After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Legislation similar to Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, upheld under heightened scrutiny by the 4th Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan, would do for starts. That law bans the sale or transfer of81 listed models of guns, along with "their copies," plus all semiautomatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor. The law also bans the sale or transfer of magazines than can hold more than 10 rounds. Violators (buyers as well as sellers) can go to prison for up to three years. I also want red flag laws similar to those on the books in six states allowing intervention and confiscation of weapons upon petition to a court by police, family and/or roommates after a showing that a person is a danger to self or others., I want universal background checks for criminal convictions and/ or psychiatric history, and yes, people on the "No Fly list" should be added. I'd ad domestic violence convictions. I want to close the gun show loophole. I want to pass FIX-NICS legislation to penalize federal agencies that don’t properly report required records used to determine whether someone can legally buy a gun. And I want enhanced penalties for crimes involving guns--similar to those in effect in Massachusetts. And by all means improve mental health services so that my paranoid schizophrenic, autistic, bipolar ex-roommate can get his meds. I think that about sums it up.

 

Well since the FBI admits to not investigating when they certainly should have concerning the Florida school shooting, it would appear that the red flag law already exists, but that negligence also exists. It's like he was waving his guns around and jumping up and down and saying, "Hey, I'm Nikolas Cruz. Look at my arsenal of weapons. I want to be a professional school shooter."

You say you want to ban "all semiautomatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor." I'm curious as to how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle you are aware of. Do you believe that a folding stock makes it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere? How many mass shootings are you aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting? And how does a flash suppressor help a mass shooter? I mean, who do you think they're trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

Also, you say that you would ban all semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but then you mention that the law bans magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So you want to ban semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but not 10-round magazines?? Explain.

Given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shooting to date (and of those 18 incidents, 12 involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why are you focused on the least used weapon.

 

As I've said before, if you can identify other more dangerous weapons, I'd be happy to add them to the list This language has the advantage of having gone through a legislative process and having been litigated and approved by an appellate court using heightened scrutiny. I've explained too often before why the evidence about Nikolas Cruz's dangerousness didn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion under current Florida and U.S. law, absurd as that might seem. Last week the Florida legislature took up debating a new red flag that would have provided adequate authority. Se. Marco Rubio is talking about similar legislation at the federal level.

 

That doesn't answer any of the questions I just asked you.

But anyway, when the least used guns that you've decided to focus on are banned, do you suppose that you'll focus on another gun, and then another? Or do you have an arbitrary number of homicide deaths in mind that you would find acceptable and then stop the banning? And if so, what is that number?

 

Fraid that's all you'll get from me. I've wasted enough of my time with you. Let somebody else give it a try.

 

Here is a PBS Frontline documentary describing the deal the John Boehner tried to reach with Obama during his first term:
Cliffhanger

Here is a Reuters article detailing Obama's plans to spend the first 100 days of his second term fighting with the NRA:
Obama makes biggest gun-control push in decades

Here is a Reuters article showing Obama's failure to achieve anything in the first 100 days of his second term:
Senate blocks gun-control legislation in blow to Obama

You aren't fighting to save lives when you try to ban assault weapons. Such bans are designed only to violate people's civil rights for no reason.

And when you expend energy without achieving anything, it is a waste no matter what your goals were.

If you are not impressed by the facts that I post, that does not make my posts any less factual.

Unconstitutional. There is no justification for banning any of those features or any combinations of those features.

The Obama Administration tried to abuse that system by blocking people from getting guns even if they were no danger to anyone.

Before we will allow strengthened background checks we will need to see strong protections against future abuses.

Unconstitutional. No due process.

Isn't FIX NICS already law?

Even after reading this post?
After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

 

mcme

Oh I’ll show you mine if you show me yours LOL

I’m happy to let the record stand.

So you put the need for prudent gun control on a par with and as needed as ending slavery and getting people the vote.

