Bernie Sanders on Guns
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
How about the gun (or fun) restriction people get their regulations in most of the nation in return for no regulations and federal target ranges set up all along the border? Sort of like a reverse DMZ.
The people you save don't value themselves. Are you going to make sure they are eating their vegetables too?
What exactly are the regulations? I do like the last part. Side note: I would bet that the Texan's that are pissed about Jade Helm would be fine with it (JH) if it took place a few hundred miles south.
How do you figure? You think the victims are all gang related suicides? And veggies are key, we should do more to prioritize them in the American diet.
I think the last bill in congress put up additional buying restrictions for mentally ill and people convicted of stalking which of course meant this was included in a wider background check. I'll let those who care more outline their specific ideas. This isn't near the top of my issues and I have trouble keeping up with it. Like was the gun show loophole ever closed? I recall that was a big push some time ago but I don't recall any victory lap by the gun control people so I assumed that failed too.
I'm not up on all of the 2nd amendment stuff either (I'm a 3rd amendment guy like BAB) but I'm fine with those things. We got a deal.
People who have been involuntarily committed already are prohibited. There is just no National data base so the checks can be made. The NRA has asked for that change but no luck yet. If you have a restraining order against you you also cannot purchase a gun. That won't help if you already have guns, you just can't buy new ones. But that would be the way all of the laws would be.
The "Gun Show Loophole" gets lots of press, but it really isn't what the are calling it. All dealers, when they sell a gun are required to follow the same laws in a gun show that they would in their own shops. Private sellers on the other hand, do not have to and cannot by law have access to background checks.This is true in a gun show, in a parking lot or in their own home. Some states however require all private transactions to go through a FFL dealer. They then run the background checks. It just depends on the State laws. All internet sales that are shipped across a State line need to be handled by a FFL dealer. As a mater of fact, I cannot ship my shotgun to my son in Indiana without shipping it to a FFL dealer.
The thing about all of these regulations is they depend on the people buying the guns or shipping the guns to follow them. Most gun enthusiast will want to abide by the laws even if they don't agree with them. Criminals on the other hand could not care less if they are following gun regulations. They can buy, sell, trade, or steal guns anyway the please.
we could be the same person. they used to say me and steven Patrick were the same. on here, or something.
Actually, it pretty clearly makes the point that criminals do not and will not respect gun laws. As to sealing down the borders, really? Seems like there has been something in the news lately about our borders being sieves. We can't keep an army of 8-year-olds out...I am sure we will be able to set up some sort of anti-gun force field though. No, you are right, nothing illegal ever comes across our borders once we create laws and regulations and devote immense resources to stop it...I think all our cocaine comes from somewhere in Indiana.
Other countries have less gun deaths because most do not have the inner-city gang issues that we do. Take those out of the statistics and suddenly we are pretty much right in line with the rest of the industrialized world. There are many reasons for our gang issues, but availability of firearms is not what is causing the ignorance, poverty, lack of direction, and hopelessness that fuels that violence.
Please stop being stupid and haphazard with one of our most important and fundamental constitutional rights. Or, build a time machine and go back and keep guns from being invented.
Failing to enforce the existing regulations does not mean they are failing. it's means they aren't being enforced, and that the people tasked to enforce them are failing at their jobs.
This idea we have in this country with stacking new laws up on existing laws, rather than choosing to simply enforce the existing laws is a gigantic problem.
I have a novel idea. Let's actually attempt to enforce the gun laws already on the books.
Then explain how gun violence is at a 40 year low, and the numbers started to drop significantly, once regulations were loosened, rather than tightened?
I agree with much of this.
But you wanna know the most painful reality that every American (left, right and middle) is in denial of?
FREEDOM is messy. And AMBITION complicates the equation. You put freedom and ambition in the same room and you're gonna get some good old fashion envy-driven violence.
America is more free than most places. And America is definitely more ambitious than most places. We had to race the nazis to build an atomic bomb. We had a space race with the russians. We have an arms race with everyone. We have a race to cure cancer and every other disease.
I mean shit we are in a lot of races. And we win a lot of races. But the fantasy of increasing freedom and decreasing violence in a society with a slavish devotion to ambition will never be realized. People need to come to terms with that and ask that we at least respect the rule of law. The rule of law is our best hope for a successful future.
Even when other countries do something better?
Of course, you're right. Too many stupidly stubborn people in the GOP. They'd rather do something poorly their way than admit there's a better way and change what we do. 'Merica!
I probably would lean further towards a complete ban on guns. It is just how i am wired. I grew up in a family that had many dedicated hunters and no issues of any kind, at least of which i know. I think Sanders is already on a very reasonable path for a national discussion of firearm regulation. His next area of rhetoric will hopefully just focus on handguns and severely limiting their availability as it would play into his view of the needs of hunters vs the needs of urban vermin. Its a good place to start.
Prove that they do it "better". Preferably do so without cherry-picking statistics, ignoring differing social and geopolitical structures, misrepresenting opponent positions, arguing from emotion, or being wildly ignorant of historical context and precedent.
