Gun Control - Why isn't more done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you feel like a proposal like being required to carry liability insurance is "punitive" then you should get on board with measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill to drive down liability risk.

It's astounding that the party that preaches "personal responsibility" completely abandons that principle where it comes to irresponsible gun ownership.

I’m all for keeping guns out of hands of criminals and mentally ill. One way would be to increase the circumstances under which a person is added to NICS. Has anyone proposed this? For example, I would like to see anyone prescribed psychotropics be included, whether they fill the prescription or not.

While I agree with your sentiment, and it makes me furious that guys like Hunter Biden could lie on their forms and be given firearms, going this route would only prevent some people from getting help they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Historically people weren't getting killed because of radio, TV and the internet.... but with the massive spread of anti-vaxx disinformation that's gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, along with the spread of QAnon and other right wing lies that resulted in a violent attack on the US Capitol, maybe you have a point. Maybe disinformation that leads to violence and death should be cracked down on.

Except the right wing is already howling "censorship!" over social media companies cracking down on their lies while refusing to acknowledge that nobody has a problem when the right wing tells actual truths.

Clean up your act, stop spreading lies and maybe people won't want to censor you.

Words (spoken and written) have historically killed more people than firearms, and it isn’t even close. I.e. the ability to influence others’ actions is the greatest weapon there is. Having said that, freedom of speech is a great right that we all must have. But, there are laws and rules that regulate speech none the less. Which is also a good thing. I think the same can be applied to firearms. Background checks, licenses, and ownership papers (title - like a house), etc.

The background check qualifies a person to own a firearm. Low standard of qualification. No prior violent criminal history and no history of mental illness.
The license simply identifies a person has has been qualified to own a firearm
The ownership title ties each legally purchased firearm to the licensed owner.

No right infringed in the above, just the ability to track and hold accountable if that firearm is used in a crime. Now, for all the illegally trafficked and possessed firearms? There is no real answer to those, just like there’s no real answer to illegal drugs either.

I believe in freedom of speech but I also think it is being grotesquely abused by cynical politicos. When speech leads to people getting killed, I think those responsible should be held accountable. The minute your freedom causes someone else harm, you've crossed the line on freedom.

So we should preemptively restrict speech and expression so there’s no chance a person might say something dangerous? Because that’s what infringements on the Second Amendment do: they punish people before the fact, by restricting or denying them their rights preemptively.

Where did anyone say that? Nobody said anything remotely like that.
WHEN someone does something that DOES cause harm, they need to be held accountable. That is not "before the fact" - it is after the fact.

Nobody is being "punished" via gun laws. Measures like getting a background check, and registering your gun are absolutely NOT "punishment." That is pure, ludicrous hyperbole. Please get a grip.

You cannot possibly be this dense. I refuse to believe that. Clearly you are being facetious. When you outright BAN some types of guns from lawful possession, how is that NOT a punishment?

I’m not talking about about background checks of registration. I’m talking about when Beto or Biden says “hell yes we’re going to take your AR15!” (the MOST common rifle in America now, btw), THAT is a punishment before the fact. You are denying people their Constitutionally-guaranteed right en-masse.

Sorta like how posters here were shrieking about the Texas abortion law? Abortion restrictions and gun bans are exact analogs of each other. It’s not a question about whether either of them infringe on a Constitutionally enshrined right, and punish-by-denial those who want to exercise those rights. The only question is how much and to what extent of the infringement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Historically people weren't getting killed because of radio, TV and the internet.... but with the massive spread of anti-vaxx disinformation that's gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, along with the spread of QAnon and other right wing lies that resulted in a violent attack on the US Capitol, maybe you have a point. Maybe disinformation that leads to violence and death should be cracked down on.

Except the right wing is already howling "censorship!" over social media companies cracking down on their lies while refusing to acknowledge that nobody has a problem when the right wing tells actual truths.

Clean up your act, stop spreading lies and maybe people won't want to censor you.

Words (spoken and written) have historically killed more people than firearms, and it isn’t even close. I.e. the ability to influence others’ actions is the greatest weapon there is. Having said that, freedom of speech is a great right that we all must have. But, there are laws and rules that regulate speech none the less. Which is also a good thing. I think the same can be applied to firearms. Background checks, licenses, and ownership papers (title - like a house), etc.

The background check qualifies a person to own a firearm. Low standard of qualification. No prior violent criminal history and no history of mental illness.
The license simply identifies a person has has been qualified to own a firearm
The ownership title ties each legally purchased firearm to the licensed owner.

No right infringed in the above, just the ability to track and hold accountable if that firearm is used in a crime. Now, for all the illegally trafficked and possessed firearms? There is no real answer to those, just like there’s no real answer to illegal drugs either.

I believe in freedom of speech but I also think it is being grotesquely abused by cynical politicos. When speech leads to people getting killed, I think those responsible should be held accountable. The minute your freedom causes someone else harm, you've crossed the line on freedom.

So we should preemptively restrict speech and expression so there’s no chance a person might say something dangerous? Because that’s what infringements on the Second Amendment do: they punish people before the fact, by restricting or denying them their rights preemptively.

