Common Sense Gun Policies

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Common Sense Gun Policies

  • This topic contains 96 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by  Health 6 months ago.
Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 97 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1479359

    Midwest2
    Participant

    This morning Dick’s Sporting Goods, a major retail outlet for guns, announced that they are going to immediately put into effect the following policies:
    1. No more sales of assault-style weapons.
    2. No more sales of high-capacity magazines
    3. No gun sales to anyone under 21

    They also called on lawmakers to pass legislation to make background checks universal on all public or private gun sales, the creation of a national database of people banned from buying guns, sale of guns to those under 21, and a ban on assault-style weapons, high capacity magazines and bump stocks . They support the 2nd Amendment for almost all gun owners and sportsmen, but say that we need some checks in place to prevent mass shootings and mentally ill gun buyers.

    They say they are particularly strong on this since the Parkland shooter bought a shotgun from them in 2017, and while it wasn’t the gun used in the shooting, “It could have been.”

    We insist that car drivers and owners prove that they are old enough and know enough to get a license. Is it sensible that a person who isn’t old enough to buy a beer can buy an assault weapon capable of killing dozens? I don’t currently have a gun, but I have carried one as a security guard. They aren’t toys. We need to make gun ownership as regulated as driving a car, for the safety of all concerned.

    Responsible gun owners shouldn’t be in position where they can be blamed for the crimes of a very few individuals. Guns are a part of mainstream American culture, just as cars are, and we need to show the same common sense regarding them.

    #1479503

    Joseph
    Participant

    The entire America should adopt the gun laws of New York City.

    Gun laws are probably the only thing NYC government got right.

    #1479539

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Joseph
    When a NYS resident put an eighth bullet into his pistol after the NYS Safe act, he was arrested and charged with a felony. The court finally struck down that provision of the law as being “arbitrary” but imagine what that man went through in terms of lawyer fees and aggravation. Is that common sense?
    As I pointed out on the other thread, hundreds of thousands of NY’ers are at risk of being charged due to non compliance with the laws.
    It could be that we will eventually ban these weapons on a national scale (we already did that once in the 90’s) but as I also pointed out on the other thread, ultimately the difference between a semi auto rifle and an “assault rifle” is nothing more then the extension of the handle past the trigger housing, and if you think that will solve mass shootings you are delusional.

    #1479548

    Toi
    Participant

    Not only that, there isn’t an actual legal definition of assault rifle, so banning them is kinda ineffective.

    #1479560

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Not only that, there isn’t an actual legal definition of assault rifle, so banning them is kinda ineffective.

    So make one. The government can ask Dick’s Sporting Goods for advice.

    #1479586

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    mentsch1

    “The court finally struck down that provision of the law as being “arbitrary” but imagine what that man went through in terms of lawyer fees and aggravation. Is that common sense?”

    Yes.

    Life is full of cuttoffs. 25 miles per hour on city street isnt speeding 26 is.
    17 years old and 364 days cant vote . Is there some special understanding that descneds on people on their 18th birthday?

    Unless you oppose all arbitrary cutoffs.

    #1479656

    Avi K
    Participant

    Midwest, angry customers are threatening to boycott Dick’s.

    Great, Joseph. then other than cops only criminals will have guns.

    #1479661

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Well the liberal Supreme Court of NYS apparently disagrees with you as they struck down the provision.
    And clearly the use of ages such as 18 and 21 are used because it is understood that those ages represent levels of maturity so clearly they aren’t “arbitrary “
    And since the Torah recognizes 20 as the final age of consent clearly it’s not arbitrary and clearly the Torah disagrees

    #1479665

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Toi and daas
    There is a legal definition of “assault rifle” but as I have pointed out time and time again it’s not based on addressing the lethality of the rifle (ie it’s ability to rapidly kill people) rather it’s based on its cosmetics.
    Assault rifle laws all identify “features “ that politicians somewhere decided are problematic and ban them from semi automatic rifles. For example a bayonet lug under the barrel (the funniest and most idiotic/illogical of the banned features) or the ability to adjust the stock (useful if multiple people of different arm lengths want to use the same weapon) . Or the protruding handle. so these laws basically say that if you want to own a semi auto you can’t have any of these other features.
    But these features have nothing to do with the lethality of the gun and therefore come across as being nothing but a political fix rather then a logical fix to the problem.
    And because of this inherent flaw savvy people can always circumvent these laws
    For example
    As I pointed out on the previous thread
    You can cut off the handle from the the gun (for ex. The RAK 47)
    Or even if you want to preserve the looks of your AR/AK you can fix the magazine (make it non removable) and then load it with speed loaders made by a company called “mean”. Their you tube clips show them loading the gun in under 5 seconds, roughly equivalent to the time necessary to change a ar/ak clip.
    Thus my harping on the Illogic of the situation/laws. And thus my constant questioning of laws that will create felons of Americans that see the illogic.
    A freilichin Purim to all 🙂