Health care for one. Better overall health for a much larger portion of the population at a rate that is far more affordable. They live longer and have better infant mortality rates. Prescription drugs and procedures are far cheaper than they are here. I could go on, but you should know the story. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr...ked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/
Internet service. Internet is faster and is cheaper than here in the States. http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/ and http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383
Mass Transit. We have no high speed rail here and air travel in the US is a completely miserable experience. http://www.cfr.org/infrastructure/transportation-infrastructure-moving-america/p18611
I could name several others. Hate to break it to ya, but the US isn't number one in everything. Far from it. The fact that so many people refuse to accept this for fear of being labled "hating America" is a big part of what keeps it this way. You can't fix something if you refuse to see that it's broken, or at least not working as well as it should. That and too many cheap bastards don't like paying for anything.
Sorry, maybe I was unclear, but I was talking specifically about guns and your position that the US is a statistical outlier simply because of a lack of gun control initiatives and/or too much reverence for the second amendment. On the other issues you bring up though, I find a lot to disagree with, but that would be for another thread (or several others).
From what I can gather, after scanning through this country's history, the fact that "other countries do it" is usually a guarantee that this country can't. It may be part of the deal, pert of the bargain, part of the contract of having the USA! We are a mix of them ALL. So, from almost every perspective, our society is going to be harder to fit into the "other country" mold.
I wonder why so many Americans, who claim to prefer and want systems that European countries have, don't just move there! It would seem a helluva lot easier. I would live in Canada myself if it weren't so damned cold.
Just curious...how did the "regulations" work out that should have prevented the South Carolina shooter from getting a gun recently?
Even when there are rules and regulations in place to stop something...to then rely on monstrous bureaucracy to effectively stop bad acts is pure folly. And yes, I agree, Cod is spanking them...again!
Even when there are rules and regulations in place to stop something...to then rely on monstrous bureaucracy to effectively stop bad acts is pure folly. And yes, I agree, Cod is spanking them...again!
Why would you not avail yourself of a tool just because it wasn't 100% effective? Odd reasoning IMO.
That's true, that country is on the verge of splitting up along North/South lines. We aren't like them at all.
I never said that lack of gun control initiatives and/or too much reverence for the second amendment was the only reason the US is a statistical outlier. But to deny that there is any difference, or to simply disregard that difference, isn't being honest either. If gun availability is not a cause for the difference, then what is?
*I just saw the post where you said gang violence was so I addressed it in the next post.
Last edited:
Good point. Gang issues certainly contribute and I would agree that they are the primary cause for the statistics. How do you fix the gang problems? The most effective way would be to reduce poverty. Provide other opportunities for survival other than crime. Of course, most of the policies that are needed to fix these problems are also blocked by the same people who see any type of regulation, which is provided for in the second amendment by the way, as putting a blow torch to the constitution.
"BioHawk I'd just killing it in this thread!"
It's hilarious how you all have to cheerlead your team. Probably wise not to try to talk for yourselves.
It's hilarious how you all have to cheerlead your team. Probably wise not to try to talk for yourselves.
Good grief just learn how to bow out gracefully next time and save yourself the embarrassment.
Where you see "availing yourself of a tool", I see a loss of freedom and an increase in subjection to an already corrupt, inefficient, and politically bent apparatus. That's why.
But my primary point is that there are already were laws to prevent such a thing...and they just didn't work.
So would you support more money to enforce existing law? Governor Nikki Haley said the Feds need to invest in a database and technology to make the current laws work. Are you in favor or do you prefer a crippled system? Why do you see keeping guns out of the hands of those who can't handle them a loss of freedom? I bet I could name 9 in SC who disagree.
I think you are missing my point...deliberately or accidentally, I cannot tell and putting words in my mouth. In your opinion, what would more money do to address the situation that happened to the SC shooter? It was a human error...which you are not going to eliminate, IMO, with more money.
So, no, given what I have read so far about the SC screwup, more money wouldn't have changed anything. Someone, or perhaps more than one someone, did not enter the right information into the database that they already had. If just spending more money on something led to people not making mistakes...well then let's talk.
Nikki Haley suggested if the Feds went from a paper to electronic system it would have prevented the situation. Are you on board now?
The gang issues and poverty problems are a whole different discussion, and they are obviously not easily solved due to the complexity of the issues and the politics involved. I would just say that in going about addressing the issues of poverty and gang violence, there are many, many steps to consider before abridging the constitutional rights of the vast majority of law abiding citizens in relation to gun rights. The framers didn't include the second amendment on a whim (and put it directly after the freedom of speech, the press, religion, and association). They recognized that you do not long keep the first amendment without the second also being in place. I know most Americans today consider it a crazy notion that an armed populace is a check on government, but I would posit that we have become a pretty coddled society that has been fortunate to exist in one of the very few places in time and history where the specter of tyranny can appear so far away and improbable and this has led us to have a much more cavalier attitude toward many of the fundamental rights that were so hard won and visionary at our founding, the right to keep and bear arms being one such example.
Latest posts
-
OABCIG to Super Bowl TD: DeJean Integral to Eagles' Championship
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-
-