The conversation that needs to happen.

a reply to: Aazadan

Pay for it with the taxes collected from the kids that now get to grow up and have jobs.

Higher taxes. Check.

Pay for it with the insurance payouts that no longer have to go to families who have kids killed.

Forced forfeiture of paid-up insurance. Check.

Pay for it with the funeral costs we no longer have to have.

More asset forfeiture. Check.

Pay for it with the reduction in spending on gunshot wounds.

Forfeiture of unused health insurance. Check.

Sounds like you're after more than just guns with that plan... it actually sounds like you want to remove private property rights as well.

You can own a tank or fighter jet now, but only if you're wealthy. The 2nd says nothing about expense.

Actually, no, not in operating condition. Tank main barrels must be plugged, the receiver area made unusable, and the trigger mechanism removed. Any machine gun is removed; one might, if one is one of the lucky few to own a collectible fully automatic firearm, mount it on the tripods, but then the entire tank must be kept under lock and key or the owner risks losing the right to own the weapon and jail time.

Fighter jets sold to the public are similarly disabled, and their use is still regulated by the FAA. They're just fancy airplanes when they hit the civilian market.

The 2nd says the right may not be infringed. Artificial economic restriction is infringement. IMO, the ban on fully automatic firearms is unconstitutional, and should have required a Constitutional Amendment to implement. That is not saying I don't agree with the result; simply that we did it the wrong way.

Reread my suggestion

I did. Here it is:

originally posted by: Aazadan

I 100% support both. Armed guards/teachers are not going to solve this problem. The only solution is to remove weapons from society. Until we take security seriously, I see no reason to force both teachers and students to sit in rooms that are quickly becoming deathtraps.

That was your initial suggestion, which prompted my posts. Now you have changed positions to your "let the criminals and wealthy have all the guns" position. Pick one, please?

And those regulations have made the price of certain black market weapons (which is how criminals get guns) too expensive to use in petty crime.

It is still not an economic solution; it is a legal solution. Get caught with an M-60 and see how illegal it really is.

Even those few who are allowed to own fully automatic weapons are subject to special restrictions. They are responsible for maintaining security for the weapons and immediately notifying the FBI should they ever come up missing... at the risk of serious jail time. The legal risks from owning such a weapon are so high it dwarfs the actual cost of the weapon.

You really need to learn something about guns before jumping in to discussions like this. You're starting to embarrass yourself.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DD2029
We need to address the large amount of crisis acting that I see on TV on a regular basis.

and we need to address this New World Mockery being concocted on the Sheep.

they make it obvious on purpose because they are psychotic. They really are laughing at you.

Crisis acting?

You like think people are making this # up?
You think the profound grief people are showing us acting?

Shame on you.

Did you read the bit about people lacking empathy?

Shame on you.

Are you are the next shooter?

Shame on you.

Your attitude is THE PROBLEM.

SHAME ON YOU.

originally posted by: SmilingROB

Crisis acting?

You like think people are making this # up?
You think the profound grief people are showing us acting?

Shame on you.

Did you read the bit about people lacking empathy?

Shame on you.

Are you are the next shooter?

Shame on you.

Your attitude is THE PROBLEM.

SHAME ON YOU.

You're God Damn right Crisis Acting.

I'm calling it out for what it is.

There is nothing but one giant Crisis Actor on the TV 24/7.

The quicker you realize that... the quicker we can all move the f*ck on.

That's it, I'm done... I have no further comments because this is the common response.

One of these days the crisis actors are gonna get too obvious with it all...

They will make things awkward like they always do... but eventually they will get exposed.


It's not even about crisis acting anymore... it's about mockery.

we are being mocked.

bottomline. end of story.

next subject.



They (and I know who "They are) are rubbing it in our faces until we implode on ourselves.

most people should be able to see the writing on wall... it's crisis actor after crisis actor.

One after another.

everybody knows this and that's the 400lb Gorilla in the room.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Higher taxes. Check.