    #1479708

    Redleg
    Participant

    a couple of things to consider.
    1. Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, no less than freedom of the press or of speech. While none of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute, I.E. freedom of speech does not include incitement or treason nor does freedom of assembly include riot, those rights cannot be abrogated simply by governmental whim or popular demand or even reasonable suspicion. The operative Amendment isn’t the 2nd , it’s the 5th, something about due process of law. To do what has been proposed above and nationally, for that matter, would violate the aforementioned 5th amendment unless upon issuance of a legal warrant or by adjudication by a court of law and, as a matter of fact, the NICS data base includes only those whose prohibited status has been so adjudicated.

    2. For those who maintain that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect ownership of AR and AK style rifles:
    In United States v Miller, 1939. SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment specifically protects “arms suitable for military formations”. You can look it up.

    #1479713

    NOYB
    Participant

    “Responsible gun owners shouldn’t be in a position where they can be blamed for the crimes of a very few individuals.” SO STOP BLAMING THEM FOR THE CRIMES OF OTHERS! The only thing that puts them in such a position is people blaming them. Car owners aren’t blamed for drunk driving deaths, even though they own cars. It is the same thing.
    “1. No more sales of assault-style weapons.
    2. No more sales of high-capacity magazines
    3. No gun sales to anyone under 21”
    1. The entire concept of “assault weapons” is emotionally driven garbage to convince people who know very little about guns that they are somehow more dangerous. The guns that are called “assault weapons” are just scarier-looking rifles. They function the same, and are necessary for the same reasons that regular rifles are necessary, in addition to the fact that they are light so old or disabled people can use them, they shoot a small round which is good for target shooting or hunting pests like raccoons and coyotes, they are easily converted for use by people who are left-handed, and they are easily customizable to fit many different uses.
    2. Magazine capacity bans have not been linked to any sort of decrease in deaths or shootings. With a few minutes of practice, someone can reload fast enough that magazine capacity makes little difference.
    3. So people who are 18 are responsible enough to vote for the leader of our country, drive cars which cause tens of thousands of deaths a year (compared to roughly 300 by all types of rifles in 2016), and join the military and command a tank or a fly a fighter jet, but they can’t handle owning a rifle? Does that make sense to you?
    Furthermore, why are we listening to a sporting goods store about how to formulate public policy? Have they conducted extensive research about how to stop shootings, or is this more than likely a PR move? They specifically said that a major motivation for them was that the shooter could have used a gun bought in their stores. Why is that significant? What difference would it make where he got the gun? The answer is that wherever he got the gun gets a ton of negative press, so they decided to make these rules and push for gun control for the PR.

    #1479723

    unommin
    Participant

    Kudos to those on this list explaining that there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

    People are willing to throw away their natural rights for emotional non-arguments. It is shocking how much ignorance there is out there, in facts, ballistics, process, law, rights, etc.

    #1479730

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Redleg
    The following is from Wikipedia on the 1994 federal assault rifle ban
    The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was “entirely rational for Congress … to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes”.[23]:10[27] It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon “potentially more dangerous”, and were not “commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting”.[23]:10–11[28]

    Note
    The lower courts didn’t use Miller
    They also accepted the features idea of being inherently more dangerous
    They also accepted that the second amendment is somehow interpreted to apply to hunting
    I will grant you that the features and hunting points are ludicrous, there is no way to interpret the second amendment as regarding hunting and in all likelihood these were liberal lower courts
    The ban never reached the Supreme Court and ever since then we have the Heller decision

    #1479733

    mentsch1
    Participant

    REDLEG
    Re the previous post
    One line from the decision is logical (imho)
    The court ruled that it is logical to restrict guns commonly used in criminal activity
    This is in line with miller (which restricted sawed off shotguns)
    NJ has a long term ban on m1 carbines (a ww2 weapon which does NOT fit and is thus not banned by any assault rifle bans) the reason is that it was being commonly used by gangs.
    Now you can question the overal effect of such a ban. After all won’t the gangs just switch to a different weapon? But there is a logic to the position.

    #1479749

    Redleg
    Participant

    The interesting thing about Miller is that the court actually erred. In 1835 the U.S. Army did, in fact, issue Baker shoguns with 12” barrels to Cavalry troops.

    #1479759

    Midwest2
    Participant

    Mentsch, how do you have time to do anything else besides post in the CR? My suggestion: write your reply out in Word, set it aside. Go back an hour later and edit it down to half its length. Those really long, dense posts tend not to be read by people who don’t already agree with you. Also, be sure to post only under one name. I get the suspicion you have a couple of alter egos hanging out patting each other on the back.

