Page 63 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573113163 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by UV Halo View Post
    I'm curious. I've frequently heard your criticisms of existing policies and Republican / NRA ideas and comments. Just what would you propose to enact in regards to gun policies? And I'm not going to go with- "that wouldn't have prevented this problem" or such. I just want to know.

    I personally, have some mixed feelings about the proposed minimum age requirement. On one hand, it gives troubled teens more time to be intervened (legally or medically) before they can legally purchase a gun. On the other hand, there are thousands of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that we'd be suddenly stripping rights from even though they often have demonstrated proficiency and safe handling of firearms, as well as having the responsibility of carrying them.

    I'm okay with more thorough and required background checks and I think that should entail requiring the medical community to share relevant information with law enforcement and, that law enforcement should have procedures in place to handle these interactions (so don't have some departments ignoring warning signs and such).

    On a related note, I'm shocked at just how much stuff the county and state failed to act on before this tragedy. It's like no single entity (agency, authority, etc) ever looked at his history...
    i already posted exactly what my plan was.

    0. we don't make mental health harder for the majority of americans to get help if they need it. really, get fucked republicans, don't shed your bullshit crocodile tears for this shit. mental health problem my fucking ass. your bullshit stops here.
    0a. we don't make it illegal for non-partisan government agencies from studying gun violence. NRA eat fucking shit.
    1. we end loopholes for background checks, the vast majority of Americans support this, even a majority of republicans support this.
    2. we enact a law by which law enforcement has a mechanism to take possession of guns (with court order), from folks who are known to be violent, and have mental issues.
    3. instead of spending 30 million dollars on trump jerking off to our millitary, or 30 BILLION dollars on a totally pointless wall that will do absolutly nothing to stop illegal immigration ... we spend some actual money on researching the problem. ie, we collect a databased gun incidents, accidents, murders, etc etc the way we do car accidents. we interview and physco analyze anyone who does this shit. you know ... we perform science. over 40 years we did this with car accidents, and we have vastly safer roads as a result. we chaged how we train drivers, we changed how we designed cars, we figured out ways to manage traffic more effectively ... all cause the power of big data analysis. no such data exists for gun violence. instead of bullshiting around here, what features on guns, what methods and supply chains, etc etc etc ... we just like actually study it. you know, with science.
    4. we do what the scientists say, regardless of political bullshit.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #622
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Well, that would make the DNC the Do Nothing Committee, because they had every ample opportunity to do something, and didn't.
    they have not had an opportunity to do anything about gun control since 1994.

    amazingly, the last time something was done about gun control.




    the BULLSHIT machine that is the right wing is hilarious. "oh, you guys didn't do anything about it because we filibuster everything at every turn" argument holds zero fucking water. you can't even ban fucking bump stops (ie the stupidest thing possible), and you want to say the democrats are to blame for failure to move on gun control? get fucked. NOPE, the reason nothing has been done about gun control ... is because of republicans. it is ONLY because of republicans.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-01-2018 at 06:29 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #623
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I'll bite. I'll agree with you the age limit is pretty useless. It won't really stop shootings. I think you need to following:
    I'm not sure if it would be useless. It may help but maybe not to enough to outway the loss of rights.
    1. Comprehensive background checks (criminal record search, talk to your neighbors/family members, examination of mental health/doctor records)
    I agree with most of this except for social contacts, etc who may give their opinion which may be biased (i.e. "I don't want my neighbor to have a gun"). I would keep it all official (state/fed/LE/Medical)
    2. You are required to undergo a written exam, a competency course, and maintain insurance.
    A written exam as in an essay or, an in person fill in the blanks/multiple choice, etc? What would the insurance be for? Accidents?Here's an interesting twist- anti-gun folks start to call for boycotts of underwriters, etc. providing insurance and as a result: fewer companies, higher rates, possibly making it too prohibitive for many folks.
    3. National gun registry
    I'm generally okay with this provided it cannot be searched, shared, etc without a warrant.
    4. Limitations of the transfer and sales of weapons. All sales, including private sales, must go through a federally licensed gun dealer who will submit the paperwork for the comprehensive background check. Same goes for transfers via estates. The family member needs to show they are capable of owning a gun before it can be transferred to them. You can also sell your firearms directly to a licensed dealer.
    I'm totally okay with requiring transfers via FFLS.
    5. Stricter penalties for straw purchases and more aggressive crack down
    100% in agreement.
    6. Greater liability for individuals who fail to maintain appropriate safety protocols
    I'm not sure if the current law doesn't cover this well enough. Ranges and courses should have a zero tolerance to mishandling of live firearms.
    7. National standards for conceal carry permits
    Sounds good to me!
    If you have all that I'm fine with interstate gun sales, interstate conceal carry permits, owning assault rifles, etc, because in reality that happens already
    My comments in green.

