Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Phatguysrule said:
I disagree. Universal background checks will not happen. We should limit guns to only people who can prove they are law abiding citizens, and mark the ID of every restricted person. This way there is no limitation or inconvenience to law abiding citizens, and no potential for a database of gun owners (which the republicans will also not ever allow).
Click to expand...
How do the law abiding citizens prove themselves to be such?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
How do the law abiding citizens prove themselves to be such?
Click to expand...
Anybody who has a valid, unmarked ID is a law abiding citizen. Anybody who is found to be "dangerous" should get a weapons restriction added to their ID. Every state already has the ability to do this right now, so it is very simple to start doing this immediately.

Then anybody can check before they sell, lend, or gift a weapon to anybody.

Law Abiding Citizen
CDL-License-Restriction.jpg

Weapons Restricted Citizen
Weapons-Restriction.jpg
 

Attachments

  • CDL-License-Restriction.jpg
    CDL-License-Restriction.jpg
    356.2 KB · Views: 3
  • Weapons-Restriction.jpg
    Weapons-Restriction.jpg
    513.6 KB · Views: 3
Shaboid said:
Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?

9 minute read. Sounds like these two need to testify at every state house in the country, or straight to the floor of congress tomorrow.
Click to expand...
This is almost exactly what I've been advocating for.

It says hardening doesn't work in cases when the shooter is a student at that school (which is most school shootings during school hours), though I think it's a good idea anyway, at least to the degree that our local schools have done so. Using a single door to enter and exit, locked to entry during school hours, ensure proper climate control is available.

It really seems to help teachers keep a better handle on things.

While more rare, the most devastating school shootings have been those in which an older kid who is not supposed to be there attacks younger kids. These are the cases in which hardening would be most helpful, and I think it's worth doing.
 
Phatguysrule said:
This is almost exactly what I've been advocating for.

It says hardening doesn't work in cases when the shooter is a student at that school (which is most school shootings during school hours), though I think it's a good idea anyway, at least to the degree that our local schools have done so. Using a single door to enter and exit, locked to entry during school hours, ensure proper climate control is available.

It really seems to help teachers keep a better handle on things.

While more rare, the most devastating school shootings have been those in which an older kid who is not supposed to be there attacks younger kids. These are the cases in which hardening would be most helpful, and I think it's worth doing.
Click to expand...
That's the simplest band aid, I guess. There isn't a silver bullet though. I think there needs to be gun reform, which is where we differ. It's going to have to come at the local/state level at least in the short term, but that's just my opinion.

What fathoms me why this (or Columbine, or Sandy Hook for that matter) won't be the catalyst for the constitution convention, but alas, America is fucked in a lot of ways.
 
Phatguysrule said:
How is stating the actual numbers even close to minimizing the death of school children?

I have proposed solutions to help protect school children. I obviously would not have done so if I did not care about them.

I will say this. It's getting pretty tiresome and irksome seeing your emotional and argumentative responses to what I keep trying steer toward a logical and noncombative policy discussion.

I have let it go, as I understand this is an emotionally charged time. But as a mod, I would think you'd exercise a bit more self control. You don't get to freely imply that I don't care about these kids just because you disagree with my opinion on the solution.
Click to expand...

Not saying you don't care. I know you do.

You keeping stating the numbers of school children killed in mass shootings and then follow that with things implying those numbers aren't big enough to worry about or don't require immediate big solutions.

I get that you are not for gun control laws. I get it. There are things we agree on. We need to fix health care and poverty. We also need more short term solutions that can have immediate affect.

Gun restrictions (not banning all guns or getting rid of the 2nd...that's stupid) would stop some of these shootings.
 
Chris Craig said:
Not saying you don't care. I know you do.

You keeping stating the numbers of school children killed in mass shooting and then follow that with things implying those numbers aren't big enough to worry about or don't require immediate big solutions.

I get that you are not for gun control laws. I get it. There are things we agree on. We need to fix health care and poverty. We also need more short term solutions that can have immediate affect.

Gun restrictions (not banning all guns or getting rid of the 2nd...that's stupid) would stop some of these shootings.
Click to expand...
An immediate freeze on firearm sales to people under 21 would be a fine short term solution to me. You'll piss the real gun nuts off on the right that they're "taking away rights", and then the other extreme progressives on the left that "it's not enough!" That sounds like only 10% of our country, at most.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I didn't suggest most people were.
But what most people are suggesting will likely require a constitutional amendment to overcome the Supreme Court and resistance from most of the states...

What I have suggested does not. So I am suggesting that we make the changes we can realistically make as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

What most people are asking for amounts to but a small concession in the grand scheme of things. No one is taking away everyone's guns. People want the right to guns, but not the responsibility that comes with it. Instead of giving a small concession, there is no compromise at all.
 
Shaboid said:
An immediate freeze on firearm sales to people under 21 would be a fine short term solution to me. You'll piss the real gun nuts off on the right that they're "taking away rights", and then the other extreme progressives on the left that "it's not enough!" That sounds like only 10% of our country, at most.
Click to expand...

The age limit to buy guns needs to go up immediately across the nation.
 
Shaboid said:
That's the simplest band aid, I guess. There isn't a silver bullet though. I think there needs to be gun reform, which is where we differ. It's going to have to come at the local/state level at least in the short term, but that's just my opinion.

What fathoms me why this (or Columbine, or Sandy Hook for that matter) won't be the catalyst for the constitution convention, but alas, America is fucked in a lot of ways.
Click to expand...
I don't think these two are suggesting a silver bullet, in fact, it said there would need to be movement on a lot of fronts. But it all seems very doable, IMO. It would really just take funding.

I've proposed gun reform. Which could happen at the national level and would not meet near the opposition, and would be incredibly easy to implement.
 
Chris Craig said:
What most people are asking for amounts to but a small concession in the grand scheme of things. No one is taking away everyone's guns. People want the right to guns, but not the responsibility that comes with it. Instead of giving a small concession, there is no compromise at all.
Click to expand...
If that small concession requires an amendment to the constitution it will not happen any time soon.

That is my problem with focusing those kinds of things.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I don't think these two are suggesting a silver bullet, in fact, it said there would need to be movement on a lot of fronts. But it all seems very doable, IMO. It would really just take funding.

I've proposed gun reform. Which could happen at the national level and would not meet near the opposition, and would be incredibly easy to implement.
Click to expand...

What gun reform? I must have missed your proposal.
 
Chris Craig said:
Not saying you don't care. I know you do.

You keeping stating the numbers of school children killed in mass shootings and then follow that with things implying those numbers aren't big enough to worry about or don't require immediate big solutions.

I get that you are not for gun control laws. I get it. There are things we agree on. We need to fix health care and poverty. We also need more short term solutions that can have immediate affect.

Gun restrictions (not banning all guns or getting rid of the 2nd...that's stupid) would stop some of these shootings.
Click to expand...
I'm stating that those numbers aren't compelling enough to get a constitutional amendment. Not even not close.

And trying to put our hopes on a constitutional amendment to help prevent the next big school shooting is delusional to the point of negligence.
 
Chris Craig said:
What gun reform? I must have missed your proposal.
Click to expand...
The restricted ID proposal. Nationwide. Tax credit for sanctioned gun safety and training courses. Upping the age of gun ownership (a possibility, though I think the restricted ID proposal may be enough, especially if coupled with following the advise of the professor in @Shaboid 's post).
 
Chris Craig said:
The age limit to buy guns needs to go up immediately across the nation.
Click to expand...
I'm mostly good with this, though I think young people who live on their own also need a means to defend themselves (without relying on police). I would probably allow them to buy a gun for self defense if they had completed a training course, etc.
 
Phatguysrule said:
The restricted ID proposal. Nationwide. Tax credit for sanctioned gun safety and training courses. Upping the age of gun ownership.
Click to expand...


Right. That's a good start. Those things should be in place.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Anybody who has a valid, unmarked ID is a law abiding citizen. Anybody who is found to be "dangerous" should get a weapons restriction added to their ID. Every state already has the ability to do this right now, so it is very simple to start doing this immediately.

Then anybody can check before they sell, lend, or gift a weapon to anybody.

Law Abiding Citizen
View attachment 47742

Weapons Restricted Citizen
View attachment 47743
Click to expand...
If it's found to be unconstitutional and discriminatory to require state-issued ID to vote, how will requiring the same for gun ownership not hit the same snag? Isn't that proposal subject to the same constitutionality issues you cite for other suggestions (such as raised age restriction)?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
How do the law abiding citizens prove themselves to be such?
Click to expand...
And who decides? Considering people who are Black or Hispanic are likely to be charged with crimes in situations where a white person gets a warning or school discipline, could we end up with armed white population, which was pretty much original intent of Second Amendment?
 
Another attempt to blame something, anything. Laura Ingraham blamed school shooting on marijuana.
Which is well known to make people mellow and euphoric. Hardly emotions to motivate murder.
 
crandc said:
And who decides? Considering people who are Black or Hispanic are likely to be charged with crimes in situations where a white person gets a warning or school discipline, could we end up with armed white population, which was pretty much original intent of Second Amendment?
Click to expand...
For the time being same people who decide now. We already have a start of database, and that could be used for the time being, and improved on in the long term. I am all for a separate court and agency to seek out these kinds of abuses and eliminate officials who engage in them. Though I think that would have to come later. The same could have authority over the no fly list if we wanted. I'd be open to discussion about this, for sure.

Gun control in general is racist and negatively impacts minorities and the poor far more then whites. The constitution has been updated to the point that the 2nd amendment actually does apply equally to all "law abiding" citizens. But we certainly need updates to our judicial system as well.
 
Last edited:
PtldPlatypus said:
If it's found to be unconstitutional and discriminatory to require state-issued ID to vote, how will requiring the same for gun ownership not hit the same snag? Isn't that proposal subject to the same constitutionality issues you cite for other suggestions (such as raised age restriction)?
Click to expand...
State issued ID is already required to purchase guns. Otherwise how would you prove your age or do the background checks that are currently required?

However, I am fully on board with making state issued ID free and available at all Post Offices (as well as current state DMV or equivalent), and making sure that there is a post office in every population center of a minimum size. 1000 people maybe?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
If it's found to be unconstitutional and discriminatory to require state-issued ID to vote, how will requiring the same for gun ownership not hit the same snag? Isn't that proposal subject to the same constitutionality issues you cite for other suggestions (such as raised age restriction)?
Click to expand...
Good point...
But it is not discriminatory to require state issued ID to vote.
 
Phatguysrule said:
So I am suggesting that we make the changes we can realistically make as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

And how do you propose to enact those changes, given that the Republican party will block each and every one of them?

barfo
 
barfo said:
And how do you propose to enact those changes, given that the Republican party will block each and every one of them?

barfo
Click to expand...
I think it'll be far less likely to meet opposition to restrict only criminals, especially if it means law abiding citizens no longer need background checks. They may even be eager to support that kind of compromise.

I actually think backing off on the push for gun control could be a tradeoff to expand healthcare as well... Make them vote against the "funding to find school shooters before they attack" bill?

That's right up their alley...

I think real progress can be made to limit these things if we get serious about it...
 
Mass shooting in Tulsa. Unconfirmed reports are multiple dead and injured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Featured content

Back
Top