Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 23:07     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!


These questions are far from settled constitutionally.


The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.

At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too). So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war. But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw? Asking for a friend.



so it’s a living constitution that anticipates that the framers anticipated historical changes? In that case, Congress can now interpret the Commerce Clause to conduct Australia-style comprehensive reforms.


Right now the right side of the political spectrum trusts the government even less than usual. Do you really think they would comply?

What do you think the compliance rate was for NY and CT's registration requirements implemented after Sandy Hook?

What do you think Canada's compliance rate was? (Hint, it was higher than NY and CT, but very very low).


My but aren’t you a set of moving goalposts! go away.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 23:07     Subject: Re:"we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Good for this student.

On Face of the Nation, Parkland student Cameron Kasky said it was Marco Rubio's job to figure out what will work.

"It's not our job to tell you, Senator Rubio, how to protect us," Kasky said. "The fact that we even have to do this is appalling. Our job is to go to school, learn and not take a bullet. You need to figure this out. That's why you were unfortunately elected. Your job is to protect us and our blood is on your hands."
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 23:05     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!


These questions are far from settled constitutionally.


The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.

At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too). So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war. But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw? Asking for a friend.



so it’s a living constitution that anticipates that the framers anticipated historical changes? In that case, Congress can now interpret the Commerce Clause to conduct Australia-style comprehensive reforms.


Right now the right side of the political spectrum trusts the government even less than usual. Do you really think they would comply?

What do you think the compliance rate was for NY and CT's registration requirements implemented after Sandy Hook?

What do you think Canada's compliance rate was? (Hint, it was higher than NY and CT, but very very low).
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 22:43     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!


These questions are far from settled constitutionally.


The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.

At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too). So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war. But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw? Asking for a friend.



so it’s a living constitution that anticipates that the framers anticipated historical changes? In that case, Congress can now interpret the Commerce Clause to conduct Australia-style comprehensive reforms.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 22:02     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:

The gun clingers are getting desperate and flailing.

Sir/Madam (whoever you are): stop throwing out silly red herrings. We can solve for all
Sorts of problems.


This. Not just here but everywhere. Its not like when people get into debates about, say, Trump or something and Trump supporters just kind of smugly say something along the lines of "You don't know what you are talking about." I think deep down they know that the second amendment has been interpreted to liberally.

P.S. Not trying to blur the lines on Trump and gun rights. Just trying to make a point that he is as generally as divisive as this issue.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 21:47     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!


These questions are far from settled constitutionally.


The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.

At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too). So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war. But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw? Asking for a friend.

Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 21:37     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!


These questions are far from settled constitutionally.


The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 21:30     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.


You mean not catching a baby lobster because it helps lead to colony collapse is the same as trying to ban assault rifles?
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 21:04     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.


It's not about needing to treat and address mental illness. You answer is in your first statement. Both agencies completely failed the public. That is HUGE. Why won't anything be done about it? Because....GUNS...OMG....GUNS!

I am outraged that agencies like these didn't just fail, they failed spectacularly and completely. And what about the social media companies that seem so efficient at attacking conservative posts, but let the types of posts this kid kept putting through go by the wayside. Where is the flagging system? Where are the internal departments that one can ping to get them to look at post A or B, and turn them over to police in that jurisdiction if they deem them violent or disturbing? This kid didn't just post ONE photo, he posted a STREAM of photos and comments. Not one raised eyebrow from staff so hell-bent on suspending folk like Ben Shapiro or Raheem Kassam?
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 19:58     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/


You're joking right.

An AR-15 is not "more dangerous" than an AK74/47. They're about the same in terms of danger, but firearms enthusiasts debate back and forth which is a better riffle.




An AR-15 is not more dangerous than an AR-10 (its big brother which uses a larger round). You could make the argument it is less dangerous due to a smaller calibur.


An AR-15 is not more dangerous than a Mini-14. It just looks "scarier". It too is a high capacity semi auto, but looks like a smaller version of a post ww2 design.


I personally find aimed accurate fire much more scary than "indiscriminate" fire. Something like what happened at the University of Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

The AR-15 is just the one of the more popular designs out there right now. The most popular rifle out there is probably the Ruger 10/22.



If any of those is designed or capable of killing 20 children in 5 minutes, they should be banned too.

How many children do you think a Toyota Corolla can kill in 5 minutes? How about an olympic sized swimming pool?


The gun clingers are getting desperate and flailing.

Sir/Madam (whoever you are): stop throwing out silly red herrings. We can solve for all
Sorts of problems.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 19:45     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/


You're joking right.

An AR-15 is not "more dangerous" than an AK74/47. They're about the same in terms of danger, but firearms enthusiasts debate back and forth which is a better riffle.




An AR-15 is not more dangerous than an AR-10 (its big brother which uses a larger round). You could make the argument it is less dangerous due to a smaller calibur.


An AR-15 is not more dangerous than a Mini-14. It just looks "scarier". It too is a high capacity semi auto, but looks like a smaller version of a post ww2 design.


I personally find aimed accurate fire much more scary than "indiscriminate" fire. Something like what happened at the University of Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

The AR-15 is just the one of the more popular designs out there right now. The most popular rifle out there is probably the Ruger 10/22.



If any of those is designed or capable of killing 20 children in 5 minutes, they should be banned too.

How many children do you think a Toyota Corolla can kill in 5 minutes? How about an olympic sized swimming pool?


We can have a separate conversation about auto safety and universal swimming instruction. What we're talking about now is keeping combat weapons out of the hands of civilians.


Just about any firearm used for hunting can kill lots of people in a short period of time. Shotguns for example can cause more damage and require less aiming than a rifle (shot spreads outwards instead of a single bullet), and are less prone to jam in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. I'm not sure why mass shooters don't pick shotguns all that often. They have less restrictions on them and tend to be cheaper too.

Shotguns are used by the military and SWAT teams as well, along with duck and deer hunters.

They can hold up to 9 shells/slugs at a time.

Because the anti-gunners and the media (but I repeat myself) are out there telling crazies how awesome the AR-15 is for killing people?
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 19:23     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/


You're joking right.

An AR-15 is not "more dangerous" than an AK74/47. They're about the same in terms of danger, but firearms enthusiasts debate back and forth which is a better riffle.




An AR-15 is not more dangerous than an AR-10 (its big brother which uses a larger round). You could make the argument it is less dangerous due to a smaller calibur.


An AR-15 is not more dangerous than a Mini-14. It just looks "scarier". It too is a high capacity semi auto, but looks like a smaller version of a post ww2 design.


I personally find aimed accurate fire much more scary than "indiscriminate" fire. Something like what happened at the University of Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

The AR-15 is just the one of the more popular designs out there right now. The most popular rifle out there is probably the Ruger 10/22.



If any of those is designed or capable of killing 20 children in 5 minutes, they should be banned too.

How many children do you think a Toyota Corolla can kill in 5 minutes? How about an olympic sized swimming pool?


We can have a separate conversation about auto safety and universal swimming instruction. What we're talking about now is keeping combat weapons out of the hands of civilians.


Just about any firearm used for hunting can kill lots of people in a short period of time. Shotguns for example can cause more damage and require less aiming than a rifle (shot spreads outwards instead of a single bullet), and are less prone to jam in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. I'm not sure why mass shooters don't pick shotguns all that often. They have less restrictions on them and tend to be cheaper too.

Shotguns are used by the military and SWAT teams as well, along with duck and deer hunters.

They can hold up to 9 shells/slugs at a time.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 19:08     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!


These questions are far from settled constitutionally.
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 18:54     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!
Anonymous
Post 02/19/2018 18:47     Subject: "we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.


Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?


you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.