Reply to What does it take to get a little gun control

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What does it take to get a little gun control "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]One mass shooting is too many.

[b]Stop talking, start doing. [/b] That means you, Republicans.  You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.[/quote]

Do what exactly?[/quote]

Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's.  Get cracking.[/quote]

You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.

[quote=Anonymous]A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.

[b]After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."

1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)[/b]

The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).

Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.

[b]2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.[/b]

If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?

Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.

Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.

[b]3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).[/b]

The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?

You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.[/quote][/quote]

Then come up with a different solution.  The status quo clearly id not working.  Doing nothing is not working.  Deflections and distraction is not working.  One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.  You are failing America and are getting people killed.  The blood is on your hands.[/quote]

"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working.  And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer.  And neither is "prayers."

Do better.  Stop making excuses.[/quote]

Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks.  If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem.  If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.[/quote]

DP.  Incorrect.  Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem.  One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s.  You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.[/quote]

Wrong.  Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.

Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.

If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.

If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.

The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.[/quote]

You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.

There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.

I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/quote]

Again, wrong answer.  Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.

Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.

And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. [b]It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good.[/b] If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.

If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.[/quote]

Absolutely the WRONG answer and I will not step aside.  The Constitution is to be interpreted as written.  Courts cannot adapt the Constitution to protect the public good.  They must work within its framework.  If you don't like the Second Amendment - as interpreted by the Supreme Court - then change the Constitution.  Franklin was 100% correct.  As for defending the liberty of children to attend school without fear, please start with the mentally ill people who shoot up schools.  That seems to be ignored time and time again.  Taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer.  Then again, you would probably be in favor of the way the UK and Australia handle free speech.

By the way, there is mass violence from stabbings in the UK.  They may not be dozens at a time, but the sheer volume demonstrates the key point - it's the person, not the weapon.[/quote]

Ah yes, the ole "it’s the person, not the weapon" refrain - classic misdirection.

Let’s unpack that. You’re arguing that because violence exists in other forms, we should ignore the uniquely catastrophic scale enabled by firearms. That’s like saying we shouldn’t regulate drunk driving because people also die in bike accidents.

And invoking Franklin? Please. Quoting a man who lived in an era of single-shot muskets to justify the civilian stockpiling of AR-15s is not constitutional fidelity, it’s historical cosplay. The Second Amendment was written when "arms" meant powder, ball, and a 30-second reload.  Our founding fathers did not envisage deranged civilians with the capacity to fire 45+ rounds per minute and use high capacity magazines.  In less than 10 minutes, Stephen Paddock fired over 1100 rounds into a crowd of concert goers in the Las Vegas mass shooting.  That's more firepower than an entire revolutionary war company of 50+ soldiers.

[b]You say courts can’t adapt the Constitution to protect the public good. That’s not originalism, it’s paralysis. The Constitution has been amended 27 times precisely because its framers knew that liberty without progress is just stagnation in a powdered wig.[/b]

And your claim that "taking away a lawful right for the vast majority of Americans is never the answer?" That’s not a defense of rights, it’s a refusal to reckon with reality. Rights come with responsibilities. When one right, unchecked and unregulated, leads to thousands of preventable deaths, it’s not tyranny to intervene. It’s governance.

Mental health matters, yes. But using it as a rhetorical shield while refusing to address mental health, and while blocking every attempt to regulate access to weapons of war is not concern, it’s complicity and false concern trolling about mental health. You don’t get to point at the mentally ill while voting against funding for mental health services, red flag laws, and crisis intervention programs.

So no, I WILL NOT go along with your charade and pretend your stance is principled. It’s disingenuous, and is 100% performative. And while you cling to your selective reading of the Constitution, the rest of us are burying children.

You want to defend rights and liberty? Then start by defending the right to live.  Either that or stand aside, you fraudulent charlatan.[/quote]

Glad we agree that the Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Until that happens, we live within its framework.  The Second Amendment exists to defend the right to live. Just ask those who died at the hands of homicidal dictators. I'm quite sure they would have preferred to keep their guns. But of course, back then you would have voted to take them away in the name of "public safety" - just like those countries did.[/quote]

Why should we adhere to the Constitution?  Trump’s been freely violating it ever since he got back into office, with zero consequences.  So far he’s violated the Emoluments Clause, due process (5th Amendment), free speech and free press (1st Amendment), the separation of powers, and the 14th Amendment (misusing the power of the DOJ to pirsue and attack his enemies).  Nobody’s batting an eye. The courts can waggle a finger at him, but they have no power to enforce anything.  Congress certainly isn’t going to stop him.

So no, we don’t have to live rigidly within its framework.  Trump’s exposed it for the mere piece of paper that it is.

As for defending against tyranny, well, it’s pretty much here, in the form of masked government thugs roaming the streets and disappearing people, but I don’t see anyone rising up.  The Gadsden Flag types have been silent, even though this was their worst fear when Obama and Clinton were in office.  Heck, MAGA [i]likes[/i] tyranny.  They invited it right back in last election.

Self defense against dictators is a fiction we’ve been sold for decades to silence any real discussion of the problem.  We’re tired of sacrificing living people to the hypothetical fears of a minority.[/quote]

Such an unserious and wholly impractical response.  You seem to be advocating for an insurrection. [/quote]

LOL your whining is hilarious.  The "insurrection" angle is precisely what the right wing has been pitching for decades in defense of 2A.   But when someone says the same thing about Trump you suddenly get offended.   Hypocritical double standard it seems.  Republicans love the idea of guns and insurrection when it's them fighting Democrats but heavens to betsy it's unthinkable that the left might start to throw the same rhetoric around.[/quote]

Feel free to do so, but it will only demonstrate [b]your [/b]hypocrisy.  If you win elections, you get to govern.  This is why in numerous other threads the Democrats have been advised to tack to the middle, including on gun control and mental health.  Yet they still refuse.[/quote]

Your perspectives seem wildly off.

Unlike you,
The middle does not consider it an acceptable loss to have children being slaughtered in schools and churches.
The middle does not consider it acceptable to allow mentally ill people to buy AR-15s and high-capacity magazines.
The middle does not consider it acceptable to ignore and refuse to fund the mental health problem.

The middle supports common sense gun reforms, they do not support your "there's nothing we can do" stance.

Polls reflect all of this.

But unfortunately what the majority wants is ignored and distorted because we have replaced decency and normal political process with crap like "money is free speech" and "corporations are people" and it now takes around $3.1 million to win a seat in Congress, and that's mostly funded by oligarchs, corporations and corrupt special interests, who drown out the voices of the majority.[/quote]

Every time there is a school shooting, the GOP response is to make guns even more accessible. To loosen even more restrictions. GOP voters all own part of these shootings.[/quote]

Agree, need to establish new asylums while they have the majority to safely and humanly house the mentally ill.   Also need to put the small number (a couple of hundred in DC in jail for a few decades and DC will be a safe city again. [/quote]

Some of the most mentally ill people in DC right now are the House Republicans who think having hundreds of mass shootings, hundreds of dead kids are just fine as long as the gun industry is posting profits.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics