Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

People who have a severe mental illness that need medication for.

My problem here is, just saying need medication for a mental illness hits a lot of people who pose no danger, ADD and ADHD medication is honestly over used, and their are a lot of people who are very stable on low level drugs who I don't feel should be restricted. Severe mental illness is just a term, it would again need to have some backing definition, say "danger to self or others". Restricting based on that I would be ok with, the problem just becomes figuring out who meets that criteria and getting them flagged.

Ok, danger to self or others. How about we add people who have urges to commit violence sometimes and violent intrusive thoughts?

Everytime I have a gun control debate here it goes exactly like this:

>Some tool runs around shooting people

> I and other gun control advocates go "We need to do something to prevent this happening again!"

> People on the other side shut down any idea we come up with

> Nothing ends up happening, just a lot of noise that does nothing

> Repeat process ad infinitum

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

You mean how pro gun people blamed video games for the millionth time?

[Chernoslavia]

The poll wasn’t anywhere near 96 percent of Americans!

It wasn't?

Almost half the country voted for trump, what the fuck do you think?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Fart, can you explain what we would have gained from Manchin-Toomey that we don't already have?

[Telconi]

Perhaps, Hopefully they take long enough I at least get to watch my kid grow up.

Universal background checks would kill you?

Of course not, just like gold stars on coats didn't kill Anne Frank.

[Fartsniffage]

96% of the American people support UBCs. You're fighting against the tide and you dismiss a bill that offered genuine compromise while bleating that gun control types never offer you guys anything.

Yes, I am fighting against the tide. Thankfully the people who support those ideas don't rank it very highly on their priorities.

Because it didn't offer us anything substantial. What would I, WRA, have gained from Manchin-Toomey? Registries are already banned, I already can't be held liable for what someone does with something I sell them, very few people would be impacted by the military personnel bit and I'm not one of them, the wait time on a NICS delay isn't something that I nor anyone I know has any problem with.

So we get NICS funding and a small provision that will impact maybe a couple tens of thousands of people in a group I'm not even a part of. Woo. Not reason enough for me to support it.

I'm honestly confused by this attitude. Even without mandated background checks on all buyers, I don't get why you wouldn't want to do one anyway if you were selling a gun. If only to give yourself peace of mind that you're not selling to a felon, or a spousal abuser, or a crazy person.

Is that something you just don't care about?

[The Black Forrest]

It wasn't?

Almost half the country voted for trump, what the fuck do you think?

Let's not introduce the fake president into this. Too many tangent possibilities.

[The Lone Alliance]

Liberals in a shellnut, comrade.

Hence the phrase, "scratch a Liberal, and a Fascist bleeds."

I've come to see that a lot of modern liberals just believe "I think everyone should have the freedom to act and think how I want them to act and think, aren't I so freedom loving!"

[Valgora]

My problem here is, just saying need medication for a mental illness hits a lot of people who pose no danger, ADD and ADHD medication is honestly over used, and their are a lot of people who are very stable on low level drugs who I don't feel should be restricted. Severe mental illness is just a term, it would again need to have some backing definition, say "danger to self or others". Restricting based on that I would be ok with, the problem just becomes figuring out who meets that criteria and getting them flagged.

Ok, danger to self or others. How about we add people who have urges to commit violence sometimes and violent intrusive thoughts?

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

You mean how pro gun people blamed video games for the millionth time?

No.
I'm talking about:
"Understanding the origins of a problem are where we must begin. It might not give us a simple or convenient answer, but it will point us in the right direction. Gun violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, where the only factor bringing about or preventing violence are guns themselves. Our world is not a world of floating independent issues, opinions and actions divorced from everything else. Larger systems, be they economic, political, ideological or cultural, have bearing on what happens in our world. If we pretend that this is not the case, that a utopia can be found by implementing the right reform, or preventing a legislative effort, we blind ourselves to the mechanisms behind everything. When we do the opposite, when we work to understand our world for its component parts, for its class nature, struggles and change, the solutions to problems come into view."
- "Are Guns the Problem?" from The Red Phoenix

Gun control advocates have proven that they just want to take guns away believing it will solve the issue because they believe that a band-aid solution will fix it.

[Torrocca]

Liberals in a shellnut, comrade.

Hence the phrase, "scratch a Liberal, and a Fascist bleeds."

I've come to see that a lot of modern liberals just believe "I think everyone should have the freedom to act and think how I want them to act and think, aren't I so freedom loving!"

On occasion, they have good ideas regarding social policies, though.

[Telconi]

Yes, I am fighting against the tide. Thankfully the people who support those ideas don't rank it very highly on their priorities.

Because it didn't offer us anything substantial. What would I, WRA, have gained from Manchin-Toomey? Registries are already banned, I already can't be held liable for what someone does with something I sell them, very few people would be impacted by the military personnel bit and I'm not one of them, the wait time on a NICS delay isn't something that I nor anyone I know has any problem with.

So we get NICS funding and a small provision that will impact maybe a couple tens of thousands of people in a group I'm not even a part of. Woo. Not reason enough for me to support it.

