Politics 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[Phatguysrule]

And we understand that that is your opinion.

barfo

It is. And it is backed up by every available legitimate fact.

 

[Phatguysrule]

What is the justification or reason for owning a car that is capable of going 200 mph?

Or a pickup truck that almost nobody actually uses for anything other than trips to the grocery store. Or a SUV.

Both pick-ups and SUVs are far more dangerous than cars.

 

[Natebishop3]

Ok I'm curious...

Where can you buy a gun without a background check?

How would a waiting period stop mass shootings? Virtually every single person who has committed one of these high profile mass shootings was stockpiling guns and ammo.

Raising the minimum age..... not even sure how that's supposed to make a difference, as most of these shootings occurred with guns stolen from their parents.

Banning "assault rifles" while Columbine and Thurston were done during the original assault rifle ban.

I have yet to see any kind of legislation from the left that would address the root cause of these school shootings, which is attacking the obvious mental illness that is causing people to resort to this kind of violence. Show me that amendment.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Ok I'm curious...

Where can you buy a gun without a background check?

How would a waiting period stop mass shootings? Virtually every single person who has committed one of these high profile mass shootings was stockpiling guns and ammo.

Raising the minimum age..... not even sure how that's supposed to make a difference, as most of these shootings occurred with guns stolen from their parents.

Banning "assault rifles" while Columbine and Thurston were done during the original assault rifle ban.

I have yet to see any kind of legislation from the left that would address the root cause of these school shootings, which is attacking the obvious mental illness that is causing people to resort to this kind of violence. Show me that amendment.

Where do we draw the line?

What is too much? Too deadly?

Guns are only getting deadlier.

Guns made out of carbon fiber.

Self-guiding bullets.

Shit like a shotgun that can shoot 30 rounds in 8 seconds.

None of this should be regulated?

No new laws or regulations?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Where do we draw the line?

What is too much? Too deadly?

Guns are only getting deadlier.

Focus on what we can. Improve access to education, healthcare, and improve the social safety net.

The left doesn't even propose these as potential solutions to the problem and they are the thing that separates us from every other country with lower violent crime rates. Far more consistently than access to firearms.

Guns made out of carbon fiber.

How does this make guns more dangerous?

Self-guiding bullets.

Self guiding bullets aren't standard issue for infantry, so I don't think they are covered under the 2A.

Shit like a shotgun that can shoot 30 rounds in 8 seconds.

Shit like this is definitely already regulated and a felony for the general population to buy or sell.

None of this should be regulated?

All of that is already regulated. Some of it is even a felony unless you have gone through a very strict and expensive background check and permitting process.

No new laws or regulations?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have laws and regulations which can address all of this?

 

[barfo]

Ok I'm curious...

Where can you buy a gun without a background check?

I googled that for you:

Current federal law requires background checks to be performed for anyone purchasing a firearm at a federally licensed gun dealer - however only 40% of guns sold in the US are sold through a federally licensed dealer. In most states, sales at gun shows, flea markets, and private gun sales are not subject to regulations.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Focus on what we can. Improve access to education, healthcare, and improve the social safety net.

The left doesn't even propose these as potential solutions to the problem and they are the thing that separates us from every other country with lower violent crime rates. Far more consistently than access to firearms.

How does this make guns more dangerous?


Self guiding bullets aren't standard issue for infantry, so I don't think they are covered under the 2A.


Shit like this is definitely already regulated and a felony for the general population to buy or sell.


All of that is already regulated. Some of it is w felony without a very strict and expensive background check and permitting process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have laws and regulations which can address all of this?

Looking at the degrees of difficulty of implementing solutions I would say the only way to increase mental healthcare would be to have socialized medicine.

Do you really think Big For Profit Healthcare is going to lose against Big Gun?

I sure don't.

While carbon fiber can be detected with metal detectors, we're working quickly to develop guns that won't be. Shouldn't there be some sort of regulations preventing that?

More regulations and/or updating the existing ones isn't a bad thing.

And here is the shotgun I'm talking about. Only a 6mos waiting list! And available for purchase in all states except for CA, MD, NJ, NY, DE, HI, IL, RI and WA.

https://fostech.com/product/origin-12-short-barrel-shotgun/

 

[riverman]

It is. And it is backed up by every available legitimate fact.