    As for me, I’d like to give a pat on the back to DaasYochid for a really clever (and practical) idea, ubiquitin for making a good point, and even Joseph (gasp!) for letting me know that NYC has stricter gun laws. Thanks, Joseph. For once we agree on something 🙂

    It would be nice to have a variety of people and opinions replying, and not the same would-be novelists over and over.

    #1479763

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mentch
    “Well the liberal Supreme Court of NYS apparently disagrees with you”

    do you agree with every supreme court ruling? why would I?

    “And clearly the use of ages such as 18 and 21 are used because it is understood that those ages represent levels of maturity so clearly they aren’t “arbitrary “”

    hold it. so you are telling me that a 17 year old and 364 days is too imature to vote but the next day he gets maturity?
    And if there were “extra” leap years during his 17 years so that on the day before his 18th birthday he is 6209 days old he is less mature than an 18 years old who is 6207 days old?

    We draw a line there is an element of arbitreriness to it. We all agree that kids shouldnt vote/drink and adults could (some of them) so we draw a line someplace. Exactly where that line is drawn is obviosuly arbitrary.

    Assuming we want a killer to have to pause after he has shot some kids, we have to draw a line someplace. So we arbitrarily draw the line at 7. Once he’s shot 7 kids its time for a brief timeout. Why is 10 a good number of shot people, that isnt the point much like why at 17 years and 364 days are you too imature to vote?
    The line drawn IS arbitrary. There is nothing that inherently changes at age 18 or 21

    #1479766

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Redleg

    those points have been considered except they arent true .

    For example
    “Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, no less than freedom of the press or of speech. ”

    It is less than free speech. Free speech doesn’t have an introductory clause as limiting it to “well regulated”

    which brings us to

    “For those who maintain that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect ownership of AR and AK style rifles:
    In United States v Miller, ”

    You have that exactly backwards.
    Miller ruled that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply outside of a “well regulated milita”

    “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

    This was overruled in Heller. But Miller is the worst case to cite.

    #1479767

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    NOYB
    “Responsible gun owners shouldn’t be in a position where they can be blamed for the crimes …. Car owners aren’t blamed for drunk driving deaths, even though they own cars. It is the same thing.”

    It is the same thing. Just like we do our best to keep people safe from cars we should treat guns at LEAST as strictly.
    I dont understand how people keep bringing up the car analogy.

    ” The entire concept of “assault weapons” i… scarier-looking rifles.”

    This is of course true. Though one oculd argue that they don’t want to be scared. so a law banning “scary guns” isnt necessarily stupid.

    “With a few minutes of practice, someone can reload fast enough that magazine capacity makes little difference.”

    but without those few minutes of practice….

    “So people who are 18 …but they can’t handle owning a rifle? Does that make sense to you?”

    Yes.

    “Furthermore, why are we listening to a sporting goods store about how to formulate public policy? Have they conducted extensive research about how to stop shootings, or is this more than likely a PR move? ”

    The CDC isnt allowed to do gun related research. Thanks ot the Dickey amendment. put in place by a thoroughly evil organization that was afrai that research may lead to lives being saved.
    So without research we take what we can get

    #1479775

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mencth and NOYB (or anyone for that matter)

    Midwest said “Those really long, dense posts tend not to be read by people who don’t already agree with you”

    I’d like you to know I read your posts. I’m bored by reading posts /articless that gree with me. I find hearing opposing views much more interesting.

    However I still havent found answers to a few questions that I have. I posed these on the other thread but missed any answer that may have been given.

    Here are the 2 questions:
    1) Do you belive I have aright to nucleur weapons? If not why not the 2nd amendment says “arms” which a nucleur warhead clearly is. Lest you redefine “arms” as something that can be carried in an arm (whcih is of course not a definiton with real basis but I have heard this disinction) Do I have a right to automatic weapons? rocket launchers and grenades all of which can be carried in my arm?

    2) The main reason given for the 2nd amendment is to oppose a tyrannical government. M yquestion is how does this work. Do I have a right o oppose (by force if needed) a IRS agent enforcing what I view as a tyrannical tax code? IS there any armed uprising from >230 years of US history that you beleive was in the right in their armed uprising against what they viewed as a tyrannical government ?

    thanks

    #1479776

    NOYB
    Participant

    @midwest2 my posts tend to be long because I am explaining things which are complicated. For example, if you say “ban assault weapons”, I have to explain why that is a bad idea, why the assault weapons don’t exist, and the statistics behind what you call assault weapons. Complicated explanations just take longer.

    #1479781

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    NYC has strict gun laws because it is a city. What works for the city doesn’t necessarily work for people in the country.

