What's new
By:

Welcome to 'Murica

It appears to me that step 1 is far from complete.

I was surprised to read that I would push for much tougher regulation than gandalfe.
 
NAOS said:
It appears to me that step 1 is far from complete.

I was surprised to read that I would push for much tougher regulation than gandalfe.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? Everyone admits their is a problem. They may not agree on what that problem is but no one denies there is one.

Do you mean that everyone must agree on what the exact problem is?
 
Howard said:
What would they be? I don't think you've shared them yet.
Click to expand...

I think you can preserve the sporting nature of hunting and remove automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the flow of guns. I come from a family of hunting enthusiasts (I was enrolled in hunters' safety on the first eligible day), and I've never met a passionate, sporting hunter who needed a magazine. Never met one who needed a handgun.

*I'd support halting the manufacture and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic guns.
*I'd support a large, nationwide, taxpayer-funded gun buyback program that paid handsomely for automatic and semi-automatic guns. Program also to be funded with taxes levied at the retail point-of-sale of all guns going forward. EDIT: Ultimately, the gun-buyback prices need to be kept higher than the prices for used guns.
*I'm not sure how much time the watchdogs need to adequately investigate a gun buyer, but I'd support a system that gave them the adequate time.
*I do have discomforts with the State being able to dictate what someone does with their guns once they've purchased them. So, I would not attempt to ban the casual selling of used guns (it'd be ineffective law anyway). But, I would put a system in place where buyers and sellers could officially register the transfer of property if they chose to (since any investigation of a crime committed with a gun is already searchable to the last-known owner if such forensic evidence is found... or at least I think that's the case... and I can image a seller wanting to be free of that).

None of these attempt to criminalize those people who are currently in possession of guns of any type.




(That's a quick sketch)
 
Last edited:
Stoked said:
How do you figure? Everyone admits their is a problem. They may not agree on what that problem is but no one denies there is one.

Do you mean that everyone must agree on what the exact problem is?
Click to expand...

When you have people blaming, for example, the media (and there are plenty of them), then that's one sign there's deep disagreements about what the problem is. Nobody in their right mind would say we could achieve a complete agreement on the exact nature of the problem, dude.
 
NAOS said:
When you have people blaming, for example, the media (and there are plenty of them), then that's one sign there's deep disagreements about what the problem is. Nobody in their right mind would say we could achieve a complete agreement on the exact nature of the problem, dude.
Click to expand...

But none of that is any indication that people do not admit there is a problem.

Also most people blaming the media, myself included, only consider it one puzzle piece of a much larger puzzle. Not sure why it is such a big issue to you lol. But whatever.
 
Stoked said:
But none of that is any indication that people do not admit there is a problem.

Also most people blaming the media, myself included, only consider it one puzzle piece of a much larger puzzle. Not sure why it is such a big issue to you lol. But whatever.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're so convinced that everybody sees it as a problem that needs action lol and why it's such a big deal to you that I see it as you do lol. I, for one, would think that we'd have already seen some important regulatory action by now if people saw the problem in sufficiently similar terms lol and we haven't.
 
Stoked said:
Also most people blaming the media, myself included, only consider it one puzzle piece of a much larger puzzle. Not sure why it is such a big issue to you lol. But whatever.
Click to expand...

I love how you throw around the term "most people" without any hesitation or remorse.

LINK??
 
Not bad NAOS. A few quibbles.

Regular citizens cannot buy automatic weapons that aren't pre-86, they have to go through an extensive background check, and they're very expensive. I don't believe any shootings have used legal automatic weapons, so I don't think they're a problem. Maybe we could require the same background check?