You're ignoring countries where not being able to purchase a gun is successful and has been for decades...and the FACT that our gun policies are NOT working here...you can type all the finalities you like but change only occurs when you move past current situations and start the process to change the culture...you're holding onto your gun rights like they are going to change society for the better...they are not going to do that. Arming the world has not made the world more peaceful...quiet the contrary. People who want to use arms to protect the nation should join the police force or the military or the National guard. Become well trained and have your usage filmed with body cams so you are held accountable for wrongdoing. It has to start somewhere...selling more nukes is not going to make the world safer from nukes either. There are weekend warriors...gun nuts who take their AR rifles on the weekend out to the BLM property that borders my land...nothing I hate worse than a nice Saturday afternoon trying to play guitar on my deck while these idiots are shooting hundreds of rapid fire rounds for hours on end...forcing the locals to listen to that shit invade their privacy. Whatever adrenaline rush it gives them, it's not something I can mute with a remote ..not a fan...

 

[Phatguysrule]

Looking at the degrees of difficulty of implementing solutions I would say the only way to increase mental healthcare would be to have socialized medicine.

Do you really think Big For Profit Healthcare is going to lose against Big Gun?

I sure don't.

But that isn't an accurate portrayal of the obstacles. We have hundreds of years of settled constitutional law and culture that has been upheld by the supreme court multiple times.

Big hospital wins when democrats are fighting against hundreds of years of settled protected rights that the supreme court has reviewed and upheld not once, but multiple times.

While carbon fiber can be detected with metal detectors, we're working quickly to develop guns that won't be. Shouldn't there be some sort of regulations preventing that?

There is. Guns have to have a metal firing pin to be legal. Specifically for that reason. It's a felony to possess or build a gun without a metal firing pin.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/4445

Undetectable guns have been banned under federal law since 1988. To comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act, 3D-printed guns must include a metal nail, a firing pin, and a piece of steel designed to trigger metal detectors.

More regulations and/or updating the existing ones isn't a bad thing.

That's debatable. Wasting political capital on it the way we have been is certainly a bad thing. Wasting political capital in efforts to add more restrictions when we already have laws that work is very bad.

Nobody is being killed with assault rifles (again, this means fully automatic according to the US Army as well as Encyclopedia Britannica). Not many are even being killed with semi-automatic rifles. In fact, far fewer are being killed with semi-automatic rifles than are being killed with knives.

These efforts can't have a big impact. We aren't even targeting things which could have a statistically significant impact in on overall gun crime or deaths in a perfect scenario.

And here is the shotgun I'm talking about. Only a 6mos waiting list! And available for purchase in all states except for CA, MD, NJ, NY, DE, HI, IL, RI and WA.

https://fostech.com/product/origin-12-short-barrel-shotgun/

It's semiautomatic. No. IMO, there shouldn't be further restrictions on how fast you can pull the trigger. You can do the same thing with a hanger and your belt clip. However, if it is marketed as a tool for killing people I'm fine with the manufacturer being sued out of existence.

Also, being a short barrel shotgun there is extra regulation on this shotgun.

The Process of purchasing the Origin SBS Shotgun is a lengthy one. Since the barrel is less than 18″ it is classified as a title 2 weapon that requires an NFA Tax Stamp.

FosTech will manufacture the SBS Shotgun and then transfer it to your Class 3 Dealer (6-7 Months)
You will then go to your Class 3 Dealer and fill out the Form 4 Paperwork and pay your $200.00 tax stamp. Your Class 3 Dealer will hold your Origin SBS Shotgun until you are approved by the NFA for the tax stamp. (7-11 Months)

So it costs an additional $200 over the price of the gun and there is a 12-14 month wait.

I think this one is very sufficiently regulated.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You're ignoring countries where not being able to purchase a gun is successful and has been for decades...

But I'm not ignoring any countries. The US has had higher violent crime and murder rates than other first world countries for it's entire history. There is no evidence of gun control in any country reducing violent crime or murder rates more in those countries than we have seen here in the US by simply improving the situations of the middle class and the poor (as we saw happen after the cold war, even though we doubled the number of guns and let the assault weapons ban expire).

and the FACT that our gun policies are NOT working here...you can type all the finalities you like but change only occurs when you move past current situations and start the process to change the culture...

None of these proposals would change anything significant. A waiting period isn't going to prevent any mass shootings, those people hoard that stuff for years. An age limit? For what? So they can steal a gun from their friend or their parent? Or have a friend buy the gun, sell it to them, and turn it in as stolen? Come on... These people are motivated. These laws can't make a significant impact. More people are killed with knives than rifles of any kind. And that includes hunting accidents...

you're holding onto your gun rights like they are going to change society for the better...they are not going to do that.