    #1479809

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    RebYidd, I used to live in the country. Nobody hunts with assault rifles.

    People hunt with hunting rifles. Protect themselves with pistols. Shotguns can be used by farmers. Meanwhile, assault rifles seem to be used pretty much exclusively for mass shootings. Any other sovereign nation would have banned an item with this use by now.

    #1479888

    keith
    Participant

    Hi. I’m actually surprised by the number of apparent shooters on a religious website. It seems to me that the people who are the most pro-gun are people who shoot and the people who are the most anti- are the people who just don’t have much experience with guns but address them in a more theoretic way. The question everyone must act before acting in any capacity about anything is – how will this action address the issue? Will it help or will it prevent the problem we are trying to address. We also need to recognize that any law change affects only law abiding citizens, not criminals. So all laws passed regarding this emotional subject will affect good guys, not bad guys. It is unlikely any proposed law will affect the shooters in recent history. So we must be honest and accept that this is all theater, designed to make us feel good and not designed to stop shootings.

    If you are serious about stopping gun shootings, from FBI statistics, relatively few deaths come from rifles. Most come from handguns. So if you are serious about gun deaths you are talking about government seizure of all guns, not “assault rifles.” Of all deaths from guns, the vast majority, almost 3/4, are suicides. So we are not talking about those. The vast majority of the remainder are gang-on-gang or similar (criminal on criminal) shootings. So in terms of real, horrible, scary gun deaths, this is a tiny minority of the recorded gun deaths. If you are serious about stopping gun deaths, and as relatively few are of the sensational deaths in the recent news, we should look at what really causes death in America. Cars. Knives. Televisions (falling on people – actual FBI statistics). Hands. Feet. We should consider outlawing those too.

    Regarding the following statements:

    1. No more sales of assault-style weapons.

    People have already addressed that assault weapons are fiction. The definition is rifles that have two or more features. Features include adjustable stock and pistol grip. Everyone knowledgeable in firearms agrees this does not alter lethality of the weapon and these features are purely cosmetic. So this does not address any current issue.

    2. No more sales of high-capacity magazines

    Magazine, like guns, are nearly forever. They don’t disintegrate. There are probably somewhere around 300 million guns in the country. Without the military or police doing house-to-house searches and home invasions they are not going away. Second, it takes under two seconds to switch out a magazine and place a new one. Restricting magazines therefore will only affect good guys, not bad guys. It will affect only those who obey the law, not someone with murder in his heart. And even if magically all the standard size magazines (not high capacity – standard size) went away, it still does not change that it takes under two seconds to change magazines and that will not alter how many people die.

    3. No gun sales to anyone under 21

    In CA at least, the law is you must be over 18 to purchase rifles and over 21 to purchase handguns. I think most of the recent shooters either have been over 21 or obtained their weapons illegally and so this really would not affect much. In addition, if you are over 18, have a job, are independent, etc., how can the government justify restricting your constitutional rights? Can you restrict free speech until you are 21? Unreasonable search and seizure?

    They also called on lawmakers to pass legislation to make background checks universal on all public or private gun sales,

    Would not have affected any recent shooter.

    the creation of a national database of people banned from buying guns,

    There are lots and lots of people who are just regular people on the national no-fly list. Prominent journalists. Ted Kennedy (when he was alive). It is easy to get on the list without reason and nearly impossible to get off. If this list is anything like the no fly list, there will be many people who lose their constitutional rights because of an incompetent government. And again, people knew the Parkland shooter was unstable but no one followed up on it. This would not have affected any of the recent shootings.

    sale of guns to those under 21,

    See above.

    and a ban on assault-style weapons,

    Just silly and from people who don’t understand firearms. See above. An unserious response.

    high capacity magazines

    See above. Not something a serious or logical person would consider.

    and bump stocks .

    “Bump stocks” is a technique to obtain rapid fire. There is no special stock necessary. Recently a company or companies came up with a special stock to make this easier. It is simply a way of holding a rifle to allow it to bump against you and use the reaction force to bounce the gun against the trigger. Again, for someone who knows about firearms, this is a silly argument. Bump stock is a technique, not a device. You can’t outlaw a technique.

    #1479896

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    If you’re trying to convince me that we should severely regulate all guns, not just the ones used in school shootings, you’ve succeeded.

    If you’re trying to convince me that all guns should be easy to buy because there are other causes of death, or because it’s not easy to make an enforceable law, you’ll get all the pro-gun people to agree, but they’re actually very poor arguments.

