Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,629,534 times
Reputation: 7485

Advertisements

The shear senseless brutality of the CT. school shootings has everybody on all sides of the gun issue on edge. Due to constant fear mongering by special interests on the extreme edges of both factions, we as a nation are fundamentally divided on the issue. We are at a crossroads as an effective society. This could be a rare opportunity to work together and find some realizations and solutions. It could also develop into the most polarizing issue our nation ever faced outside of slavery.
When one of these horrible incidents occur, both sides of the gun issue throw up their hands and actually agree that this shouldn't be happening. How to fix it is where they drift off the solutions. There are two fundamental ideologies at play here.
On the one hand, there are those who rightfully feel that there is a constitutional and human right to protect and defend yourself and your family. On the other, there is the belief that society as a whole should be able to be safe in their environment and government has the responsibility to create a system that works towards this end.
They are both right.
As an individual we should be safe and secure within the structure of our society and live without fear in our everyday being. We also have incorporated into our society the inalienable right of self defense and the ability to protect our person, valuables and family through our constitution.
The Supreme Court got it right when it ruled on the Heller decision. It affirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and stood by the inalienable right of the individual to protect himself, family and society from a tyrannical government. By adding the "Subject to reasonable restrictions" clause, they affirmed the rights of the citizenry in general to be safe in their person and association by passing laws and restrictions determining socially accepted gun usage.

Have no doubt that restrictions are coming and coming soon. It is a sign of the times and society wants it. The question remains, will the two sides work together to craft reasonable restrictions or will they spin off into rigid absolutes? In that case, neither side will win nor will the American people. If all the assault weapons in the country are ever subject to government confiscation there would be an impossible legal and logistical complication and about 40 million pissed off, felons created overnight. Last time that happened was 1861.
By the same token, if the right is not willing to propose and endorse "reasonable restrictions" then the hammer of social condemnation will fall heavily on them.

The likely, rational scenario.

Assault type weapons currently in ownership will not be banned. They will be grandfathered in but most likely require registration under a new category of "not quite hunting but not quite machine gun" and require a tax stamp. Like machine guns, the government will know where they are and who has them.

All manner of large capacity assault weapons either imported or domestic will be banned from further manufacture or importation. As will high cap magazines and clips. Ten rounds will be the norm and the mag will not detach from the gun.
Manufacturers of firearms will immediately design rifles that look like assault rifles but meet the new regulations.

The gun show loophole will be closed and all purchasers of firearms from anybody will require an extensive background check.
The federal form 4473 will be much more invasive and there most likely will be a waiting period for firearms purchase.

The objective of new legislation will be to stop the proliferation of high capacity, assault type weapons from the general public and to screen intensively those who would purchase guns for competence and mental fitness.
This is probably the best deal we can get with the current public perception. We as responsible gun owners and defenders of the 2nd. Amendment are about to engage in a national dialogue of what constitutes "reasonable restrictions". I only hope the discussion on our part is carried out by rational, balanced individuals who will work in the best interests of our nation to protect the constitution while further insuring the safety of society as a whole.
In any case, the random mass murders will never stop no matter what laws are passed and I, like every other gun owner will gladly give up my guns when the other 145 million people have given up theirs. This is the challenge we, as a society, face.

Last edited by mohawkx; 12-16-2012 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:49 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,996 posts, read 10,433,478 times
Reputation: 5752
No ban or restriction on any weapon will ever get through the current Congress.

Nothing will change. Not even if there are 10 or 20 or 100 more Newtown shootings.

The gun industry and its trade association (the NRA) simply do not care. Why should they? Massacres like this are good for business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:49 AM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,851,182 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
In any case, the random mass murders will never stop no matter what laws are passed and I, like every other gun owner will gladly give up my guns when the other 145 million people have given up theirs. This is the challenge we, as a society, face.
I wouldn't.

Those 145 million people are of less concern to me than the relatively tiny number of people who are criminals, and wouldn't give up their guns (obviously).

As an example, concealed carry permit holders have a much lower crime rate than the general population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:54 AM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,953,815 times
Reputation: 5455
Criminals won't follow gun bans just like they don't follow the laws in place currently. How can one enforce such bans on certain weapons when we have wide open borders that will just allow them to flow through?? We learned you can't stop drugs from coming on what makes anyone think we could stop weapons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:55 AM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,839,576 times
Reputation: 9509
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
No ban or restriction on any weapon will ever get through the current Congress.

Nothing will change. Not even if there are 10 or 20 or 100 more Newtown shootings.

The gun industry and its trade association (the NRA) simply do not care. Why should they? Massacres like this are good for business.
The NRA spent over $2 million on lobbying in 2012 alone. They care a great deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,629,534 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post
I wouldn't.

Those 145 million people are of less concern to me than the relatively tiny number of people who are criminals, and wouldn't give up their guns (obviously).

As an example, concealed carry permit holders have a much lower crime rate than the general population.
You are correct. I was trying to make a point that for those who would ban all firearms and confiscate them similar to Great Britain, that you're average gun owner would gladly give up all his guns but only after everyone else already has. Every one wants to be last in line for that particular turn in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,996 posts, read 10,433,478 times
Reputation: 5752
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
The NRA spent over $2 million on lobbying in 2012 alone. They care a great deal.
... About ensuring that Congress remains implacably opposed to any new gun laws, no matter how many Americans want them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:58 AM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,851,182 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
You are correct. I was trying to make a point that for those who would ban all firearms and confiscate them similar to Great Britain, that you're average gun owner would gladly give up all his guns but only after everyone else already has. Every one wants to be last in line for that particular turn in.
Yes but in the US we already confiscate guns from people who shouldn't legally own them... if they are caught.

If you're saying that you would give up your guns once there wasn't another gun in the country, legally or illegally owned, then that would make sense. But we all know that's a literal impossibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,268,389 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
No ban or restriction on any weapon will ever get through the current Congress.

Nothing will change. Not even if there are 10 or 20 or 100 more Newtown shootings.

The gun industry and its trade association (the NRA) simply do not care. Why should they? Massacres like this are good for business.
What type of restrictions would prevent someone from stealing someone else's weapons and using them ?
How can you "restrict" that ?
He killed his mother and took her guns. There is no law you can put in place to prevent a situation like that.

In the case of Holmes, he legally bought all those guns and had no history to indicate they should not have been sold to him. And that guy boobie trapped his apartment as well. And he was just another normal joe up to that point.

Our laws already prevent those with a verified record of crime, etc. from buying guns.
But how do you prevent someone who has a normal past but violent intentions from buying guns ?

It's the violent intentions that you want to legislate but you can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2012, 11:59 AM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,412,423 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
You are correct. I was trying to make a point that for those who would ban all firearms and confiscate them similar to Great Britain, that you're average gun owner would gladly give up all his guns but only after everyone else already has. Every one wants to be last in line for that particular turn in.
And somehow, Britain is a much, much safer nation than we are by any homicide measure. That is really strange, isn't it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top