It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

STOP with the COMMON SENSE gun control pleas – just STOP! - falling on deaf ears

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Gun phobes aka hoplophobes are the most uninformed people I have ever seen.

That fact you can take to any fiat currency bank.

Just for snips and giggles.

As per the fifth amendment.

No person shall be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

Which means 320 million Americans are not ANSWERABLE to the crime of a single person.

The person that committed the crime is.




posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

It's interesting that we were able to establish some common points of agreement with respect to limited gun control, right on the first page of the thread. Reasonable people, who listen to one another, can come to some level of agreement without resorting to extreme positions.

The devil is in the details, as they say. But two groups who are genuinely interested in attaining a common goal should be able to work together toward meaningful legislation. Even though there will be some conflicts on issues that are important to either side of the argument, none of those issues should be insurmountable; especially if the issue is debated respectfully.

These are my goals:
1. Whatever is necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of people who will conspire to kill our children.
2. Keep firearms away from someone who may come off their meds, go to a gun store, purchase a semi-automatic weapon with a couple of drum mags, then go out onto Main Street and mow down shoppers.
3. But keep this effort limited so as not to deny the rights of legitimate firearm purchasers.

I've also noticed that there are some open-minded 2nd Amendment supporters in this thread that are amenable to some regulation. Particularly if those on the regulation side are open to removing restrictions on some hardware and supporting CCL reciprocity, for instance.

To achieve anything, I believe we have to define "common sense" as the "sense" that is "common" to both sides of the debate. Maintaining extreme positions by either party, without the hope of compromise, will leave us where we are right now: with escalating gun violence in our educational institutions, and the indiscriminate murder of our children.

-dex



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



Target shooting and three gun competions (a form of target shooting) is a sport because people can own guns


Do you need an AR-15 to do target shooting??? No. We don't sell machine guns and RPG's to people, we don't need to sell military weapons to people either.


Any gun or weapon is a machine. some with no moving parts some with. They all do work. The AR-15 is strictly civilian and not even Automatic. would you be happy if they make it so the trigger locks for 3 seconds between shots?
A shotgun was used recently in texas. those are used for hunting primarily. But since it was used in a crime you would outlaw it right? Cars are use din crimes,so i guess we have to outlaw them too...oh and a persons mind is also used in crimes,so i guess we need to outlaw free thinking too right?

You see how stupid this sounds? the only people who have class 3 weapons are usually so highly regulated they can barely breath so to speak.

Criminals though HAVE NO COMMON SENSE. They choose convenience and availability. Apparently the AR-15 isnt too available because a majority of criminals havent used them in crimes.

And Yeah there are target shooting competititons that require semi auto rifles. They need to change the name from semi auto to single pull rifles. Avoids th ewhole word automatic that confuses people.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Stop making drum mags then. And Usually those things will malfuntion easily since they are not military grade most of the time.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: DexterRiley

Stop making drum mags then. And Usually those things will malfuntion easily since they are not military grade most of the time.

LOL.

While I believe you may be saying that in jest, it does represent something that both sides could agree on. 2nd Amendment supporters may be okay with discontinuing an accessory that is somewhat worse than useless. While the gun control activists would see that as a win they can sell to their base.

On the other hand, not discontinuing non military grade drum mags may be more effective in limiting gun violence because it causes the weapon to malfunction before it can do as much harm.


-dex



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

I am sure this position seems level headed and reasonable to you. In the spirit of respectful debate, I respectfully disagree. Look at your example: "someone who may come off their meds, go to a gun store, purchase a semi-automatic weapon with a couple of drum mags, then go out onto Main Street and mow down shoppers."' We are not experiencing a problem with this type of scenario. You can imagine it but it is real only in your mind maybe from watching movies or something. But you want to pass a law that punishes 300 million innocent people for something you imagined.

Most solutions by the left even for actual problems punish innocent people for what they might do. Pre-crime. We have school shootings so treat everyone like they want to shoot up a school. How can you pass a law that doesn't restrict the rights of the innocent? I haven't seen anything that meets your criteria yet.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DexterRiley

I am sure this position seems level headed and reasonable to you. In the spirit of respectful debate, I respectfully disagree. Look at your example: "someone who may come off their meds, go to a gun store, purchase a semi-automatic weapon with a couple of drum mags, then go out onto Main Street and mow down shoppers."' We are not experiencing a problem with this type of scenario. You can imagine it but it is real only in your mind maybe from watching movies or something. But you want to pass a law that punishes 300 million innocent people for something you imagined.