    #1479899

    Midwest2
    Participant

    Where does anyone get the whacky idea that requiring background checks, age limits, etc. is going to lead to the “government seizing all guns?” The Federal government doesn’t have the resources to go house-to-house grabbing everybody’s handgun, hunting rifle and shotgun, and nobody wants them too. Anyway, most gun regulations are established on the state level, so there is plenty of local control.

    I’m surprised that people who have been raised on gemara and its logic can be so dense when it comes to figuring out logical consequences of everyday situations. Requiring a license and a background check to get a driver’s license doesn’t lead to the “government” seizing all cars. Having a court – after a judge’s order – temporarily impound your gun because you’re suicidal or just threatened your spouse is on the same level as getting your license suspended for drunk driving.

    Would you let your ten-year-old drive your car on the expressway? The parts of the human brain that process judgment and impulse control don’t mature until at least twenty. Check the car insurance rates for teenagers versus those twenty years older if you have any doubts.

    Nobody wants to “take everybody’s guns away.” Use some logic, folks. That’s what they were trying to teach in Yeshiva.

    #1479902

    keith
    Participant

    DaasYochid, all the recommendations people are making would not have affected any of the shootings the last few years. All new laws only affect law-abiding citizens. The shootings the last few years either have been performed by people who obtained their guns illegally, by people with no recorded history of mental illness, or – in the case of Parkland – by a person who was unstable but authorities did not follow up on it. All the recommendations made will only affect people like my mother – tiny Jewish women unable to defend themselves otherwise and so carry handguns. Not a single recommendation made would have affected any of the shootings we see over the years. This is all theater. It all sounds good superficially but would do nothing to address the issue.

    Everyone keeps proposing we “do something,” but no one has explained how what they suggest would have stopped any bloodshed. The laws only affect law-abiding citizens and do nothing to affect those who would break the law.

    As another commenter said – what we really need to do is to pass a law that you can only kill one person a day. Once the shooter killed on person, we need to tell him he’s used up his allotment and has to wait till tomorrow. I have an even better idea – we should make it illegal to murder someone. That way no one will be murdered. Again, we have to recognize that these laws only affect law-abiding citizens and will not alter the behavior of murderers or their ability to obtain firearms. There are few citizens who can obtain firearms in Europe. And yet somehow the Muslims seem to be able to commit mass murder in the grocery stores, newspapers, and theaters with firearms. Or with a truck. Or car. These laws are, frankly, silly. They are passed to make people feel good but affect nothing.

    #1479969

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Keith

    A few points
    “So we must be honest and accept that this is all theater, designed to make us feel good and not designed to stop shootings.”

    No, you must be honest that there has to be a way to limit (though likley not “stop” these shootings if most western countries are able to.
    I am not saying I Know how to do it, but the ease of gun purchase more than likely has somehting to do with it.

    “We also need to recognize that any law change affects only law abiding citizens, not criminals.”

    Like most arguments from the “pro gun” side this is often repeated but makes little sense. Just becasue people may not follow a law isnt a reason not to legislate. We dont say let murder be legal since clearly murderers dont care. We dont say lets sell explosives since anyway terorits can blow us up if the ywant to.

    “So if you are serious about gun deaths you are talking about government seizure of all guns,”

    As DY says Ok. youve convinced me. though I dont think that is relestic, if we can stop the few from rifles why arent those lives saved worth it. (If we cant save those, that is a different argument) but arguing that only some would be saved so it just doesnt make sense is absurd.

    “the vast majority, almost 3/4, are suicides. So we are not talking about those.”

    Wait, why on earth not?

    “he vast majority of the remainder are gang-on-gang or similar (criminal on criminal) shootings”

    those are bad too! as are the bysanders caught in cross fire

    “Televisions (falling on people – actual FBI statistics).”

    Done! you’ve convinced me I’m on board with demanding televisions that are placed above peoples heads be properly secured.
    This terrible scurgae plaguing AMerica does have to stop

    ““Bump stocks” is a technique to obtain rapid fire. There is no special stock necessary.”

    you are confusing “Bump stocks” with “bump fire” Bump fire is a technique, it isnt easy to perform and it hurts. A “bump stock” is a device to make bump-firing easier. Why would we allow easy access to a device that makes a more deadly technique easier to perform? Again of course criminals can obtain illegal devices, they can fasion them on their own, but why make it easier.

    Yousef wants to rent a truck pack it with ammonium nitrate and nitroglycerin. I thought Of a great marketing idea. He wants to do it anyway, so why don’t I open a “Bombs-r- us” we can sell him a truck packed with explosives, perhaps a map to some local landmarks. Maybe for extra money we can offer tips which garages are less guarded. After all he can obtain these things anyway, so lets make some money?

    #1479972

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    It’s true that passing a law today which bans guns will not prevent any incident tomorrow, but common sense says that regulating guns and lowering the number of guns around, in the long run, will reduce crimes committed with guns.