It might lead to higher taxes, but it would also lead to less spending in recovering from these disasters too. Long term it's a one time purchase for a permanent reduction in liability. We would save money, it's just a question of how long it would take to get an ROI. So from an economic standpoint it makes sense.

Sounds like you're after more than just guns with that plan... it actually sounds like you want to remove private property rights as well.

Where do you get this stuff from? Am I being unclear? I have a habit of posting when I'm either in a rush or half asleep, so it could be on my end, or it could be on yours since I only seem to have issues with comprehension when writing to you.

You can own a tank or fighter jet now, but only if you're wealthy. The 2nd says nothing about expense.

Actually, no, not in operating condition. Tank main barrels must be plugged, the receiver area made unusable, and the trigger mechanism removed. Any machine gun is removed; one might, if one is one of the lucky few to own a collectible fully automatic firearm, mount it on the tripods, but then the entire tank must be kept under lock and key or the owner risks losing the right to own the weapon and jail time.

Fighter jets sold to the public are similarly disabled, and their use is still regulated by the FAA. They're just fancy airplanes when they hit the civilian market.

Tanks are still armored, you can still put other weapons on them. If you use a fighter jet as a missile it's still deadly. Are they as effective as they are in military hands? No. Are they still high powered weapons platforms? Yes.

The 2nd says the right may not be infringed. Artificial economic restriction is infringement. IMO, the ban on fully automatic firearms is unconstitutional, and should have required a Constitutional Amendment to implement. That is not saying I don't agree with the result; simply that we did it the wrong way.

You're implying here that you agree with the result of getting fully automatic weapons off the streets. How would you have done it that is in line with your interpretation of the 2nd? Furthermore, why can you not expand said process to include more weapons... what's special about fully automatics?

That was your initial suggestion, which prompted my posts. Now you have changed positions to your "let the criminals and wealthy have all the guns" position. Pick one, please?

You cannot remove access to weapons without removing them from society. If we want weapons off the streets, then that means weapons need to be harder to get. Personally? I would have zero problem with full gun control but a lot of people have different opinions than mine (also worth pointing out, that I do support the 2nd, I just don't support gun culture). If we want people to own guns I think that both Australia and Switzerland have good models, with Switzerland being preferable but that requires both culture changes as well as legislation changes.

a reply to: Aazadan

Australia is disingenious compairson. It's basically a giant island that has kept tight control of it's boards. It doesn't have Mexico and South America essentially connected to it and with what amounts 200 years of open boarders for drug and gun cartels. Because lets face it, American border security is theater.

I'm not convinced that it would sigificantly make an impact in mass shootings at all, much less a significant one.

And not according to many statistics I have seen...it's not an "occasional stabbing" and some stabbings that have occured have numbers similar to some mass shootings. I think you are deliberately trying to downplay that.

How about the new trend is car's being used as weapons? Wait till IED's start to make the rounds in civilized countries too. That kind of stuff is just a matter of time as things seem to escalate.

Yes, so only the rich, the elites, the politicans and those who they emply are armed while the mass citizenry is enslaved with no rights except what the generous government "grants" them. You may forget, our country was founded because of an overstepping and over-controlling government putting the thumbscrews to the citizenry. It gives us a different perspective, history and culture.

So your answer isn't really an answer. There's plenty of regimes today and they show, when the government controls all the weapons, the people have no choice but to accept it's dictates and if you don't think a government can become corrupt enough to essentially enslave it's citizens, you are naieve and haven't been paying attention to the world.

Just because something hasn't happened in your lifetime, doesn't mean it won't...I'm quite sure people were stunned when WW I and II broke out. I am sure they will be quite stunned when WW III eventually does as well. We are a warlike, greedy and selfish people as a whole...human nature has never changed at it's core, we've only managed control it better.

Lastly, what do I value more? I reject your premise that these are the only two answers that are mutually exclusive. Your question is a trap that is often thrown out there. For me the answer is easy, my gun. I don't have a child...but even if I did...my gun, because without my gun I could never protect my child from someone breaking into my home and property, attempting to perpetrate harm on me or my loved ones.