Okay, I'll admit that my example was a bit extreme. In fact, I also admit that there was an attempt at some dark humor there. Perhaps that got lost in translation. Sorry about that.

However, there are examples of people who have become "reality-challenged" due to various circumstances; including some mentally ill people coming off their meds, or otherwise lacking proper mental healthcare. I recall a case with a politician in VA who was shot by his son when his son's condition took a turn for the worse. His parents tried in vain to find appropriate hospital care, but none was available. Perhaps making sure that mental healthcare is available for someone who might become violent could be one of the ways of addressing this issue. New laws are not always the answer to these problems.

But, I don't consider a well defined law that attempts to limit these occurrences as misguided; or as punishment to the vast majority of legal firearm purchasers. Especially if an efficient appeal process is also in place. At the most this should be little more than an annoyance.


Most solutions by the left even for actual problems punish innocent people for what they might do. Pre-crime. We have school shootings so treat everyone like they want to shoot up a school. How can you pass a law that doesn't restrict the rights of the innocent? I haven't seen anything that meets your criteria yet.


How does a little annoyance restrict anyone's rights? No one who is qualified to own a firearm is loosing any right.

Respectfully, do you perceive any problem with this recent increase in shootings in schools, or other public venues for that matter? If not, how do you support that belief in light of all the latest events involving firearms? If so, can you propose a possible solution to the problem; whether that includes legislation or other measures?

-dex



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

I'm trying to figure out why you're promulgating new law for something already illegal.

Its how 50,000+ idiotic laws on this subject got made - do-gooder make it look like we did something, constitution be damned.

Recently one of mass shooters went right through NICS because government failed to properly report mental issues, fix that crap! No new laws needed!



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: DexterRiley

I'm trying to figure out why you're promulgating new law for something already illegal.

Its how 50,000+ idiotic laws on this subject got made - do-gooder make it look like we did something, constitution be damned.

Recently one of mass shooters went right through NICS because government failed to properly report mental issues, fix that crap! No new laws needed!

That's a good idea!

I'm not necessarily saying any new laws are necessary. I believe I specified a couple of goals to keep some of our most vulnerable from being needlessly slaughtered. I'm interested in ideas to support that goal.

Your idea is to better enforce laws that are already on the books. And, you provide a perfect example of where the current system has failed. What's the best way of fixing these "imperfections" in the current system?

Other than fixing standard bureaucratic stupidity and forcing all of the participating NICS agencies to do their jobs, are there other specific laws on the books that need to be reviewed and more diligently enforced?

-dex



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof


IDK why the left just doesn't get the message but no matter how many children they manipulate and put in front of a camera


Pretty sure the children on camera are not being manipulated or reading from a script but are speaking from an individual perspective, and are tired of seeing their peers murdered in school.

Do the media find these people to put on camera? Sure. But that doesn't make the message they have less relevant or true because it's not scripted.

And I'm a Second Amendment supporter and gun-owning liberal.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Thats an easy answer,

Federal & State mandatory sentences for use of firearms in commission of crime are first bargaining chip to receive lessor sentences and pad prosecutors resume with convictions.

Roughly 15 years back one Fed Prosecutor in mid-Atlantic state stopped pleas and charged with mandatory sentences - statistics for murder went down very significantly in that district as the revolving door was shut and repeat offenders were facing long sentences that kept them off street.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: DexterRiley

I am sure this position seems level headed and reasonable to you. In the spirit of respectful debate, I respectfully disagree. Look at your example: "someone who may come off their meds, go to a gun store, purchase a semi-automatic weapon with a couple of drum mags, then go out onto Main Street and mow down shoppers."' We are not experiencing a problem with this type of scenario. You can imagine it but it is real only in your mind maybe from watching movies or something. But you want to pass a law that punishes 300 million innocent people for something you imagined.


Okay, I'll admit that my example was a bit extreme. In fact, I also admit that there was an attempt at some dark humor there. Perhaps that got lost in translation. Sorry about that.

However, there are examples of people who have become "reality-challenged" due to various circumstances; including some mentally ill people coming off their meds, or otherwise lacking proper mental healthcare. I recall a case with a politician in VA who was shot by his son when his son's condition took a turn for the worse. His parents tried in vain to find appropriate hospital care, but none was available. Perhaps making sure that mental healthcare is available for someone who might become violent could be one of the ways of addressing this issue. New laws are not always the answer to these problems.

