|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 14 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 14 2016 00:14 Mohdoo wrote:Sanders says he will meet with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he will meet with his rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda, saying he wants to know what she will stand for if she becomes president.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Sanders did not concede he had lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Clinton, who is leading in Democratic primaries and is the party's presumed nominee.
Sanders said he and Clinton would discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."
"What I need to see (is) a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," he said, saying corporations and billionaires should pay higher tax rates.
He repeated his stance that he would do "everything I can" to ensure Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, will not become president.
Sanders said he wanted to see Clinton embrace his view that healthcare should be a universal right in America and public universities should offer education for free.
"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country."
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0S2 Should be an easy talk since most of Bernies core policies are already in the Clinton platform, just taken less far but with a more solid basis of viability. Doubt it will help the Bernie or Bust group tho. Would expect them to see it as Bernie selling out rather then as Clinton being acceptable for now. The election is in 6 months. There will always be burned earth strategy extremist who would rather see Trump than Hillary in the White House (or don't care), but I am confident most his supporters will eventually rally her.
Yeah, people really underestimate the power of attrition. Politics gets people riled up. It's extremely emotional. But people's emotions are not fixed. They change over time and I really do think Clinton and the democratic party want to hold Bernie's supporters. They realize this is unique and that Clinton didn't win by a land slide.
|
On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal?
I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside.
|
|
|
On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside.
I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall.
I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal.
|
On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal.
I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal.
|
On June 14 2016 00:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:Freedom of association and freedom of speech are still things, as well as the right to a timely fair trial and not to be held forever. On paper it might sound great to you to be able to just lock people up for associating with terrorists, or who you perceive to be terrorists. But that's a very nebulous rule, who gets to define the "terrorist" in this? Someone has to be the ultimate arbiter on that, and that person will not be the arbiter forever. Over time the definition gets broadened to include these suspected evil people as well, power gets handed to the next guy who's always had a problem with these people. No one has a problem when it's their own team calling the shots, but it won't be your team forever, and then what? Are you suddenly going to realize that this was a terrible idea to give so much power so broadly away when it's too late? It's way too open ended, way too much of a slippery slope, you will never reign that power in once you let it go, ever. It's like the FBI watch list issue. There's a super nebulous list out there that you don' know if you're on or not and its virtually impossible to be removed from, that there's no clearly defined definition for being put on, essentially having no oversight and that's not concerning at all? I'm pro reasonable gun control and even I think that's way too open ended and exploitable to use solely to deny people guns! Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 23:44 Plansix wrote:
What is being discussed has echoes to the McCarthy hearings on known communist supporters and sympathizers. Pretty much this. This seems really short sighted. It also reminds me of the Patriot Act, you've got nothing to hide, right?
And lets forget that the Patriot Act and “do what is necessary to stop terrorist” lead to the NSA data collections practices. And discovering that lead to every tech company having a terrible relationship with the current government. Which has not helped our efforts to these things before they happen.
|
On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal.
Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal.
|
On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal.
It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed.
|
On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal.
The FBI and companies track that information. If you randomly buy a huge amount of federalize or something else that they know can be built into an explosive, you will likely get someone’s attention. The sad fact is that explosives and other materials are more likely to get someone’s attention than an assault rifle.
|
On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside.
You do realize that all guns are war weapons? My cousins hunt with WW2 era rifles that our grandfathers used in the war. a 1911 model hand gun is still the most deadly and reliable handgun and its literally from 1911 (it is 45 caliber to be fair). we could regulate based on caliber size but the main gun the guy used was .223 which isn't far from a .22 caliber boy scout kind of rifle.
So more specifically what do you mean war weapons?
On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed.
Semi-automatic fire is already one shot one pull. You can't unallow that its just impossible.
I made a quick google search on making your gun fully auto and it scared the shit out of me. maybe banning the ar-15 platform is a good thing. there will still be a ton out in the wild but attrition yadda yadda yadda.
|
On June 14 2016 01:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal. The FBI and companies track that information. If you randomly buy a huge amount of federalize or something else that they know can be built into an explosive, you will likely get someone’s attention. The sad fact is that explosives and other materials are more likely to get someone’s attention than an assault rifle.
It wouldn't be wise to buy bulk quantities of that stuff at once. However, isis and terrorists are crafty and are willing to play the long game. You could buy small increments of the necessary ingredients over a large period of time and would be less likely to be tracked.
|
On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal.
My understanding is that it is significantly harder to pull off a bombing when compared to a shooting. Perhaps that is wrong. It seems like the trouble associated with a bombing is much higher.
Edit: As for where to draw the line with guns, I don't know. But what I do know is that a group of experts would be able to come together to isolate what constitutes excessive killing capability. I would guess that there are guns which are distinguished and that a group of experts could determine what makes these guns distinguished and then create a set of rules aimed at preventing distinguished guns from being sold to civilians. I think there is thought to be had and decisions to be made. We can collect more information and make decisions. Closing the door to investigation should not happen.
|
On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed.
Unfortunately, some things are not preventable. Sawed off shotguns and silencers are illegal too but people still have the means to do it. I don't see any feasible way to prevent it either.
On June 14 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:
My understanding is that it is significantly harder to pull off a bombing when compared to a shooting. Perhaps that is wrong. It seems like the trouble associated with a bombing is much higher.
It is easier to get an assault rifle right now if you don't have a criminal record. However, i don't think making an explosive would be hard enough if they were forced to resort to those methods.
|
You can buy silencers. At least in utah. You have to pass a check and get a permit from the feds.
|
On June 14 2016 01:38 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:34 Plansix wrote:On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal. The FBI and companies track that information. If you randomly buy a huge amount of federalize or something else that they know can be built into an explosive, you will likely get someone’s attention. The sad fact is that explosives and other materials are more likely to get someone’s attention than an assault rifle. It wouldn't be wise to buy bulk quantities of that stuff at once. However, isis and terrorists are crafty and are willing to play the long game. You could buy small increments of the necessary ingredients over a large period of time and would be less likely to be tracked.
I am no expert, but I believe any amount that is purchased is tracked and we make is pretty hard to build an explosive. Like water, they take the path of least resistance, which are fire arms.
|
On June 14 2016 01:40 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed. Unfortunately, some things are not preventable. Sawed off shotguns and silencers are illegal too but people still have the means to do it. I don't see any feasible way to prevent it either. QUOTE] On June 14 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:My understanding is that it is significantly harder to pull off a bombing when compared to a shooting. Perhaps that is wrong. It seems like the trouble associated with a bombing is much higher.
It is easier to get an assault rifle right now if you don't have a criminal record. However, i don't think making an explosive would be hard enough if they were forced to resort to those methods.[/QUOTE]
Silencers are sadly not even Ilegal in even a majority of us states. Its a $200 tax to buy for each silencer. we really don't have our basic shit togeather on this.
|
Weird. Silencers are illegal in virginia. I can agree that those should absolutely be illegal lol.
|
Why in the world are silencers ever legal..my god. The culture around guns is just bizarre sometimes.
|
On June 14 2016 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Why in the world are silencers ever legal..my god. The culture around guns is just bizarre sometimes.
Incase you dont want to disturb the neighbors during your mass shooting spree. Obviously..
|
On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal.
The main thing is that it creates a point of arrest. As I mentioned in my previous post there is really no point at which you can lawfully arrest the perpetrator, even if you suspect he is about to commit an attack because his gun is perfectly legal.
While you can build a bomb out of household chemicals it is not legal to have such a bomb (and having large quantities of supplies to make one can be illegal or act as a showing on intent). If we assume this person is being watched there is a chance to catch him with something illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