I'm to old and sick to engage the bad guys in a fist fight or with melee weapons anymore...and in my life, I have had to do that a couple of times, back when I was younger had no choice in the matter.

The root of the problem needs to be examined. That isn't guns - that is currently a problem with the culture and mentality of the US and especially it's current generation. America needs to fix it's great divide.

Let me give you an example. I remember growing up when people could disagree over politics and religion and guns and remain friends and go about their business. Now days when people disagree, more often than not one side of the other is belittling the other, their family, their dog and someone is trying to deprives the rights of that other person, friendships are ended (has happened to me and told I should be killed horribly because I didn't want Hillary in office), etc. Society is split and crazy. That's the problem. Removing guns won't solve the issue and it won't help the issue...it will get people to become more inventive killers as the problem gets worse.

a reply to: Aazadan

It might lead to higher taxes, but it would also lead to less spending in recovering from these disasters too. Long term it's a one time purchase for a permanent reduction in liability.

No, you said you wanted an annual firearm buy-back with guaranteed profit. That is not a one time investment.

Where do you get this stuff from? Am I being unclear? I have a habit of posting when I'm either in a rush or half asleep, so it could be on my end, or it could be on yours since I only seem to have issues with comprehension when writing to you.

I'm getting it from your posts. I mentioned the astronomical costs and asked how it would be paid for. Your reply was that it would be paid for by lower insurance claims (private monies that have to transfer somehow to the government to pay for a public program), reduced funeral costs (more private costs that now have to be paid to the government), and less health insurance claims. None of these are costs paid for by the government. Ergo, there has to be a transfer of wealth to the government from private insurance instead of to the insured.

Tell me... most health insurance plans have a lifetime maximum. Do the payments to the government by the insurance company to buy back guns count against my lifetime maximum health benefits?

Maybe you shouldn't sleep-post... or sleep-think...

Tanks are still armored, you can still put other weapons on them.

I can armor my Buick and put a machine gun on top of it. The weapon wouldn't be legal (the armor actually is), but I could do it.

If you use a fighter jet as a missile it's still deadly. Are they as effective as they are in military hands? No.

Exactly. They are decommissioned.

Are they still high powered weapons platforms? Yes.

No more than a Cessna with a hot engine. Just a flashy body and fancy aerodynamics.

In actuality, I am not even sure the engine in a fighter jet is not classified... the engines may not be transferable to civilians.

You're implying here that you agree with the result of getting fully automatic weapons off the streets. How would you have done it that is in line with your interpretation of the 2nd?

I do agree with removing the ability of individuals to own fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. I just believe the 2nd needed an Amendment to specify which arms can and cannot be regulated by the government.

That's how the Constitution works. It can be changed, but only by Amendment.

Furthermore, why can you not expand said process to include more weapons... what's special about fully automatics?

What is special about them is the rate at which they can fire. A fully automatic weapon on a civilian population is a weapon of potential mass destruction because they can empty a 500-round belt in a couple of minutes.

As for applying a present process... that can be done. We age-limit the ability to purchase handguns to those 21 or older, which can be said to be an implied exception to the 2nd Amendment. We can do the same to semi-automatic rifles, and I could see myself supporting that. I will not support a similar restriction on "assault weapons," however, because they do not exist except in the mind of those who do not know enough about the issue to be involved.

I'm not going to say I would balk at the idea of a 25 year old age limit, as long as lesser weapons were still available earlier. Kids need to learn how to handle a weapon before buying the biggest and baddest one out there.

You cannot remove access to weapons without removing them from society.

Then one cannot remove access to weapons. I have already pointed out that removing all weapons from society is impossible on several fronts, and you yourself have as much as admitted the same by your buy-back scheme.

Personally? I would have zero problem with full gun control but a lot of people have different opinions than mine (also worth pointing out, that I do support the 2nd, I just don't support gun culture).