  4. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by UV Halo View Post
    My comments in green.
    Yeah. I'm unsure on six. I don't know how far liability currently extends, i.e. can a parent be liable for failing to secure his/her gun in a safe and a child gets access to it and harms someone? I think they should be held liable in that instance.

    On three, not sure why you would need a warrant to search it. I don't think it should be made available to the public, that's for sure.

    On two, not sure how the test would be conducted, I'm not an expert on this, but a lot of countries that have firearm regulations require some type of written exam/training (you could exempt former military from this part). I'm assuming you could develop some type of test to prevent accidents. The insurance would be for accidental shootings and issues related to Number 6.

    On one, I realize social contacts may sound a bit imposing, but look at the san bernardino shootings. The guy and his wife didn't have any record, but some people were aware of intentions/drift into radicalism. I think character references are important, especially if you want to purchase an AR or high-capacity magazine, etc.

    I realized I didn't respond in order. Whoops

  5. #625
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    i already posted exactly what my plan was.
    Thanks, and I'm sorry I missed or forgot about it.

    0. Yes, mental health services must be more readily available and easier to attain. The system really needs to take potential for violence or suicide much more seriously than it currently does (i.e. Tuesday "I'm suicidal", Wednesday: "I'm fine", and released).
    1. In "loopholes" do you mean what docwho goes into? If so, you can see my reply.
    2. I'm good.
    3. I agree with tax dollars spent on research however, I want it to be unbiased- It is possible, I just haven't seen much. One general theme I have a problem with is the inclusion of suicide (where there are no associated incidents of homicide or assault) in the metrics concerning violence with guns. I'm not saying the potential relationship between suicide and firearms should not be researched but, that should be kept strictly on addressing suicide and not used to bolster restrictions on the general population.

  6. #626
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    Yeah. I'm unsure on six. I don't know how far liability currently extends, i.e. can a parent be liable for failing to secure his/her gun in a safe and a child gets access to it and harms someone? I think they should be held liable in that instance.

    On three, not sure why you would need a warrant to search it. I don't think it should be made available to the public, that's for sure.

    On two, not sure how the test would be conducted, I'm not an expert on this, but a lot of countries that have firearm regulations require some type of written exam/training (you could exempt former military from this part). I'm assuming you could develop some type of test to prevent accidents. The insurance would be for accidental shootings and issues related to Number 6.

    On one, I realize social contacts may sound a bit imposing, but look at the san bernardino shootings. The guy and his wife didn't have any record, but some people were aware of intentions/drift into radicalism. I think character references are important, especially if you want to purchase an AR or high-capacity magazine, etc.

    I realized I didn't respond in order. Whoops
    I'm totally on board with harshly penalizing negligent parents who don't take appropriate action to secure their firearms. I'm also very supportive of finding firearms safe manufacturers liable if their locks fail to prevent a child from opening them. I am on the other hand, very pro in the belief that children in the house should be trained on the responsible handling and use of a firearm.

    My thoughts on the warrant (to include court orders), would be to prevent mishandling, i.e. a county after seeing a surge in violence, enacting a policy to disarm the public, and using the database to facilitate it.

    I get what you're after in regards to the the social contacts. I don't know if terrorism (even those conducted by whites) should be considered in this circumstance. In this case, Terrorists went the legal route. In Europe, they have repeatedly gone the illegal route. In regards to other folks, I'm not sure about this.

  7. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by UV Halo View Post
    I'm totally on board with harshly penalizing negligent parents who don't take appropriate action to secure their firearms. I'm also very supportive of finding firearms safe manufacturers liable if their locks fail to prevent a child from opening them. I am on the other hand, very pro in the belief that children in the house should be trained on the responsible handling and use of a firearm.

    My thoughts on the warrant (to include court orders), would be to prevent mishandling, i.e. a county after seeing a surge in violence, enacting a policy to disarm the public, and using the database to facilitate it.