But, I don't consider a well defined law that attempts to limit these occurrences as misguided; or as punishment to the vast majority of legal firearm purchasers. Especially if an efficient appeal process is also in place. At the most this should be little more than an annoyance.


Most solutions by the left even for actual problems punish innocent people for what they might do. Pre-crime. We have school shootings so treat everyone like they want to shoot up a school. How can you pass a law that doesn't restrict the rights of the innocent? I haven't seen anything that meets your criteria yet.


How does a little annoyance restrict anyone's rights? No one who is qualified to own a firearm is loosing any right.

Respectfully, do you perceive any problem with this recent increase in shootings in schools, or other public venues for that matter? If not, how do you support that belief in light of all the latest events involving firearms? If so, can you propose a possible solution to the problem; whether that includes legislation or other measures?

-dex


As regards the main part of your reply, my response is that maybe we should take away your rights and force you to go to court and get them back. It should just be a minor annoyance for you. Do you even read what you are writing?

As to your last question, I have already posted one suggestion to address the problem you mention. Develop better diagnostic methods to identify which depression patients are likely to go shooting rampages. They appear to all be diagnosed with depression and be on depression medication but the doctors don't seem to be able to tell the homicidal ones from the other 99% normally depressed patients.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


Thats an easy answer,

That's the spirit! You've provided a couple of excellent suggestions I never even considered. My mindset was originally locked on legislative action. However, you've proposed changes that could be made literally without an act of congress. So, I respectfully submit that this is the kind of discussion we need to have to address gun crime in the US.



Federal & State mandatory sentences for use of firearms in commission of crime are first bargaining chip to receive lessor sentences and pad prosecutors resume with convictions.
That's easiest to do at the federal level. The US Attorney General only has to issue a memo dictating that procedure be followed by all field offices.

The states can be encouraged to do this by the federal government. However, as it was pointed out earlier, it's up to the individual states to implement this policy as they see fit. It may be necessary for the implementing states to demonstrate a positive effect before it would be widely implemented.

However, I'll play Devil's Advocate and say that one argument we will have to address is that longer prison sentences just feed the Prison-Industrial-Complex.



Roughly 15 years back one Fed Prosecutor in mid-Atlantic state stopped pleas and charged with mandatory sentences - statistics for murder went down very significantly in that district as the revolving door was shut and repeat offenders were facing long sentences that kept them off street.
I don't doubt your anecdote. However, it would be useful to provide some supporting evidence for this suggestion. Also, any other statistics or reports that show this to be an effective approach would be great. That is, if you are so inclined to look. At some point, perhaps our somewhat dysfunctional family here on ATS might actual produce a "proposal" that details some reasonable ideas about limiting gun violence.


-dex



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Excellent post DigginFoTroof - I started a similar one and those interested may want to check it out here:

Liberals and gun control, the fatal attraction that puts Republicans in office
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54



As regards the main part of your reply, my response is that maybe we should take away your rights and force you to go to court and get them back. It should just be a minor annoyance for you.

Well, my case is a bit different. Quite frankly I would expect to have to do something like this anyway. And still fail...

However, I did propose that the appeals process should be efficient and timely. I see no reason for a full blown trial to determine someone's fitness to own a firearm. A simple administrative process and examination as you specify below should be sufficient.



Do you even read what you are writing?

Well, yes I do. However, one of the goals of a discussion like this is to expose flaws in one another's positions. We all sometimes get locked into a certain point-of-view. If we can establish a mutual respect for each other personally, and each other's perspective, we can have a real meaningful conversation.



As to your last question, I have already posted one suggestion to address the problem you mention. Develop better diagnostic methods to identify which depression patients are likely to go shooting rampages. They appear to all be diagnosed with depression and be on depression medication but the doctors don't seem to be able to tell the homicidal ones from the other 99% normally depressed patients.

That's a good point. Certainly during the review process I discussed above, this would be very helpful in weeding out that 1%.

The biggest implementation problem that I see, though, is how do these "diagnosticians" get integrated into the process before the background check is performed? Professional counselors and psychotherapists, who may be the ones who are providing ongoing mental health services, rarely want to report their patients. It might not only damage their relationship with the patient, but also cause the patient to completely lose faith in the mental health profession altogether; thus avoiding further treatment and possibly aggravating an already dangerous mental illness.

Thanks for the suggestion.