    Aside from common sense, just look at the level of gun violence in countries similar to ours, but with tighter regulations (and enforcement). It’s lower.

    I really hope your grandmother doesn’t have a gun, because statistically, someone owning a gun is more likely to have some sort of incident useing that gun against themselves or a loved one than have an incident in which they’re protected by that gun.

    #1479981

    Health
    Participant

    Midwest2 -“They also called on lawmakers to “stop” (presumely) sale of guns to those under 21,…”

    To all you emotional guys reaction to the Parkland School Shooting:
    Let’s see – what do you want to accomplish? If it’s just to stop school shootings – then fine. But school shootings are far & inbetween in the US. The main issue is gun murder!
    Now let’s take the murder capital in the US – it’s E. St. Louis, Ill. I’m sure a lot of their murders are from guns. And a lot of them are perps under 21. So would your idea of Gun Control stop most killings in the USA?!? LIBERALS – Stop Dreaming!!!

    #1479982

    keith
    Participant

    Hi, Midwest. re: “Where does anyone get the whacky idea that requiring background checks, age limits, etc. is going to lead to the “government seizing all guns?”

    The “common sense” restrictions of course would not have prevented any of the sensational shootings we see in the media the last few years. All the recommendations made here would not have prevented the previous shootings and will not prevent future shootings. They are for theater and of course are not meant for criminals. They are meant for the law abiding citizens who do not shoot people. And so the problem is not addressed.

    The only way to prevent shootings would be to remove guns from the hands of citizens. A reasonable guess regarding the number of guns in the United States is somewhere in the large ballpark of 300 million. Most guns do not deteriorate to the extent they no longer are reliably functional. So in a country of 300 million guns, 99.999999 percent of which are used lawfully, an infinitessimally small percentage used illegally, how do we prevent guns from being used illegally? Only by seizure, unless I’m missing something. Most people will not comply. Thus the only way I see America removing guns from its citizens is house to house seizure. It will not be too many houses before one citizen will refuse.

    Do you see another way government removes guns from its citizens? I don’t. My imagination may not be great enough though.

    #1479984

    Midwest2
    Participant

    Neville – spot on. I have a friend who grew up in rural Virginia with guns all over the house. This person (not Jewish) is one of the most pro-gun-legislation people that I know. How are you going to hunt a deer for meat if you use an AR-15 that tears it to pieces and fills it with shrapnel? This is literally what happens. I read an article by one of the trauma doctors who treated patients after the Las Vegas shootings, and this is what happens with an AR-15 wound. Hunters use rifles or shotguns, and the handgun is for self-defense. Both are for range shooting for fun. None of them are suitable for mass murder.

    DY – good point. And don’t forget the little kids who accidentally shoot their siblings, friends or even parents because the gun has been accidentally left out of the safe. A gun is a potentially life-changing responsibility. You’ve got to be prepared to handle it.

    (And why on earth would a bunch of militia guys with AR-15s be able to “stand up against the tyranny” of the US Army, with its tanks, Blackhawk helicopters with air-to-ground missiles, APCs, and good old-fashioned artillery? If you want to put an AR-15 up against a cruise missile, I’ll bet on the cruise missile every time. So much for the fantasies. Maybe too much playing video games?)

    A gut Shabbos to all.

    #1479998

    akuperma
    Participant

    For centuries, Jews did not have the right the bare arms (consider the complications of having a pogrom if the Jews could defend themselves). In fact, since Jews couldn’t use swords in many countries, there were books in Hebrew on how to fight without a weapon (and you think the zionists invented Krav Maga – the hareidim were doing in 600 years ago). Note that when the Germans elected the National Socialists, one of the first laws was to revoke the right of Jews to bear arms. Indeed, it is an obvious sign that a dictatorship fears armed citizens.

    In the English speaking countries, the right to bare arms was limited to the politically and religiously correct, and was sharply curtailed after the militia called itself up and twice overthrew the lawful king in the 17th century (not that about half the American colonies were founded by the losers in that civil war). To a large extent, the Democrats desire to disarm conservatives and deplorables follows a similar logic.

    It should be noted that traditionally a criminal who used a gun in a crime faced certain death, and perhaps they should make use of the deterrence in discouraging gun crime, rather than disarming law abiding citizens.

