General Discussion

Shamash

(597 posts)

61. Good!

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 08:32 AM

Jun 2015

I'm not advocating for racist or other coercive laws either. I am advocating for a consistently applied approach to risk and societal problems.

We kill a lot more of ourselves without guns as compared to other countries as well, so it would seem the problem is less about guns and more about us. I think if we work on the "us" problem we will be addressing the problem. Your approach seems to be addressing the results of the problem.

I'm not a 2A absolutist and I think there is plenty of room for improvement in our current gun laws (which I have stated elsewhere and consistently). But I will strongly oppose inconsistently applied measures and measures whose legal grounding can be used in a discriminatory fashion in the inevitable future where we are stuck with a conservative majority government for a while. A poll tax, even a small one, has been deemed unconstitutional on the grounds of requiring a payment to exercise a right, and it was used as a coercive tool against an unfavored demographic. A liberal/progressive government putting its stamp of approval on anything that smacks of the same is going to get my opposition if for no other reason than I don't trust that "gun" in the hands of conservatives.

And to (surprise) be contrarian, there is not much correlation between gun restrictions and gun crime. The correlation only holds if you cherry pick the countries involved. As a simple example, gun control advocates point to Canada as an improvement but not to Mexico's even stricter gun laws. When I point this out, people complain that Mexico's gun problems are not its laws, but US guns smuggled across the border.

A border we apparently do not have with Canada...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No-nonsense gun control in the US. It really does exist. [View all] DanTex Jun 2015 OP

Unconstitutional derby378 Jun 2015 #1

False. Of course, you never know how Scalia and the rest of the crazies will decide to re-interpret DanTex Jun 2015 #2

Unless you are unaware of the requirements of the NFA... derby378 Jun 2015 #6

You and Scalia think it's unconstitutional, of course. But there isn't any precedent at the moment DanTex Jun 2015 #7

Is there any ulterior motive in trying to link me to Scalia? derby378 Jun 2015 #9

You are echoing Scalia's beliefs on the second amendment. No ulterior motive, just a fact. DanTex Jun 2015 #12

No, I'm echoing the Constitution's position on the Second Amendment, that's all derby378 Jun 2015 #14

No, you are echoing Scalia's opinion on Heller. In fact, you are reading more into Scalia's opinion DanTex Jun 2015 #18

The old cannard that "the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the people" will be gone soon enough derby378 Jun 2015 #21

I'm not aware of that canard. But I agree that the next SCOTUS will have some important decisions DanTex Jun 2015 #22

I see a bit of debate between you and derby378 above rock Jun 2015 #67

Why should it more difficult for a person in NYC if he is a law abiding person? theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #10

That's a separate question, of course. I brought up NYC as a response to the constitutionality DanTex Jun 2015 #13

It shouldn't be easier nor should it be harder if it's being done legally theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #17

"Being done legally" depends on what the laws are. In NYC the laws are very stringent. DanTex Jun 2015 #19

Are you sure? derby378 Jun 2015 #23

We're talking about different laws here. But, yes, New Yorkers are happy with both. DanTex Jun 2015 #24

Duly noted - my bad derby378 Jun 2015 #27

Seriously? treestar Jun 2015 #51

I don't know if that is the case theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #30

People in NYC think it should. DanTex Jun 2015 #31

I think maybe we are getting our wires crossed here theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #37

$400 is not prohibitive. Also, people with less means suffer the most from gun violence and DanTex Jun 2015 #39

I then will agree to disagree with you on this point theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #40

It's easier to buy beer in NH than in MA Recursion Jun 2015 #63

D.C. v. Heller did not overturn U.S. v. Miller ThoughtCriminal Jun 2015 #48

This is true, and for the following application derby378 Jun 2015 #49

Heller only prohibited outright bans like DC had Recursion Jun 2015 #62

You do realize that the Supreme Court held against individual ownership 4 times... Sancho Jun 2015 #54

Miller, Heller, and McDonald all confirmed the NFA Recursion Jun 2015 #60

YEAH! What you said! flamin lib Jun 2015 #3

Did you actually read the post, or just skim it? cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #4

Well, I didn't say that. Banning isn't necessary. There are plenty of countries where handguns DanTex Jun 2015 #8

They would have to hire tens of thousands of more agents theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #5

Maybe, maybe not. But even if they did, it would be worth it. DanTex Jun 2015 #11

What you are proposing and it might be unintentional is theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #15

Not really. A decent gun already costs $300-$500. If you can afford that, you can also afford DanTex Jun 2015 #20

The price will go up for the stamp if eveything is NFA theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #26

Perhaps, and I have no problem with that. The important thing is the tens of thousands of lives DanTex Jun 2015 #29

I have a problem with it theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #32

Well, you already need "means" to buy a gun, if "means" means a few hundred dollars. DanTex Jun 2015 #34

Not really theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #36

Shotguns wouldn't be NFAed, so the cost of a shotgun wouldn't change. DanTex Jun 2015 #38

This could be the law of unintended consequences theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #43

Manufacture of new automatic weapons is already illegal. So is modifying a semi-auto DanTex Jun 2015 #44

Right but the NFA is to control automatics and suppressor tranfers theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #45

Well, then the new law would have to reinstate the 1986 ban on automatics. DanTex Jun 2015 #46

Like I wrote it happened here with the assault weapon registry theycallmetrinity Jun 2015 #47

Most giuns aren't all that cheap already. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2015 #59

When you add it all up Shamash Jun 2015 #25

Well, if the NRA is as weak and poor as you say, then maybe there is hope after all. DanTex Jun 2015 #28

Not as poor or weak as I say Shamash Jun 2015 #33

No, I don't think they are poor and weak. I think they are a strong, very effective special DanTex Jun 2015 #35

Fair enough Shamash Jun 2015 #41

I disagree that all 80 million gun owners side with the NRA, and there is plenty of DanTex Jun 2015 #42

Let's be clear on the definition of that Shamash Jun 2015 #50

Sorry, but a $200 registration to own a gun is not "classist". DanTex Jun 2015 #53

Post removed Post removed Jun 2015 #56

That's a good point. I'm not advocating for that. I'm also not advocating a poll tax. DanTex Jun 2015 #57

Good! Shamash Jun 2015 #61

Good. So now we can talk about gun control, which is a necessary public safety measure. DanTex Jun 2015 #64

I seem to be missing your point Shamash Jun 2015 #68

Without gun murders, the US would not be an outlier in terms of homicide rates among wealthy nations DanTex Jun 2015 #69

Disagree on a number of grounds Shamash Jun 2015 #70

OK, one by one. DanTex Jun 2015 #71

Gee, all those new jobs, well, that would be terrible now, wouldn't it! calimary Jun 2015 #16

Some clarification Lee-Lee Jun 2015 #52

Yes, in addition to NFAing handguns, they should also fix the corporation/LLC loophole. DanTex Jun 2015 #55

Funny, the RKBA group discusses the NFA all the time Recursion Jun 2015 #58

Hmm. The gungeon representatives who chimed in here don't seem very positive about NFA. DanTex Jun 2015 #65

His is definitely a minority position in the RKBA group Recursion Jun 2015 #66