As for the semi-auto, I see your point. From a hunting standpoint I don't use one. I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like. At the same time, they're much better for home protection. And is this just rifles/handguns or are we including shotguns. And most hunters I know are always carrying a handgun, we live in bear country. You take a handgun (I prefer a revolver tbh), and bear spray. A semi-auto ban would not impact me at all, except I prefer a pistol for home protection, but I still struggle with the loss of rights. I could live with it though. I'm just not sure it solves anything. While it's not a big deal, I would like to point out its very difficult to kill a wolf with a bolt or lever action rifle. Overall, good points.
 
Stoked said:
Link that most people are blaming this all on the media.
Click to expand...

dude, let me use a line on you that you're fond of using on others:

it's your claim that people are unified in the idea that there's a problem. It is therefore your responsibility to provide evidence of unification and give some semblance of a sketch of the problem that has been identified. I haven't seen much in the way of either.
 
NAOS said:
dude, let me use a line on you that you're fond of using on others:

it's your claim that people are unified in the idea that there's a problem. It is therefore your responsibility to provide evidence of unification and give some semblance of a sketch of the problem that has been identified. I haven't seen much in the way of either.
Click to expand...

And you are convinced that people do not think there is a problem. So provide your own link.

Basically neither of us can, because it is our own perceptions, but you are the one that started yelling for a link not me.

But you seem to be in a argumentative mood over basically nothing. Go find someone else.
 
Howard said:
Not bad NAOS. A few quibbles.

Regular citizens cannot buy automatic weapons that aren't pre-86, they have to go through an extensive background check, and they're very expensive. I don't believe any shootings have used legal automatic weapons, so I don't think they're a problem. Maybe we could require the same background check?

As for the semi-auto, I see your point. From a hunting standpoint I don't use one. I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like. At the same time, they're much better for home protection. And is this just rifles/handguns or are we including shotguns. And most hunters I know are always carrying a handgun, we live in bear country. You take a handgun (I prefer a revolver tbh), and bear spray. A semi-auto ban would not impact me at all, except I prefer a pistol for home protection, but I still struggle with the loss of rights. I could live with it though. I'm just not sure it solves anything. While it's not a big deal, I would like to point out its very difficult to kill a wolf with a bolt or lever action rifle. Overall, good points.
Click to expand...

IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

You raise some good practical points. In the outline of policies I suggested, you'd be left with plenty of room to acquire your revolver -- as would everybody else in bear country. (You all would be paying inflated prices due to gun-buyback prices, but you'd have legal and available options to do so. Purchases would be harder over time due to decreased stock). The same applies if you're one of the Home Protection Crowd.

in short, what I've suggested is a 30 or 40 year plan. In other words, it's completely mute to the ears of American politics.
 
Stoked said:
And you are convinced that people do not think there is a problem. So provide your own link.

Basically neither of us can, because it is our own perceptions, but you are the one that started yelling for a link not me.

But you seem to be in a argumentative mood over basically nothing. Go find someone else.
Click to expand...

The history of gun regulation suggests to me very clearly that people don't see the problem in similar terms. I've already said that. That's evidence. You?
 
One of my biggest issues with the gun thing is that we're just eliminating the method, and soley based on what I've seen via media and social networks, avoiding the reasons for why these people are doing it. Are they just more evil? Poor parenting? Bullying? Mentally ill? Too many pills? And how do we figure it out?

This isn't normal though.
 
NAOS said:
IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

You raise some good practical points. In the outline of policies I suggested, you'd be left with plenty of room to acquire your revolver -- as would everybody else in bear country. (You all would be paying inflated prices due to gun-buyback prices, but you'd have legal and available options to do so. Purchases would be harder over time due to decreased stock). The same applies if you're one of the Home Protection Crowd.

in short, what I've suggested is a 30 or 40 year plan. In other words, it's completely mute to the ears of American politics.
Click to expand...

On this I agree and I liked your idea of a buy back program. I think that could be very useful in getting unwanted/unnecessary guns off the streets.
 
Howard said:
One of my biggest issues with the gun thing is that we're just eliminating the method, and soley based on what I've seen via media and social networks, avoiding the reasons for why these people are doing it. Are they just more evil? Poor parenting? Bullying? Mentally ill? Too many pills? And how do we figure it out?