I'm honestly confused by this attitude. Even without mandated background checks on all buyers, I don't get why you wouldn't want to do one anyway if you were selling a gun. If only to give yourself peace of mind that you're not selling to a felon, or a spousal abuser, or a crazy person.

Is that something you just don't care about?

It costs money.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok, danger to self or others. How about we add people who have urges to commit violence sometimes and violent intrusive thoughts?




You mean how pro gun people blamed video games for the millionth time?

No.
I'm talking about:
"Understanding the origins of a problem are where we must begin. It might not give us a simple or convenient answer, but it will point us in the right direction. Gun violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, where the only factor bringing about or preventing violence are guns themselves. Our world is not a world of floating independent issues, opinions and actions divorced from everything else. Larger systems, be they economic, political, ideological or cultural, have bearing on what happens in our world. If we pretend that this is not the case, that a utopia can be found by implementing the right reform, or preventing a legislative effort, we blind ourselves to the mechanisms behind everything. When we do the opposite, when we work to understand our world for its component parts, for its class nature, struggles and change, the solutions to problems come into view."
- "Are Guns the Problem?" from The Red Phoenix

Gun control advocates have proven that they just want to take guns away believing it will solve the issue because they believe that a band-aid solution will fix it.

*shrugs* sure there are some who argue for the elimination of all guns. To suggest all are working for that?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

>AD INFINITUM

It's never going to stop. As long as the NRA exists. And people with AR-15s exist. In 2118, we'll be arguing about high powered laser gun bans.

Or it's going to look like the Onion's 2137 news broadcast.

It wasn't?

Almost half the country voted for trump, what the fuck do you think?

Pop vote for Trump: 62,984,825

Pop vote for Hillary:65,853,516


Us Pop: 325.7 million

Half of that:

one hundred sixty-two million eight hundred fifty thousand.

[The South Falls]

My opinion on the NRA is that it's a club, that people can join if they want to, but the fact that it lobbies, politically, make it a hindrance to progress. While it's not illegal, and they can lobby if they want, I believe that 'clubs' like that should be barred from lobbying, but many would say otherwise.

TEAR APART AS NEEDED

[Albrenia]

Liberals in a shellnut, comrade.

Hence the phrase, "scratch a Liberal, and a Fascist bleeds."

I've come to see that a lot of modern liberals just believe "I think everyone should have the freedom to act and think how I want them to act and think, aren't I so freedom loving!"

I think you're thinking of conservatives.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes, I am fighting against the tide. Thankfully the people who support those ideas don't rank it very highly on their priorities.

Because it didn't offer us anything substantial. What would I, WRA, have gained from Manchin-Toomey? Registries are already banned, I already can't be held liable for what someone does with something I sell them, very few people would be impacted by the military personnel bit and I'm not one of them, the wait time on a NICS delay isn't something that I nor anyone I know has any problem with.

So we get NICS funding and a small provision that will impact maybe a couple tens of thousands of people in a group I'm not even a part of. Woo. Not reason enough for me to support it.

I'm honestly confused by this attitude. Even without mandated background checks on all buyers, I don't get why you wouldn't want to do one anyway if you were selling a gun. If only to give yourself peace of mind that you're not selling to a felon, or a spousal abuser, or a crazy person.

Is that something you just don't care about?

It's me drawing a line and not accepting any further regulations lightly because I know for a fact the Democrats are going to attack any previous compromises we make so any potential deals to be a bit more than some stuff that doesn't impact the vast majority of people. I gain nothing from Manchin-Toomey and thus have no real reason to support it.

There's also that thing about background checks not being free and something that you have to travel sometimes quite far to do.

[Telconi]

No.
I'm talking about:
"Understanding the origins of a problem are where we must begin. It might not give us a simple or convenient answer, but it will point us in the right direction. Gun violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, where the only factor bringing about or preventing violence are guns themselves. Our world is not a world of floating independent issues, opinions and actions divorced from everything else. Larger systems, be they economic, political, ideological or cultural, have bearing on what happens in our world. If we pretend that this is not the case, that a utopia can be found by implementing the right reform, or preventing a legislative effort, we blind ourselves to the mechanisms behind everything. When we do the opposite, when we work to understand our world for its component parts, for its class nature, struggles and change, the solutions to problems come into view."
- "Are Guns the Problem?" from The Red Phoenix

Gun control advocates have proven that they just want to take guns away believing it will solve the issue because they believe that a band-aid solution will fix it.

*shrugs* sure there are some who argue for the elimination of all guns. To suggest all are working for that?

Safest assumption is that they are all working for that.

[Valgora]

No.
I'm talking about:
"Understanding the origins of a problem are where we must begin. It might not give us a simple or convenient answer, but it will point us in the right direction. Gun violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, where the only factor bringing about or preventing violence are guns themselves. Our world is not a world of floating independent issues, opinions and actions divorced from everything else. Larger systems, be they economic, political, ideological or cultural, have bearing on what happens in our world. If we pretend that this is not the case, that a utopia can be found by implementing the right reform, or preventing a legislative effort, we blind ourselves to the mechanisms behind everything. When we do the opposite, when we work to understand our world for its component parts, for its class nature, struggles and change, the solutions to problems come into view."
- "Are Guns the Problem?" from The Red Phoenix

Gun control advocates have proven that they just want to take guns away believing it will solve the issue because they believe that a band-aid solution will fix it.