    I get what you're after in regards to the the social contacts. I don't know if terrorism (even those conducted by whites) should be considered in this circumstance. In this case, Terrorists went the legal route. In Europe, they have repeatedly gone the illegal route. In regards to other folks, I'm not sure about this.
    On the warrants, you have the current interpretation of the second amendment to protect against unlawful seizures. Officers would need a warrant to seize the guns in the first place too.

    I think terrorism/the possibility of committing a violent should always be considered in determining the eligibility of firearm ownership. Why have firearm laws then? Just because there is always a chance to circumvent the law doesn't mean we should make it even easier for them to achieve their violent goals. That's illogical to me.
    Last edited by d0cwho; 03-01-2018 at 08:58 PM.

  8. #628
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    On the warrants, you have the current interpretation of the second amendment to protect against unlawful seizures. Officers would need a warrant to seize the guns in the first place too.

    I think terrorism/the possibility of committing a violent should always be considered in determining the eligibility of firearm ownership. Why have firearm laws then? Just because there is always a chance to circumvent the law doesn't mean we should make it even easier for them to achieve their violent goals. That's illogical to me.
    I wasn't saying terrorism shouldn't weigh into firearm ownership (as if I was saying I'm okay with Terrorists getting guns). I'm saying we shouldn't be writing policies that affect the millions of folks who aren't terrorists based on the actions of terrorists. I would however agree with banning folks like we do for the no fly list, assuming that it is a high accuracy system and, there are efficient means for inappropriately flagged individuals to have their rights restored.

  9. #629
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Something else that's been bothering me related to guns: It appears to me that anti-gun folks are reporting policy violations on gun channels (of all types, incl. level-headed, non-political gun reviews, histories, .22LR trick shots (in perfectly safe conditions, etc), and YouTube is showing bias in striking the accounts, demonetizing videos, and forcing the YouTubers to wait several days for their appeal (if they receive three strikes before they are appealed, then their accounts are shut down permanently with no means of recovery). I believe there is bias due to the repetition of these processes even though other channels which feature homemade (and suburban backyard demonstrated) thermites, or repeated incidents of assault feature no such repercussions. In each of these cases, the appeals are granted, every time, the following week.


    EDIT: Doc and Cockerpunk, I just wanted to thank both of you for engaging in this civil dialog with myself!
    Last edited by UV Halo; 03-01-2018 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Appreciation

  10. #630
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Stifling of free speech actions - like mass-flagging an unrelated or innocuous post on Facebook, Youtube, etc. - really drives me crazy. I see it happening on both the left (guns, public speeches on campus) and the right (anti-secular, homosexual content), and I want both sides to stop. I find myself discouraging the left more because I associate more with the left than right, and I feel like I can better argue against the practice "in their language". I'm so frustrated about this.

    I've really enjoyed reading how the conversation has progressed between UV Halo, docwho, and cockerpunk. I think I generally agree with all of them. In addition, I'd like to see a few other things on top of that (even if I'd be mostly satisfied just with the position last posted by UV Halo):

    1. Regulate against high-capacity magazines in public. I don't really see where you need to be able to shoot more than a handful of shots before changing magazines. Could we agree to 5 shots? 10 shots? 15 shots?
    2. Voluntary buyback programs. Let people trade in pistols, shotguns, rifles, etc for cash or goods. If someone wants to get rid of a gun then have a mechanism for that - even if its something like requiring licensed dealers to buy the guns and the government reimburses.
    3. Police purchase. If we can't get sale of firearms regulated such as was discussed above, I'd like to see police and federal agencies actively remove weapons by purchasing them in the same formats as current buyers. This would be an active step to remove guns from the marketplace.
    4. I don't know what this item looks like exactly, but what can we do on ammunition? Should the .223 or .300 blackout be available to civilians? If we leave the .30-06 available as a rifle ammunition, will we start seeing high capacity .30-06 rifles? I would think no, but... From my hunting experience, all we ever used was 12 and 20 gauge shotgun and .30-06 rifles. The handguns were .22, .357, and .44. Why does more than this need to be available to civilians?

    Unrelated to anything in this thread (I think), but I see a lot of people on Facebook default to the argument that their high capacity semi-automatic weapon will help them defend from Tyranny. This sounds a lot like "we want to overthrow a liberal government" - because a stable democracy is the best weapon against tyranny. I grant you that we teeter away from a stable democracy like we've had in the past, but the same group pushing the most to destabilize is the one that wants high capacity semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves. That just confuses me.
    Last edited by Unfated33; 03-02-2018 at 10:41 AM. Reason: Clarity on what I was thinking about re: ammunition

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •