted to define the right, I am telling you that's how many voters feel. You might be referring to officials but the right isn't just politicians. It is too late in Uvalde to try something else. When is it not too late? That "no deadline" mentality is why we won't change. We have 350m people, plenty human fodder to stave off any real pressure."Want to be left alone" is not a solution to this problem. Sorry. We tried that, for decades, as you mention, and we're always back in the same place. That hasn't worked. It's never late to try something else.
Hasn't happened with gun regulation, which is what we are discussing.This happens with every regulation. It's a cat and mouse game, and most of the time new regulations are needed and enacted to close those loopholes. Happened with Obamacare as well, and almost every regulation out there.
If the goal is to say you did something, fine. I prefer a goal of protecting the asset, not chasing down the nebulous plasma of up and coming attackers via Minority Report scheme. Ideologue ideas of what we want others to pass vs what can be done locally. It would be nice if both could happen but likely neither happens, especially in poor schools along the border.Again, this can't be used as an excuse to do nothing. It's very likely that if a regulation even comes to pass, it will be far from perfect, and will need updates. This is pretty common in every realm.
The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about, a distraction. It must be the guns. Certainly nothing the left supports fuels any of it. So much for being a multifaceted issue.I've yet to see a single draft or proposal that outright bans the possession of guns from common citizens (from "the left" or anywhere else). I personally wouldn't be onboard with that. IMO, this is another ridiculous boogeyman that doesn't exist, that's used as a crutch to do nothing. It's the whole slippery-slope thing.
The rest, whether he livestreamed, or wrote a manifesto, or used to be a Bernie supporter, or had a pedicure before murdering people... distractions to talk about something else instead of the problem at hand.
I am not going to haggle with you over the definition of war. The point you dodged by using the "but that's war" was the US dumping resources into Ukraine while ignoring the slayings in our own country. This is where you said money isn't the issue but it certainly is. Otherwise we could fortify schools quite easily. Instead, another from the left here asked "what's the budget?".Hey Blake, it's not a money problem, it's a policy and stupid dogma problem.
lol no it isn't. They live in a society that's supposed to protect them, because they don't have the mental capacity, much less the training to "fight back" against a dude shooting up with two AR-15s.
With children specifically it's all about prevention, not reaction. And prevention doesn't mean 100% success rate, because that's utopic, but at least reducing the damage as much as possible.
We're not preventing anything by reacting by calling for change from groups we know aren't listening. Prevention is done before this happens, not after. It's not like we thought Sandy Hook would never happen again.
It's a poor area with dilapidated schools and services. If your excuse for ignoring that and instead focusing on another country's struggles, that's the real side step made by using "but it's a war" excuse. Why does another country's war take precedence over our own children? Both result in deaths of innocents.What I mentioned is the type of thing people in Ukraine, which is the actual warzone you brought up, have to deal with every day. But this highlights that it was a terrible example. Nobody in their right mind thinks Uvalde, TX is or was any kind of warzone.
Don't hold your breath.Would be good one day to see what a conservative bill for gun regulation looks like. I'm hoping Mitch wasn't bluffing when he said he wanted Conryn to talk to Dems to come up with something to address this.
That's bull . The left hasn't proven a single time that they are capable of doing anything, and this discussion has solidified that fact between you and I.But, until then, "the left" is all we have to try to meaningfully address this in a legal manner, as flawed as it might be.