*shrugs* sure there are some who argue for the elimination of all guns. To suggest all are working for that?

I didn't suggest all are working to eliminate all guns. I'm saying that all are ignoring solutions that don't involve stripping away rights.

[Chernoslavia]

It's never going to stop. As long as the NRA exists. And people with AR-15s exist. In 2118, we'll be arguing about high powered laser gun bans.

Or it's going to look like the Onion's 2137 news broadcast.

Almost half the country voted for trump, what the fuck do you think?

Pop vote for Trump: 62,984,825

Pop vote for Hillary:65,853,516


Us Pop: 325.7 million

Half of that:

one hundred sixty-two million eight hundred fifty thousand.

I don’t see what that has to do with my argument. Do you seriously think that 96 percent of the American population support the Manchin-Toomey UBC proposal?

[Fartsniffage]

I'm honestly confused by this attitude. Even without mandated background checks on all buyers, I don't get why you wouldn't want to do one anyway if you were selling a gun. If only to give yourself peace of mind that you're not selling to a felon, or a spousal abuser, or a crazy person.

Is that something you just don't care about?

It's me drawing a line and not accepting any further regulations lightly because I know for a fact the Democrats are going to attack any previous compromises we make so any potential deals to be a bit more than some stuff that doesn't impact the vast majority of people. I gain nothing from Manchin-Toomey and thus have no real reason to support it.

There's also that thing about background checks not being free and something that you have to travel sometimes quite far to do.

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

[Spirit of Hope]

My problem here is, just saying need medication for a mental illness hits a lot of people who pose no danger, ADD and ADHD medication is honestly over used, and their are a lot of people who are very stable on low level drugs who I don't feel should be restricted. Severe mental illness is just a term, it would again need to have some backing definition, say "danger to self or others". Restricting based on that I would be ok with, the problem just becomes figuring out who meets that criteria and getting them flagged.

Ok, danger to self or others. How about we add people who have urges to commit violence sometimes and violent intrusive thoughts?

Sounds good to me, and is one of the reasons why I support something like a federal gun restraining order. It gives police more granular control and some better tools to use when they gain evidence that a person poses a danger, in whatever form. It is something, as long as the due process side is covered well, that you could probably get the pro gun crowd to jump on. Especially if you threw them a bone in the form of reducing the regulation on silencers, or something like that. Biggest problem is, no one really proposes stuff like this at the federal level.

My opinion on the NRA is that it's a club, that people can join if they want to, but the fact that it lobbies, politically, make it a hindrance to progress. While it's not illegal, and they can lobby if they want, I believe that 'clubs' like that should be barred from lobbying, but many would say otherwise.

TEAR APART AS NEEDED

The NRA is a lobbying organization. Lobbying organizations exist because they allow individuals who share common goals to pool their resources to better achieve their goals. The problem is that some granularity of goal is lost as this happens, and when you come to an issue as divisive as gun control that can be a big problem.

[Telconi]

It's me drawing a line and not accepting any further regulations lightly because I know for a fact the Democrats are going to attack any previous compromises we make so any potential deals to be a bit more than some stuff that doesn't impact the vast majority of people. I gain nothing from Manchin-Toomey and thus have no real reason to support it.

There's also that thing about background checks not being free and something that you have to travel sometimes quite far to do.

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

Can still ignore it.

[Fartsniffage]

Or it's going to look like the Onion's 2137 news broadcast.

Pop vote for Trump: 62,984,825

Pop vote for Hillary:65,853,516


Us Pop: 325.7 million

Half of that:

one hundred sixty-two million eight hundred fifty thousand.

And you seriously think that 96 percent of the American population support the Manchin-Toomey UBC proposal?

96% of Americans support UBCs far more strict than those proposed by Manchin-Toomey.

[Northeast American Federation]

It's me drawing a line and not accepting any further regulations lightly because I know for a fact the Democrats are going to attack any previous compromises we make so any potential deals to be a bit more than some stuff that doesn't impact the vast majority of people. I gain nothing from Manchin-Toomey and thus have no real reason to support it.

There's also that thing about background checks not being free and something that you have to travel sometimes quite far to do.

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

That same government would do the exact same thing even if we accepted the current "deal". Hell, they might feel emboldened to go even further. Democrats and the American left haven't been about compromise in decades, so why should we be? We gain nothing from any further compromise on matters like this.

[Fartsniffage]

And as I said to Telconi, at some point there with be a Democrat controlled government who will simply impose UBCs on you without even the compromises you deemed insufficient.

With Manchin-Toomey it was at least restricted to selling to people you don't know.

Can still ignore it.

You're welcome to be a criminal.

[Valgora]

And you seriously think that 96 percent of the American population support the Manchin-Toomey UBC proposal?

96% of Americans support UBCs far more strict than those proposed by Manchin-Toomey.

I highly doubt that 96% of Americans would agree to something like that.