This isn't normal though.
Click to expand...

That's all a different can of worms. For sure. No easy solutions for corrupted morals that have tipped into that kind of violence. It's far easier to take weapons away.
 
Howard said:
One of my biggest issues with the gun thing is that we're just eliminating the method, and soley based on what I've seen via media and social networks, avoiding the reasons for why these people are doing it. Are they just more evil? Poor parenting? Bullying? Mentally ill? Too many pills? And how do we figure it out?

This isn't normal though.
Click to expand...

I'd say all of the bolded and then some others not mentioned.
 
NAOS said:
I think you can preserve the sporting nature of hunting and remove automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the flow of guns. I come from a family of hunting enthusiasts (I was enrolled in hunters' safety on the first eligible day), and I've never met a passionate, sporting hunter who needed a magazine. Never met one who needed a handgun.

*I'd support halting the manufacture and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic guns.
*I'd support a large, nationwide, taxpayer-funded gun buyback program that paid handsomely for automatic and semi-automatic guns. Program also to be funded with taxes levied at the retail point-of-sale of all guns going forward. EDIT: Ultimately, the gun-buyback prices need to be kept higher than the prices for used guns.
*I'm not sure how much time the watchdogs need to adequately investigate a gun buyer, but I'd support a system that gave them the adequate time.
*I do have discomforts with the State being able to dictate what someone does with their guns once they've purchased them. So, I would not attempt ban the casual selling of used guns (it'd be ineffective law anyway). But, I would put a system in place where buyers and sellers could officially register the transfer of property if they chose to (since any investigation of a crime committed with a gun is already searchable to the last-known owner if such forensic evidence is found... or at least I think that's the case... and I can image a seller wanting to be free of that).

None of these attempt to criminalize those people who are currently in possession of guns of any type.




(That's a quick sketch)
Click to expand...

Howard said:
Not bad NAOS. A few quibbles.

Regular citizens cannot buy automatic weapons that aren't pre-86, they have to go through an extensive background check, and they're very expensive. I don't believe any shootings have used legal automatic weapons, so I don't think they're a problem. Maybe we could require the same background check?

As for the semi-auto, I see your point. From a hunting standpoint I don't use one. I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like. At the same time, they're much better for home protection. And is this just rifles/handguns or are we including shotguns. And most hunters I know are always carrying a handgun, we live in bear country. You take a handgun (I prefer a revolver tbh), and bear spray. A semi-auto ban would not impact me at all, except I prefer a pistol for home protection, but I still struggle with the loss of rights. I could live with it though. I'm just not sure it solves anything. While it's not a big deal, I would like to point out its very difficult to kill a wolf with a bolt or lever action rifle. Overall, good points.
Click to expand...


NAOS said:
IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

You raise some good practical points. In the outline of policies I suggested, you'd be left with plenty of room to acquire your revolver -- as would everybody else in bear country. (You all would be paying inflated prices due to gun-buyback prices, but you'd have legal and available options to do so. Purchases would be harder over time due to decreased stock). The same applies if you're one of the Home Protection Crowd.

in short, what I've suggested is a 30 or 40 year plan. In other words, it's completely mute to the ears of American politics.
Click to expand...


NAOS said:
That's all a different can of worms. For sure. No easy solutions for corrupted morals that have tipped into that kind of violence. It's far easier to take weapons away.
Click to expand...
Well done guys

My favorite part:
NAOS said:
IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.
Click to expand...
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you ask me I think it's worth it taking the risk of having a few psychos go berzerk every now and then to ensure the permanence of a free State. More people die in car accidents every day.

That's what America is all about, individual freedom. The right to defend yourself and your property. The moment I convinced myself that the US government has been hijacked by international power groups that want to end the concept of sovereignty around the world the clearer things became to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top