    #1479996

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “Where does anyone get the whacky idea that requiring background checks, age limits, etc. is going to lead to the “government seizing all guns?” ”

    I know that was rhetorical, but I’ll answer anyway: they’re getting that idea from the NRA propaganda machine. They have a finite list of arguments that are just restated over and over:
    1) Criminals will just break the law anyway, so we should just have no laws
    2) Dictators took away people guns in the past, therefore all gun regulation is at least a fraction of that
    3) Allowing the government to define who is sane enough to own a gun would allow them to take away everyone’s guns

    Obviously these arguments are all extremely weak, but they’ll keep using them into infinity. By the way, as for the “hunting” argument: very few people in the countryside actually participate in hunting. From my experience, maybe 1 in a hundred men hunted. And 0 percent of anyone in any civilized country depends on hunting to feed their family. It’s just a sport, and a cruel one at that; so, frankly if we inconvenience hunters with regulation, that would just make me even happier.

    #1480007

    keith
    Participant

    Midwest 2 – “Would you let your ten-year-old drive your car on the expressway? ”

    HI again. No. Nor would I let a ten year old alone with a gun. I would let my ten year old drive on my lap in the neighborhood which I remember doing with my dad and which I’ve done with my kids. I don’t think anyone is advocating for a ten year old to go out shooting alone. Under adult supervision is another story. I spent time in Atlanta and there is a strong hunting culture in America. Overall I think it is a nice family tradition (though not for Jews of course).

    Don’t forget we are talking about a constitutional right, in contrast to driving. A right to defend oneself by the best means possible, which for little Jewish people like us probably means a firearm. I am a little guy with little ability to defend myself against big guys. I don’t know kung fu and am not a knife fight expert. So if there is a chance my house might be invaded or over run, a firearm is the most effective way for me to defend myself and my family.

    It’s probably getting to be Shabbos by you so have a good Shabbos!

    #1480071

    Midwest2
    Participant

    Neville, you’ve got the NRA’s number, and it starts with “$” Let’s talk about that old concept, “Noge’a be’davar.”

    Guns aren’t free. Guns cost money – sometimes significant money for the fancier kinds.

    Guns are made by gun manufacturers, who make guns and sell them at a profit = make money.

    Arming teachers, for example, means buying a gun for each of those teachers = more gun sales = more money for the gun manufacturers.

    Assault weapons are popular and cost even more money, so banning assault weapons = decreasing gun sales = less money for the gun manufacturers.

    Increasing the age for buying guns means fewer customers = decreasing gun sales = less money for the gun manufacturers.

    Manufacturers do market research and use advertising that caters to the desires and fantasies of potential customers, so they talk about “resisting tyranny,” “showing your manhood” and “protecting your own.” Result? More gun sales = more money for the gun manufacturers.

    Beginning to get the picture? Follow the money!

    #1480070

    Midwest2
    Participant

    Keith, if you want to have a firearm in your house to protect yourself and your family no one is arguing with you if (in concordance with the laws in your state):
    1. You are over 21
    2. The gun is licensed and is not the type of gun that could be used in mass murder
    3. You have had safety training prior to getting a license
    4. You are not suicidal, homicidal, otherwise mentally ill or under an order of protection by your spouse/ex
    5. You store the gun in a safe way – with a child-proof lock, in a locked safe, etc.
    6. In many states – you are not a convicted felon.

    Having a gun in your home for self-defense is perfectly all right if you do it wisely. The problem is not people having guns. The problem is people having guns under the wrong circumstances or having guns which have no use except to kill other people. We’re talking about responsible gun ownership here, not either extreme of being Wild-West unregulated or eliminating guns entirely.

    #1480078

    DovidBT
    Participant

    I would let my ten year old drive on my lap in the neighborhood which I remember doing with my dad and which I’ve done with my kids.

    This question is off the main topic, but is that really a good idea? It may be fun for the kid, but cars are not toys.

    When I was a kid (I don’t recall the age), my father had the bright idea of letting me put the car into the garage. I put my foot on the wrong pedal and almost crashed into the wall.

    #1480080

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “Don’t forget we are talking about a constitutional right, in contrast to driving.”

    Ahh, so if the constitution gave us the right to operate transportation equipment, would that mean blind men could drive cars? 16 year olds with no experience could drive a Mac Truck? If not, why should mentally unstable people get guns with or without the constitution?

    #1480089

    mentsch1
    Participant

    I must confess
    I have multiple screen names
    I am midwest2 and ubiq
    Because I love playing devils advocate and arguing with myself

    #1480198

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ““Don’t forget we are talking about a constitutional right, in contrast to driving.””

    And as is well known the constitution is unamendable. Just ask my slaves.

    Mentsch can you or one of your multiple screen names help me out with either of my 2 qyestions posed above?

    #1480213

    Joseph
    Participant

    ubiq: The Bill of Rights has never been amended or abridged.

    #1480214

    DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Mentsch can you or one of your multiple screen names help me out with either of my 2 qyestions posed above?

    Sure, just remind me what they were, and I’ll be glad to answer them.

    #1480219

    catch yourself
    Participant

    I have no interest in entering the debate on guns, the second amendment, et al.