Actually I'm not. None of these proposals would even impact me personally. I see the damage these assholes (the DNC and their ilk) are causing by focusing on these proposals which simply can't make a significant difference. Even if we could get them passed nation wide. Which I firmly believe we can't do in any time frame that would matter. And it's all taking away from efforts for actual change (improving access to education, healthcare, improving the social safety net, and improving our abusing police force) that would help FAR more people than any gun law ever could.

I firmly believe that getting the left to actually work to protect and give the people more rights (without trying to further restrict peoples rights) would bring tens of millions more voters firmly within the ranks and destroy the MAGA TRUMP GOP.

I'm not afraid of anything, unlike some gun nut you may be used to discussing these things with. I support the rights of the people. I support educating the population so they can be responsible with those rights. I do not support further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. That only pushes people away from the left and costs the trust of millions.

Arming the world has not made the world more peaceful...quiet the contrary.

This is not true. Arming the world has resulted in the earth being the safest it has been in all of our history. The military power of the US has created a worldwide economy by protecting shipping lanes for the world.

The US is the safer than it pretty much ever has been. So is the rest of the work, thanks largely to the US.

People who want to use arms to protect the nation should join the police force or the military or the National guard. Become well trained and have your usage filmed with body cams so you are held accountable for wrongdoing. It has to start somewhere...

Yes, it does have to start somewhere. And from my perspective, it starts with education, healthcare, and a generous social safety net that ensures no American has to fear starvation or homelessness.

selling more nukes is not going to make the world safer from nukes either.

I don't think nuclear weapons are relevant here. That is a weapon of mass destruction, and far beyond the scope of this conversation. Though if you have interest in a discussion about that, I'd be interested in your take. Not sure if we'd agree or disagree, or if I know enough about it to even have an educated discussion with you about it. If nothing else, I'd be interested in learning.

There are weekend warriors...gun nuts who take their AR rifles on the weekend out to the BLM property that borders my land...nothing I hate worse than a nice Saturday afternoon trying to play guitar on my deck while these idiots are shooting hundreds of rapid fire rounds for hours on end...forcing the locals to listen to that shit invade their privacy. Whatever adrenaline rush it gives them, it's not something I can mute with a remote ..not a fan...

Yeah, can understand how that may be annoying. It doesn't bother me at all. But to each their own.

 

[yankeesince59]

Déjà vu

 

[barfo]

It is. And it is backed up by every available legitimate fact.

"Prediction is difficult, especially about the future"

Right now, it doesn't look like guns will be outlawed anytime soon. But there is no guarantee things won't change.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Déjà vu

The part about trying to make new laws restricting law abiding citizens (disproportionately impacting poor and minorities) when we already have laws that could be used to accomplish the same goal? The part about putting a ton of energy into making redundant or impotent laws that target a fraction of a percentage of gun deaths and an even smaller fraction of a percentage of violent crime deaths?

Or the part where we're wasting a ton of energy and political capital trying to make these effectively insignificant changes while lying to the population about the facts, causing distrust to increase, thereby at best driving voters away from the left, and at worst driving them into the arms of the GOP?

I agree. It's Déjà vu. I wish we had a party that didn't lie to the population in an attempt to get them to vote against their own interests and would instead focus on empowering the population through education and access to social services including universal healthcare.

 

[Phatguysrule]

"Prediction is difficult, especially about the future"

Right now, it doesn't look like guns will be outlawed anytime soon. But there is no guarantee things won't change.

barfo

We could accomplish so much more by just not pissing into the wind...

 

[barfo]

We could accomplish so much more by just not pissing into the wind...

I disagree with you that attempts to restrict guns somehow prevents us from doing anything else.

As George Santos says, we can chew and walk gum at the same time.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I disagree with you that attempts to restrict guns somehow prevents us from doing anything else.

As George Santos says, we can chew and walk gum at the same time.

barfo

The way it is being done costs the left political support. Hillary would have won if she had the support of the gun loving rust belt. Her stance on guns cost her the blue collar union vote.

This single issue may well have given us Trump.

 

[barfo]

The way it is being done costs the left political support. Hillary would have won if she had the support of the gun loving rust belt. Her stance on guns cost her the blue collar union vote.

This single issue may well have given us Trump.