-dex



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley




The biggest implementation problem that I see, though, is how do these "diagnosticians" get integrated into the process before the background check is performed? Professional counselors and psychotherapists, who may be the ones who are providing ongoing mental health services



Reminds me of several things, loosely,

1. Stalin and henchmen used Soviet mental health system to punish political opponents
2. We were told Patriot act was unconstitutional but temporary - we now live in virtual surveillance state/police state.
3. What prevents an absolute liberal despot from using such a system to rid us of the second amendment problem unless privileged and politically correct?

Seems to me every well intentioned but constitutional bending, ignoring, self justified, wonky government program has turned on us citizens - why would I even entertain another?

In fact for some above reasons I would resist this as its ripe for abuse.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

These are great proposals! Well said!



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

If you will listen to the concerns being voiced, you will discover that most 2nd amendment advocates are reasonable people. It's just that people like earlier in this thread, people who openly demand that guns are "not necessary" and therefore regulatable, keep pushing an agenda that causes us to balk as well. If I'm negotiating to buy a car that is priced $10,000 and my starting offer is ten cents if you have it washed and haul it to my house, there's not going to be a deal there.

The position many take is akin to that. As things stand right now, this minute, I have a right to possess, carry, maintain, and I would say use when necessary, any weapon made. We live under a Constitution that bars the government from interfering with that right, but the government has been able to do so on numerous occasions anyway. In light of that situation, whenever I hear someone use such an asinine argument as "you don't need that kind of gun to _____," my first response is "fine. I already have the Constitution on my side, so go suck eggs."

My position is actually one that will never happen. We need to amend the 2nd so that it applies better to the modern world. If we want, as a society, to restrict fully auto firearms and items like nuclear bombs, we need to specify exactly what can be regulated and what cannot. Of course, if anyone were to actually propose a common sense proposal to do so, idiots and fools would be coming out of the woodwork to demand ridiculous allowances and destroy the whole attempt. So, we'll have to live with what we have for now.

There are things we can do, both legislatively and socially, that do not violate the 2nd amendment however. If the goal is to prevent school shootings, then it is reasonable IMO to conclude that all freedoms do not necessarily apply to children... after all, a child cannot engage in a contract, drink alcohol (legally), or vote - all rights that are denied based on age alone. So it would be completely legal and proper to restrict a child from bringing a firearm to school... any firearm. In light of the recent shootings, I see nothing improper about metal detectors at entry points for students.

For adults... well, employees should have the right to bear arms, even if they are teachers or faculty. Under the circumstances, I see nothing violating that right if teachers were required to either pass a Federally-supervised firearm safety course or forego their right to bear arms officially on school property in exchange for their job. I see no problem with limiting visitors to a specified number and restricting their access to areas which are supervised by armed security. I see a lot right with hiring a few armed security guards to protect the children... but I'm not talking about scared stuffed shirts like we saw in Parkland Florida.

Simple solution, and we have eliminated almost every shooting in recent months without violating any amendment, or passing more legislation (other than removing the laws that would forbid such a plan of action).

I also think education is our best long-term solution. I'd love to see a firearms safety course required in high school. Something simple, like maybe an hour per week over a semester. We used to have JROTC classes that incorporated that, and I can tell you it did wonders to remove the mythology surrounding violent movies for me. Sgt. Smith used to include discussions on firearms, and people would ask about movie scenes. He would laugh and explain everything that was wrong with that, in simple language based on facts. But there was no laughing at the target range... anyone mishandling a weapon was in serious trouble! As in, one intentional strike and you're out! One unintentional strike, and you won't touch a firearm in his class until you proved your worth.

I actually got to fire an M-16 (locked on semi-auto) and once an M-60 (same lock).

Again, not a single unconstitutional thing about the whole plan, and precious little legislation.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

I don't know which state she is referring to but it might be Virginia. They did this exact same thing when I was living in Richmond. It was implemented though the use of task forces composed of state and federal law enforcement. Basically was a state initiative combined with the total elimination of parole in the state.

It was very successful in reducing the crime rate overall but increased prison populations. I don't think it had any impact upon legal gun ownership. It was mostly about getting repeat felons off the street. Unfortunately was not copied by many states.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley



Well, my case is a bit different. Quite frankly I would expect to have to do something like this anyway. And still fail...


How is your situation any different than anyone else. I'm not just talking about gun purchase - any right.



The biggest implementation problem that I see, though, is how do these "diagnosticians" get integrated into the process before the background check is performed?


Violent mentally ill are already restricted.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join