Where did anyone say that? Nobody said anything remotely like that.
WHEN someone does something that DOES cause harm, they need to be held accountable. That is not "before the fact" - it is after the fact.

Nobody is being "punished" via gun laws. Measures like getting a background check, and registering your gun are absolutely NOT "punishment." That is pure, ludicrous hyperbole. Please get a grip.

You cannot possibly be this dense. I refuse to believe that. Clearly you are being facetious. When you outright BAN some types of guns from lawful possession, how is that NOT a punishment?

I’m not talking about about background checks of registration. I’m talking about when Beto or Biden says “hell yes we’re going to take your AR15!” (the MOST common rifle in America now, btw), THAT is a punishment before the fact. You are denying people their Constitutionally-guaranteed right en-masse.

Sorta like how posters here were shrieking about the Texas abortion law? Abortion restrictions and gun bans are exact analogs of each other. It’s not a question about whether either of them infringe on a Constitutionally enshrined right, and punish-by-denial those who want to exercise those rights. The only question is how much and to what extent of the infringement.

So let me start by saying the following

1) I believe in the right to bear arms
2) I believe in the right to free speech
3) I believe that a voluntary abortion prior to a certain point in the fetus’s life cycle should also be legal for the mother and the mother alone to choose.

Having said that I also believe in:
1) Background checks, ids, and registrations for firearms. But I do not believe in banning of AR15s or other flavor of the year weapons. I also do not believe in using those firearms for assaulting, threatening, or killing other humans outside of direct and reactive self-defense.

2) Laws that hold people accountable for speech that is knowingly false (fraud, for example) or that is persistent and powerful enough to incite groups of people to violence. But I do not believe in preemptive restrictions on speech. I do however believe that the owner of a communications platform (like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, CNN, etc.) can restrict whatever they want. It’s their platform. If you don’t like their restrictions go find another channel for your speech. You have no “right” to use it outside of their policies even if you pay to use it.

3) That an abortion after the critical point in the fetus lifecycle is no longer legal, but that it is considered murder. I also believe that this point in the lifecycle should be determined by federal law, not state law and that it is time our congress draw this distinction. Maybe that point is birth. Maybe that point is the start of the third trimester. Let them decide based on scientific arguments from various constituents.

So as a PP stated, I believe in both rights but also responsibility and accountability when those rights are abused and some degree of the ability to control for when people abuse that responsibility. Why is this so hard for all of us to agree on, and why do we assume the worst that the slippery slopes will happen on both sides of these arguments?

[Anonymous]

The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you feel like a proposal like being required to carry liability insurance is "punitive" then you should get on board with measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill to drive down liability risk.

It's astounding that the party that preaches "personal responsibility" completely abandons that principle where it comes to irresponsible gun ownership.

I’m all for keeping guns out of hands of criminals and mentally ill. One way would be to increase the circumstances under which a person is added to NICS. Has anyone proposed this? For example, I would like to see anyone prescribed psychotropics be included, whether they fill the prescription or not.

I would add anyone with a history of domestic or other violence. As for mental illness, as I understand it, the bar is currently so high that one has to be found legally insane in a court. There is a lot that has to change. There have been many instances of people with history of mental illness or other red flag issues still able to legally purchase guns because the system is preventing these people from being added to the system for background checks. Not to mention, there are still far too many instances where gun sales are permitted without even requiring background checks (private sales).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

[Anonymous]

No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

What DNC/insurance lobbying firm do you work for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why has the biden administration stalled out on controlling the gun violence in our country? I feel like he had a chance to do something when the democrats took control of both houses and he blew it.

Violent gun violence is skyrocketing in our country and every night there is a shooting in DC.

Nothing is done because the votes are not there. You need 60 in the Senate, so even moderate sensible gun laws can’t pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

Gun dealers and gun owners have already been proven untrustworthy and remain untrustworthy until the mass shootings and gun violence actually stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has the biden administration stalled out on controlling the gun violence in our country? I feel like he had a chance to do something when the democrats took control of both houses and he blew it.

Violent gun violence is skyrocketing in our country and every night there is a shooting in DC.

Nothing is done because the votes are not there. You need 60 in the Senate, so even moderate sensible gun laws can’t pass.

Polling has repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans favor stricter controls over guns. The only reason it isn't happening is because the gun lobby (and other nefarious actors like Russia) have their hooks into the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

Ok. So when someone gets shot with an uninsured "gun" like by a gangbanger, then no payment or? Does every person that gets shot get paid or just some? How do you decide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if you feel like a proposal like being required to carry liability insurance is "punitive" then you should get on board with measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill to drive down liability risk.

It's astounding that the party that preaches "personal responsibility" completely abandons that principle where it comes to irresponsible gun ownership.

It's astounding that people who advocate for liability insurance for gun owners arent aware that we already have them through our home insurance. The risk is so low that it is just included by default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

Ok. So when someone gets shot with an uninsured "gun" like by a gangbanger, then no payment or? Does every person that gets shot get paid or just some? How do you decide?

What a dumbass comment. Insurance does not cover criminal activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

100% in agreement. Absolutely.