It is not possible to support full gun control and also support the 2nd Amendment. They are antithetical to each other. You might want to pick a position.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, you said you wanted an annual firearm buy-back with guaranteed profit. That is not a one time investment.

Yes it is. Lets say the goal was to get 50% of guns off the streets. In rough numbers, there is 1 gun in the US for every single person, about 1/3 of Americans own a weapon, and about 50% of guns are in the hands of 10% of gun owners. If you were to aim a buyback at the reasonable 30% of Americans that own 50% of guns, you would need to pay what, $500/gun for 150 million guns? That's 7.5 billion. Budget that over a decade with annual buybacks for 10 years and you're looking at $750 million/year. That's practically nothing, and it would just be people voluntarily giving up guns. Take it a step further and force liquidation of guns through inheritance or estate sales, as well as sales of weapons between private parties (not going through a vendor). The ammosexuals would still be able to keep their guns, they could even get new ones. But only a small fraction of people would have weapons, which means fewer criminals would have weapons.

I'm getting it from your posts. I mentioned the astronomical costs and asked how it would be paid for. Your reply was that it would be paid for by lower insurance claims (private monies that have to transfer somehow to the government to pay for a public program), reduced funeral costs (more private costs that now have to be paid to the government), and less health insurance claims. None of these are costs paid for by the government. Ergo, there has to be a transfer of wealth to the government from private insurance instead of to the insured.

Money that doesn't need spent, doesn't need transferred. If we reduce future insurance claims with up front subsidies, we get fully reimbursed through reduced taxes in the future. And since borrowing money is so cheap, we wouldn't even need to raise taxes in the present to do it.

Tell me... most health insurance plans have a lifetime maximum. Do the payments to the government by the insurance company to buy back guns count against my lifetime maximum health benefits?

Actually, thanks to the ACA they eliminated lifetime maximums. Turns out it was a bad thing when people would get cancer, hit the maximum, and lose everything plus wind up massively in debt despite the insurance. Only the states that wanted to screw over their residents didn't adopt that. Guess you price that into your willingness to live somewhere.

I do agree with removing the ability of individuals to own fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. I just believe the 2nd needed an Amendment to specify which arms can and cannot be regulated by the government.

If less deadly is the criteria, what's the metric on that? A handgun and a speed loader can fire off many rounds a minute, and kill a room full of people in seconds. That's pretty darn deadly.

It is not possible to support full gun control and also support the 2nd Amendment. They are antithetical to each other. You might want to pick a position.

Guns are no longer the primary weapon we have in use today. They're occasionally used for killing, but they're primarily treated as a toy to shoot paper targets and clay disks. The primary weapon the public has access to today is information. Hacking, encryption, and transmitting messages is the primary form of arms in the 21st century. It's more damaging than nuclear weapons, cheaper than a bullet, capable of collapsing a government or corporation in a few keystrokes, and scalable to hit billions at once or one single individual.

The time of the gun has passed. It no longer guarantees freedom or security, it's just a deadly toy.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's it, in a nut shell.

I was one of those with a shotgun, or rifle, sometimes both, depending upon the hunting season, in a rack along the back window of my car.

High school wasn't exactly a pleasant experience at least some of the time. I had anger issues, not management, I managed the anger just fine. Why do so many seemingly have trouble with that, these days?

That's where the answer lies. No where else.

a reply to: Aazadan

It's not a shift in gun attitudes, it's a shift in our own attitudes, and guns are an easy release valve. Like I just said in a previous post I think it has to do with how interconnected we are. It's a communication issue, we see/speak with people and hear how well they're doing, and compare it to our own lives. Facebook, Twitter, even text messages are nothing more than taking other peoples best moments and having them thrown at your average. That makes people feel like they're getting a raw deal and lash out.

That's a place to start.

Something as simple, to most of us, as envy/jealousy as trigger mechanism? To a mind ill-equipped, for what ever reason, that could, indeed, be a reason to lash out.