    I was just wondering:

    Why is it legal for a store unilaterally to impose age restrictions on purchases of certain items? Isn’t this discrimination on the basis of age?

    #1480223

    Brooklyn Yenta
    Participant

    Midwest and ubiq
    I am on record as stating that the founding fathers were traitors and their uprising was immoral, I don’t support an uprising against a benevolent govt.
    That said
    Strictly addressing the issue raised
    You do realize that like the Maccabees the few rose up and defeated the larger British army?
    Your scenario of a group of ar 15 militia wielding nuts fighting Apache helicopters is illogical. Uprisings in most countries in recent history (mostly communist) have played out as guerrilla warfare. Doesn’t always work but it’s quite effective.
    If it comes down to govt confiscation I do wonder how it will play out. If gun owners resist,On one side is millions of gun owners on the other side are liberals who can’t even figure out which bathroom to use.
    Also the assumption is made that the army will support the ruling party.

    #1480230

    Brooklyn Yenta
    Participant

    Ubiq
    You already know my answer
    I have repeatedly stated (and this applies to midwests list) that our only point of contention is the effectiveness of an ar ban
    Everything else is reasonable. Age limits, mandatory safety training etc.
    As I have now stated repeatedly my problem is that since it is so easy to circumvent the definition of an assault rifle by slightly altering an equally lethal rifle, then what is the point.
    There should be research that should be able to prove it.
    For instance. did the restrictions on sawed off shotguns curtail bank robberies as expected? Did the nj ban on m1 carbines restrict gang violence? Or did they just switch weapons
    Personally I have no problem with a 10 year attempt/study into the issue. Let’s ban ar/ak sales for 10 years and see what happens. As long as the laws don’t turn existing law abiding citizens into felons (as the ny law did)
    But what happens if I’m right? That the mass shootings continue with existing ar’s or equivalent but legal rifles? Then we ban all semi auto’s? All handguns? I personally believe at some point gun owners will push back.

    #1480236

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph
    “The Bill of Rights has never been amended or abridged.”

    Yet. That doent mean it can’t. Until 1933 an amendment was never repealed. I’m not sure wha t your point is.

    My point is even if the constitution DID grant a right for all people to own guns wit hno regulation whatsoever; 1) that doesnt make it a good idea 2) that doesnt mean it can’t be changed

    Brooklyn Yenta
    you say you are “Strictly addressing the issue raised”
    I am not sure wha tissue you are addressing. It sounds I’m not sure what the MAcabees, and the Brittish have to do with the subject at hand or each other.

    “liberals who can’t even figure out which bathroom to use.”
    Just the opposite! The liberals have no constrictions which bathroom they use and the gun owners will never find them.

    seriously though, what are you talking about

    DY
    Lol

    Mentsch if yo ucant find the questions, I’m refferign to these 2
    Here are the 2 questions:
    1) Do you believe I have aright to nuclear weapons? If not, why not the 2nd amendment says “arms” which a nuclear warhead clearly is. Lest you redefine “arms” as something that can be carried in an arm (which is of course not a definiton with real basis but I have heard this disinction) Do I have a right to automatic weapons, rocket launchers and grenades all of which can be carried in my arm?

    2) The main reason given for the 2nd amendment is to oppose a tyrannical government. My question is how does this work. Do I have a right to oppose (by force if needed) a IRS agent enforcing what I view as a tyrannical tax code? IS there any armed uprising from >230 years of US history that you beleive was in the right in their armed uprising against what they viewed as a tyrannical government ?

    #1480324

    mentsch1
    Participant

    midwest
    Apparently you are correct
    Just found out my wife is Brooklyn yenta (used her phone to post) she has kept this hidden for years (we will have to have a talk later)

    Ubiq
    No , you can’t own nuclear weapons and no you can’t have an uprising when you don’t want to pay taxes but again the founding fathers did

    #1480326

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Midwest
    Btw
    Not using an ar for hunting has nothing to do with bullet fragments (which happens with all calibers)
    It’s because 5mm bullets aren’t particularly efficient. Not at killing nor for accuracy. 7mm /30 caliber bullets are much more suitable and therefore are the most common bullet type for big game.
    This has been a major argument in military forums since the m16 replaced the 7mm m14 during the Vietnam war

    #1480372

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mentsch

    “No , you can’t own nuclear weapons ”
    why not?

    “and no you can’t have an uprising ”

    A poster in the other thread said “fact that the anti-gun lobby has yet to prove the harms of firearms outweigh the benefits,both in terms of safety and with respect to the idea of an armed society keeping its government from straying towards tyranny”
    This wasnt your quote, do you agree with that “benefit ” of gun ownership?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 97 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending