|
Doccers posted:In colorado last year when the magazine ban was passed, The leader of the senate said that gun owners have a sickness of the soul. I'd say that was fairly stigmatizing.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Stigmatizing? STIGMATIZING? They've WON! Their priorities in legislation now rule the discourse, at least for the foreseeable future! And now the complaint is that they're being "stigmatized"?? Obama literally said law abiding guns owners are against kids being murdered and support common sense gun law reform. Implying if you don't agree with his common sense reforms you're no better than Lanza or Holmes. Feinstein, Biden and Bloomberg have repeatedly said that assault weapons and large cap mags have only one purpose and that is to kill people and as many people as quickly as possible. Meaning that if you own either item your only purpose for owning them is you plan to mass murder people. For some reason you don't think this is stigmatizing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Doccers posted:I don't think anyone is advocating dropping the background check. That's what I'm getting from FatOgre's posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Stigmatizing? STIGMATIZING? They've WON! Their priorities in legislation now rule the discourse, at least for the foreseeable future! And now the complaint is that they're being "stigmatized"?? Just because we're winning, should we stop noticing the language elites are using against us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Obama literally said law abiding guns owners are against kids being murdered and support common sense gun law reform. Implying if you don't agree with his common sense reforms you're no better than Lanza or Holmes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:This is a good thing. We should keep the law as it is. That short wait and paperwork being filed causes us no harm, while it may prevent an actual problem from occuring. If they're drunk and want to kill someone, if there was no law to stop or delay them, there'd be no reason not to just wander into Wal-Mart and buy a gun and be out in five minutes. It's not like anyone is allowed to question your sobriety at Wal-Mart (by company policy in fact). While I'm against waiting days for a purchase, I'm not arguing against waiting an hour or so for my paperwork to come through. Still, I think you're missing something. Whether it's at Wal-Mart or a gun shop, no one wants to sell a gun to someone that's impaired or seething ball of rage. Nobody in their right mind is going to authorize a sale to that kind of person. As someone that's worked a sports counter in a big box store, there's no way in hell I'd process a gun sale with someone in either state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:That's what I'm getting from FatOgre's posts. FatOgre has a way of being, well, FatOgre. what can we say? v  vI can say that personally, I'm fine with the background check system we have currently for purchases from FFL dealers. I would *LOVE* a way to open up NICS so we can run the same checks any time we want to sell a gun to someone. Requiring all sales to go through an FFL however has been problematic at best, and simply mind-numbingly retarded at worst, though. (see my previous posts about colorado's new system and it's issues). Still if you could set up a system that was fair to everyone involved, I have no reservations. It's just setting up a system that's fair to everyone involved seems impossible in today's climate, as each side seems more interested in loving each other rather than moving towards any appreciable solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:That's what I'm getting from FatOgre's posts. No read what I'm saying again. We should drop background checks but only if the person is trustworthy enough to rejoin society. Meaning if they are so dangerous they need a background check, they shouldn't be around cars, fire, or knives either. I don't want dangerous people around guns, and wholeheartedly support keeping them locked up or under active supervision. That said if they are locked up or actively supervised, background checks are a stupid waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I have only partial hearing in my right ear and recurring tinnitus because I accidentally forgot to stick my plug back in while chatting with a guy at the range. Why would anyone need an additional safety precaution? Really? That really sucks to hear. I'd simply never thought of a sound suppressor as a safety precaution. Literally the only time I've seen them is on special operations military equipment and Hollywood as murder weapons in assassinations (I'm fully aware in retrospect that this is bad). Sedanchair posted:Think for just a minute. How about protecting not only your own hearing, but being less of a nuisance to your neighbors? Many countries with much more restrictive laws than the US have no restrictions whatsoever on suppressors. They're especially appropriate for pest control. You're right. I was wrong and didn't realize it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I can certainly see why it isn't fun to hear, but I suppose y'all can reassure yourselves that you control all branches of government and most state legislatures on this topic, so pretty much nothing's going to come of it. Again, Colorado. the stigmatization caused a set of very unpopular laws to pass, which has lead to a backlash and a recall of two state senators (with a third resigning and hand-picking a replacement rather than be recalled, which has pissed everyone off even more), and we have an election coming up. While the governor may keep his seat, it's likely that the state senate and house will flip to hard R, and things we were hoping for such as striking down the state gay marriage ban, keeping abortion legal and available and other women's health issues, and other local issues such as fracking bans, are all going to evaporate. Worth it? (oh, and the bans are likely going to be repealed, 56% oppose them)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Doccers posted:FatOgre has a way of being, well, FatOgre. what can we say? v My argument against this is opening up NICS again stigmatizes people who are felons. Guy comes in asking for a job, I'll just use NICS to see if he can own a gun....nope can't trust with a gun so no way will I hire that guy. I'll see if my crazy neighbor is allowed to own guns. If she isn't I'll know she's crazy! Hello NICS I would like to sell a gun to Crazy Cat Lady.... Who knows why the thing failed? Maybe they had a drug conviction. Maybe they were dishonorably discharged from the army for some reason. Maybe they matched the same name as someone else in the database. Opening up NICS while it would be nice screws a lot with privacy and civil liberties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Again, Colorado. And like I said, I don't even have much of a brief for gun control. The thing about suppressors was interesting and informative! What does gall me a little is the victory lap it feels like you're taking here. "Ha ha! Foolish democrats - you're not getting anything you wanted because you challenged us!" Well I hope the fracking fluid doesn't poison all the wildlife you'd want to hunt out in Colorado, then - though I suppose there's always targets, and it might not be about the shooting so much as the having.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:No read what I'm saying again. Recidivism of violent criminals is too much of a problem to ignore in lieu of relatively minor inconvenience. Not to mention that bail bonds exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yes I loving get it, God drat. I acknowledge your political supremacy and the political supremacy of the gun issue in state legislatures. I have never questioned it. I may question that it will be permanent. If the gun issue had political supremacy, these bans wouldn't have passed in the first place, and we wouldn't be facing this poo poo sandwich in the first place. The issue is that there *is* a stigmatization, and it *does* do harm. And it sure as *gently caress* isnt a victory lap - I *AM* a Democrat. I just watched my own party go full-loving-retard and get themselves booted out of office for the forseeable future. [edit] vvvvv Yep, this is depressing as hell for me, because I was really hoping that we'd finally overturn our marriage ban, and I just voted last year to ban fracking in broomfield. I really love our environment and would like very much to keep it. At least many of the republicans running this year have steered clear of social issues so far, one of them even went so far as to publicly distance himself from this years iteration of the personhood ammendment, so maybe there's some hope it won't be a complete fuckup. But I'm likely just deluding myself. Doccers fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I can certainly see why it isn't fun to hear, but I suppose y'all can reassure yourselves that you control all branches of government and most state legislatures on this topic, so pretty much nothing's going to come of it. It's frustrating to me just because I want Democrats to win elections, and this stuff makes that harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yes I loving get it, God drat. I acknowledge your political supremacy and the political supremacy of the gun issue in state legislatures. I have never questioned it. I may question that it will be permanent. It didn't have to be this way though. If democrats stopped supporting gun control issues a lot of states would swing back to more purple or blue than they are now. The 2012 anti-gun fever they jumped on seriously damaged their party in a ton of states. They said gun owners want to mass murder children and then wonder why there is so much backlash. To me it as dumb as if the Republican party came out next week saying all gays are closeted pedophiles and want to rape young children and then tried to pass anti-gay laws above and beyond gay marriage laws. Screaming at people that this is for children, look at all these victims of pedophiles, gay culture and their loosening of restrictive gay laws caused this! PFLAG supports making it easier for gays to rape kids! Kind of like the screeching about how the NRA supports loosening guns laws so mass murders can happen more easily. Or that by getting conceal carry laws on the books this allowed something like Newtown to happen. When conceal carry laws had NOTHING to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Doccers posted:If the gun issue had political supremacy, these bans wouldn't have passed in the first place, and we wouldn't be facing this poo poo sandwich in the first place. And the thing is, even if the Democrats did purge every single person who forwards some ignorant-rear end such poo poo, engaged in an epic and lengthy party purge on firearms-related orthodoxies, it STILL wouldn't matter, because they can't shut up Mike Bloomberg, and even after he's dead of old age - or Feinstein - or whatever - any quotes they'd have would probably STILL be used, to identical effect, for the next three decades! When I say "political supremacy," that is what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Recidivism of violent criminals is too much of a problem to ignore in lieu of relatively minor inconvenience. Not to mention that bail bonds exist. First issue is do you believe in innocent until proven guilty? If not then you have a point, but that sets a horribly dangerous precedent. If a person is too dangerous to society bail doesn't have to be set at all. That isn't a problem with guns laws so much as our legal system, where we trust people are innocent until proven guilty. I'd rather risk a criminal doing something bad than gently caress over everyone assuming they are going to commit crimes if we take away all their rights when not actually convicted of anything and aren't a reasonable risk to society. If the recidivism risk is so high why are they out of jail or active supervision? If you trust them with a car, and everything else like bows and arrows, swords, knives etc, a gun shouldn't be any different. What is the basis for keeping it from them, yet not keeping them detained?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Then I apologize once more; I am used to hearing such matters gloated over. I am also used to seeing people say "Well, I'm a leftist Democrat on everything economic and 95% of things socially, but I'm concerned that possibly at some future point there might be gun control regulation if I vote for someone other than a Republican, so I'm gonna vote for the Republican!" All they need is some Democrats with some balls to stand up and call them on it. And enough democrats to prove once and for all it is a dead issue. I think democrats getting behind universal reciprocity for conceal carry licenses, repealing the NFA restrictions on SBRs/SBSes/Suppressors and opening up the NFA registry on newly made machine guns would go a HELLUVA a long way of convincing people they've changed stance on the issue. Do that and even the NRA would have to start backing Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Then I apologize once more; I am used to hearing such matters gloated over. I am also used to seeing people say "Well, I'm a leftist Democrat on everything economic and 95% of things socially, but I'm concerned that possibly at some future point there might be gun control regulation if I vote for someone other than a Republican, so I'm gonna vote for the Republican!" Bloomberg's a republican. Mccarthy retired - sadly because of health issues.While I disagree with her on many isssues and think she is woefully ignorant of the laws she herself introduces (youtube search for "barrel shroud"), She's not a bad person and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Thankfully she has a great healthcare plan from congress and I hope she's able to beat it. Feinstein will hopefully be retiring. While I don't hope for anything bad to happen to her either I can't honestly say she's a good person, because she's authoritarian as gently caress and that "D" next to her name makes me cringe every time. What would be SO GOD DAMNED NICE is if the democratic party would drop any semblance of banning anything from their platform, and also to avoid painting gun owners with the broad brush of "redneck southern racist who just wants to kill lots of kids". It wouldn't be an immediate help, you're right, but at this point *NOTHING* is going to change in the near future. We need to start looking 10, 20 years down the road and play the long game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:And the thing is, even if the Democrats did purge every single person who forwards some ignorant-rear end such poo poo, engaged in an epic and lengthy party purge on firearms-related orthodoxies, it STILL wouldn't matter, because they can't shut up Mike Bloomberg, and even after he's dead of old age - or Feinstein - or whatever - any quotes they'd have would probably STILL be used, to identical effect, for the next three decades!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Don't forget Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin saying stupid anti-gun stuff all the time. It would require a big rear end sea change more than just Bloomberg and Feinstein going away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Bloomberg's a republican.  Actually I should remember that one for my rear end in a top hat relations, might be useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:All they need is some Democrats with some balls to stand up and call them on it. And enough democrats to prove once and for all it is a dead issue. That;s asking for WAY too much, and you know it. I don't see opening the registry doing anything because it can just be closed again. Barring a supreme court decision stating it can't be closed or a constitutional amendment, which I really don't see in the case of machine guns, that issue is dead and buried. Plus so many politicians use the "closed" registry as kickbacks for political favors, there's little reason for them to push for opening it again. (For everyone else in the thread, because only fatogre likely knows what I'm talking about : The 1986 closure of the machinegun registry means that while machineguns are still legal to purchase, no new ones can be registered, so only the ones made before 1986 are available for purchase. this caused the price of them to shoot up dramatically. However, many politicians are high up enough and on the right commiittes that they are able to get the ATF, who manaages the registry, to add new guns to it in spite of the technical closure. Thus, people who are politically connected now have registered machineguns made after 1986, it's basically a way to get donations. "Give me $50,000 and you'll suddenly be able to get a real P-90") I *COULD* see a universal reciprocity, if it came along with universal requirements. That way they could paint it as a win to the base, because they "set some requirements on who can carry a gun". Doccers fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well that just proves that both sides do it too. For that matter, Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign is also a republican. [edit] Hell you could make a case that the modern gun control movement was STARTED by the republican party - and it's been the best trick they've played on the democrats in all of recorded history. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Doccers posted:That;s asking for WAY too much, and you know it. I can dream can't I. If they did that I would accept the Democrats truly think gun control is a dead issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:That isn't a problem with guns laws so much as our legal system, where we trust people are innocent until proven guilty. I'd rather risk a criminal doing something bad than gently caress over everyone assuming they are going to commit crimes if we take away all their rights when not actually convicted of anything and aren't a reasonable risk to society. Not to be a dick here, but I think you might get more agreement if you put the 'Sweeping Reforms' thing up front. It sounds like gun control changes are just a small part of the bigger shift you're looking for. Leading with the gun-control stuff is like someone saying that they're anti-gay-marriage when they're really opposed to the government being in the marriage business in the first place. It's technically true. But it's semi-misleading and sort of out of place in some conversations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:First issue is do you believe in innocent until proven guilty? If not then you have a point, but that sets a horribly dangerous precedent. If a person is too dangerous to society bail doesn't have to be set at all. The American Justice system is too broken to be trusted with the rehabilitiation of violent (or any really) criminals. These are people who should not have been released back into society, as the recidivism rate shows. But we can't simply lock them away forever. What we can (and have) do, is remove their easy access to firearms, which are weapons first and foremost, rather than a mode of transportation or cooking implement. As for people being out on bail? Temporarily removing the ability to buy guns is a reasonable precaution. Battered women are attacked by abusive husbands and boyfriends out on bail rather often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The American Justice system is too broken to be trusted with the rehabilitiation of violent (or any really) criminals. These are people who should not have been released back into society, as the recidivism rate shows. But we can't simply lock them away forever. What we can (and have) do, is remove their easy access to firearms, which are weapons first and foremost, rather than a mode of transportation or cooking implement. I'm in agreement with Talmonis here. It's a reasonable and just restriction. So long as there is a pathway to get your rights restored after a reasonable amount of time, I have absolutely no qualms with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The American Justice system is too broken to be trusted with the rehabilitiation of violent (or any really) criminals. These are people who should not have been released back into society, as the recidivism rate shows. But we can't simply lock them away forever. What we can (and have) do, is remove their easy access to firearms, which are weapons first and foremost, rather than a mode of transportation or cooking implement. Doccers posted:I'm in agreement with Talmonis here. It's a reasonable and just restriction. So long as there is a pathway to get your rights restored after a reasonable amount of time, I have absolutely no qualms with this. I don't see it being that reasonable when cars kill more people accidentally than firearms do, and that includes all suicides and gun accidents by gun. I also don't think it is fair to deny people the right to self defense or any civil right really just because they might commit a crime again. If the danger of the committing a crime is so great you can't trust them with a gun then keep them locked up. Currently we deny all felons the right to own firearms. If you're saying only repeat violent felons I could kind of agree with you but again if they are repeat violent felons why aren't they under supervision in the first place? Those are specifically the reason jail exists at all. I'm already fine with removing most drug laws, and most victimless crimes off the books. So we'd have way less people in prison now, but the people we'd have locked up would be truly dangerous instead of locking up a guy for 10 years for a lb of weed while the guy that rapes someone gets 5 years and is out in 3 for good behavior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I don't see it being that reasonable when cars kill more people accidentally than firearms do, and that includes all suicides and gun accidents by gun. People who go to prison due to vehicular homocide also get their license revoked, so that's not a terribly great analogy. I think it is fair because their right WAS removed with Due Process - and so long as they can get that back in time, it's acceptable. Go say, 5? 