Doubt it. Lots of coulda-woulda-shoulda reasons Hillary lost, guns wasn't the primary one.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Doubt it. Lots of coulda-woulda-shoulda reasons Hillary lost, guns wasn't the primary one.

barfo

Her stance on guns was one reason (I didn't say primary, and I didn't say only) that if Hillary had the opposite position she WOULD have beaten Trump.

I know many blue collar union members. None of them are diametrically opposed to any other left wing position more than gun rights.

 

[barfo]

Her stance on guns was one reason (I didn't say primary, and I didn't say only) that if Hillary had the opposite position she WOULD have beaten Trump.

I know many blue collar union members. None of them are diametrically opposed to any other left wing position more than guns rights.

But you don't know that she would have won based on that position. For all you know, some large number of Hillary voters might have not voted if she was a gun nutter. And Trump voters might not have switched to Hillary in large numbers based on her gun nuttery. She'd still have had a vagina, even if she kept her gun there.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

But you don't know that she would have won based on that position. For all you know, some large number of Hillary voters might have not voted if she was a gun nutter. And Trump voters might not have switched to Hillary in large numbers based on her gun nuttery. She'd still have had a vagina, even if she kept her gun there.

barfo

Nobody suggested she be a gun nutter. Nobody suggested Trump voters would have to switch.

Yes, I do know that enough people in the rust belt who didn't vote for Hillary because of the gun issue and who also didn't vote for Trump would have won the rust belt for Hillary and saved us from Trump in 2016.

It's honestly illogical to blame the fact that she is a woman. There is nothing that can be done about that. Except, you know, increasing access to education...

 

[barfo]

Yes, I do know that enough people in the rust belt who didn't vote for Hillary because of the gun issue and who also didn't vote for Trump would have won the rust belt for Hillary and saved us from Trump in 2016.

No, you literally do not know that. You believe that, I'm sure. That's different than knowing.

It's honestly illogical to blame the fact that she is a woman. There is nothing that can be done about that.

The fact that there's nothing that can be done about it doesn't make it an invalid, or illogical, explanation.

barfo

 

[yankeesince59]

SMH

 

[Shaboid]

Wait, was it Hillary or Newsom that tweeted about a 28th amendment proposal?

 

[Phatguysrule]

No, you literally do not know that. You believe that, I'm sure. That's different than knowing.

Hillary lost the rust belt by 79k votes. Three times as many people voted libertarian in 2016 (4.5 million) as 2012 (1.5 million). Dropping to 1.8 million in 2020.

24% of Americans will not vote for a politician who doesn't share their views on guns.

So if only 24% of the roughly 750k rust belt vote gain for libertarians was due to Hillary's stance on guns that 180k votes would be more than twice as many votes as would have been needed to defeat Trump.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220748/gun-control-remains-important-factor-voters.aspx

Jill Stein doubled her number of votes as well... So it's not like all women were less popular.

Clinton's well known stance on restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners cost her a lot of historically Dem votes. Almost certainly more than enough to have beaten Trump.

The fact that there's nothing that can be done about it doesn't make it an invalid, or illogical, explanation.

barfo

It's illogical in a strategic sense to blame something you can't control when there are solutions available that you can control.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Wait, was it Hillary or Newsom that tweeted about a 28th amendment proposal?

It was a tweeted by a Democrat. As was/is Hillary. I'm discussing how that Dem strategy has historically hurt the Democrats, and by extension, the US.

It likely would have been enough to win Florida for Al Gore as well. By making that state a blowout for Gore.

*Edit* that's to say, it has hurt the Democrats if their goal really is to help the middle and lower classes of this country.

If their goal is simply to play political games while holding the population down and pointing at Republicans then it has actually been very effective.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

everybody knows the AR stands for Assault Rifle

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Also, the AR platform is fantastic for hunting wild hogs when chambered in a larger caliber.

you can only kill 30-50 feral hogs with an AR

 

[Phatguysrule]

everybody knows the AR stands for Assault Rifle

Lol. Try again. It's a carry over from ArmaLite, the original manufacturer. Stands for ArmaLite Rifle

 

[Phatguysrule]

you can only kill 30-50 feral hogs with an AR

I think that depends on the state. In Oregon there is no bag limit on feral hogs. Not sure about other states.

Either way, 30-50 still might not be enough. We really need to reduce their numbers all over this country.

 

[yankeesince59]

Wild pigs are everywhere down here (est. 650,000) and I've seen some huge ones...in fact, a few years ago a guy in northern Georgia killed one that was 9 feet long and weighed 1100 pounds.