I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that, but it's not something I had considered prior. Thanks!

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes it is.

I think you're sleep-posting again.

$500 to buy back a gun is not exactly a premium price. It's more like an insult. Do you even know what guns sell for? It's hard as Hades to even find a semi-auto rifle for $500... some run as high as $3000. My dream gun, a Weatherby Mark V Deluxe in a .460 Magnum caliber, is $3500.

And you're going to pay $500 for it? Really?

Money that doesn't need spent, doesn't need transferred.

Exactly how are you going to buy back guns without spending money?

Actually, thanks to the ACA they eliminated lifetime maximums.

Oh, you haven't heard? Trump killed the ACA... mercy kill, if you ask me. It was dying a slow, torturous death, primarily because it was created from the same kind of misinformation and twisted logic you are trying to apply to gun control.

If less deadly is the criteria, what's the metric on that?

That's a good question... one the people could answer if they had a choice, like actually amending the Constitution.

As it is now, there is no metric. The right to keep and bear arms, according to the US Constitution, is unlimited. Period.

Guns are no longer the primary weapon we have in use today. They're occasionally used for killing, but they're primarily treated as a toy to shoot paper targets and clay disks. The primary weapon the public has access to today is information.

Well, thank God those students in Florida weren't assaulted with a computer.

The time of the gun has passed. It no longer guarantees freedom or security, it's just a deadly toy.

Well, at least you're consistent. You ended a BS post full of BS (il)logic with a BS conclusion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude

I don't care how many people get killed.
More power to the people, less government.

The less power the government has over us the better.

a reply to: seagull

I'm in the same boat.
Got bullied badly while in school. Had easy access to unguarded guns. In fact I was able , anytime I wanted , to go out with my other teenage friends and shoot an actual ak-47 with a banana clip. Never once during that time did I think of killing anyone except my bully. But even though I thought about it, I would never do it. Not because I was afraid to kill but because I didn't really want him dead. Not in my heart.

This issue is more of a societal problem. It is a failure of parents and adults to teach the young how to handle their emotions.
I always say what america needs most is a class in school or a set up like a collage that teaches the young how to be emotionally mature.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That's a good question... one the people could answer if they had a choice, like actually amending the Constitution.

As it is now, there is no metric. The right to keep and bear arms, according to the US Constitution, is unlimited. Period.

According to Scalia in Hadler, the 2nd applies to weapons in common use at the time, and that the government has the right to restrict what weapons are in common use. That's why something like full auto's could be restricted and pass the Constitutional test.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude


I'm about done with this topic. I've said my piece.


We need to change the way we teach and raise our children.

They have no coping skills. They have no problem-solving skills.

Some respond in a juvenile manner with adult tools.


They have been coddled and trophied since birth so when they encounter the harsh realities of the real world or run into issues that are hard, they react disproportionately.



Life is hard. Life is tough.


But no solution to a problem should ever include shooting up a school.

Funny how the same aged kids in other countries, whom are just as "coddled and trophied", don't go around shooting up schools.

Could it possibly be that what you said is complete nonsense that is not supported by ANY data? Could it be you are simply trying to create another distraction from the conversation of gun control?

Yes, methinks that's exactly it.

a reply to: network dude

Very Well said. didn't Realize you were such a poet.
See you soon

a reply to: Kryties

As I said in my OP, this kind of thing didn't happen when I was a kid in the late 70's and early 80's either.
Something changed, and it isn't guns. They were around then too. I am very glad you don't see this horror in other countries. I wish we didn't see it here.

Crisis Actors.

come at me bro.

a reply to: Aazadan

That's according to the Supreme Court. I stated "according to the Constitution." I think the wording is pretty clear.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

That's according to the Supreme Court. I stated "according to the Constitution." I think the wording is pretty clear.

TheRedneck

So you're saying your interpretation of the Constitution is above that of the Supreme Courts?

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm saying the Constitution is above the Supreme Court.

Try not to twist my words.

TheRedneck