10? years without any more issues, and you're golden. I think we're all in agreement on drug laws not being just, but that's starting to change, at least in my state. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Doccers posted:People who go to prison due to vehicular homocide also get their license revoked, so that's not a terribly great analogy. Yes but a guy who stabs someone doesn't get knife ownership revoked, or even car ownership. Just guns... it makes ZERO sense. You can burn down an orphanage and shoot them with a bow as they come out and if by some chance you get paroled you just can't own a gun, unless they set gas and archery equipment as terms of your probation. I don't mind it being at the discretion of the parole board. I am mostly annoyed at it from the blanket no guns for any felons at the federal level. It is just bullshit. I also do not like that domestic violence misdemeanors preclude you from owning a firearm. Like two brothers get in a fist fight, the cops get called on it. They both get a slap on the wrist. Why are they not allowed to own guns again? How does that keep society safe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I also do not like that domestic violence misdemeanors preclude you from owning a firearm. Like two brothers get in a fist fight, the cops get called on it. They both get a slap on the wrist. Why are they not allowed to own guns again? How does that keep society safe? It's so that abusive husbands don't up and kill their wives for finally getting up the courage to call the police on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well that just proves that both sides do it too. Only one side does it. That side is "scornful urban elites" regardless of party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's so that abusive husbands don't up and kill their wives for finally getting up the courage to call the police on them. Good point, I keep forgetting that abusive husbands are only able to kill their wives with firearms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Good point, I keep forgetting that abusive husbands are only able to kill their wives with firearms. It sure makes getting away harder, yes. Let's not try and pretend that it's easier to kill someone with a knife than a gun. Not to mention, there's no reason she'd not have a gun herself... you know, for home defense against an abusive husband.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:Yes but a guy who stabs someone doesn't get knife ownership revoked, or even car ownership. Just guns... it makes ZERO sense. They can put "no archery" as a condition of probation, much like "no alcohol".
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It sure makes getting away harder, yes. Let's not try and pretend that it's easier to kill someone with a knife than a gun. I remember my mother's seamstress from years ago had done time for shooting her abusive husband. Unfortunately the safest ways to kill an abuser are generally not considered self-defense because they are not carried out in the "heat of the moment."
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It sure makes getting away harder, yes. Let's not try and pretend that it's easier to kill someone with a knife than a gun. You didn't say that, though - you said "so that abusive husbands don't up and kill their wives" as if the presence of the firearm made the murder happen. You're shifting your goalposts now to "makes it easier" because your original statement doesn't hold under basic scrutiny. You know what would really prevent the murder? Breaking the cycle of abuse via rehabilitation and intensive counseling, which should be freely available under a single-payer system. Talmonis posted:Not to mention, there's no reason she'd not have a gun herself... you know, for home defense against an abusive husband. There certainly could be, like waiting periods for example, as you have stated you support. The three, ten, whatever amount of days required presents a window where the wife would be vulnerable to the violence of her husband, who is likely to be more physically imposing. Or the mental health screenings you've advocated might bar her from buying a weapon, as she is emotionally agitated due to her fear of being victimized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Doccers posted:SYG laws are largely the result of a backlash against perceived injustices of "Duty to Retreat" laws in some places. SYG laws are largely the result of conservative white racial paranoia over a fantasized wave of black on white violence. You can't disentangle the "gun rights" movement from the broader trend of right-wing white male ressentiment and rage, and the way the Republican Party plays to it. All the hysterical comparisons between gun owners and Holocaust victims or Jim Crow era southern blacks is a pretty good demonstration of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:48
|
|