Cheers

 

I don't put them on par. Those valid and defendable criticisms had things changed. If yours were on par, things would be changed. Well see how it works out.

 

Thing was those that wanted slavery and didn’t want women to have the vote also claimed that criticism against their viewpoint were wrong but couldn’t actually defend their stance

The question is can you defend your stance and the answer seems to be no – I mean so far no gun lobbyist has been able to defend their stance in any rational or reasonable way – which again begs the question why do you still hold onto it?

 

As soon as you change the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, you were right. As soon as you affect my ability to keep the firearms I own, you were right. Until then I don't need to defend my opinion on my rights as a citizen of this country.

 

So why are you here seemingly opposing those wanting to change the world for the better?

You seem to be saying you have no rational or reasonable reason for opposing gun control but I’m going to do it anyway.

It’s like a slave owner going ‘I can’t defend slavery but I’m want to carry on doing it anyway’

 

I don't oppose gun control. The prudent gun control in place is perfectly acceptable to me and things like background checks could be more comprehensive. Comparing my refusal to blame a firearm for what a person does with it, to the willingness to own another human being, is stupid.

And to me a better world is a less restrictive one with more emphasis on personal responsibility. With neighbors looking out for one another and helping one another.

 

I don't know what legislation say about what constitutes an assult weapon, but the way I see it an assult weapon is a "weapon"/object used in an assult, therefore a fork could be considered an assult weapon or even a newspaper (The mellwall brick comes to mind here)

 

mcme

Already covered many times – does not stand up to scrutiny – can you please address the outstanding criticisms.

Been unable to defend your own ideas from criticisms seems to me to be stupid, I mean why not get some ideas you can defend?

Litrally your neighbour or are you saying all your fellow citizens or human beings?

To repost –

“localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example someone – say X – lives in a prosperous area with high employment, they might ‘evaluate’ and find little reason to give since there are few disadvantaged. But only a few miles away their could be a town with high unemployment with many people in hardship but since X doesn’t live there, doesn’t go there and so cannot ‘evaluate’ that towns needs they have to suffer hardship.

If you have a national scheme with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things nationally if can move resources to those places where it is most needed.

But if often then that you get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias.

- Why should I give money to people I haven’t personally evaluated I mean they are most likely feckless, scroungers.

- The people around here don’t need so much help probably because they work harder than those feckless scroungers. “

 

Just because you don't agree with the defense doesn't mean it's not been defended. When I hear your defense of ideas, I can see where it comes from, I just don't agree. When you hear something you don't agree with, it's undefended against your rational criticism. I can live with that.
My neighbors start with my household, and goes to neighborhood, town, county, state, country and planet. I've made sure to help when I can across the whole range of neighbors. Home repairs, playgrounds, jobs, and a few cows and wells on other continents for people who could use them.
I generally won't tell another person what they can or can't do, unless they're working for me.

 

mcme

But if the defence is crap then its crap, it’s like a commander saying I lost the fort and all my men are died but hey we put up a defence.

That’s the problem you seem to disagree but you don’t seem to have any actual rational counter arguments.

That’s a bit like someone saying ‘oh yes I heard all that stuff you said but I’m still going to carry on believing the earth is flat’.

As I say if you can’t defend your own ideas from criticism then why do have them?

 

Instead of gun control could we consider a compromise? How about we consider treating the pervasive inadequacy issues that those gun owners that are so constantly afraid of immigrants, marauders coming to murder their family, zombies, a tyrannical government, etc display through an irrational need to stockpile weapons to compensate for their inability to feel safe on their own merit and masculinity? There is always the comments, valid imo, of the need for better treatment of mental illness. Surely this level of cowardice represents a mental deficiency that needs attention

 

So far I haven't personally lost even a whisker let alone a man or the fort. That's a good indication that my ideas regarding gun rights and gun control are fairly solid. In your opinion please, what ideas do I have that are not worth having because of their indefensible nature?

 

I asked you what you want besides denying guns to violent felons and the insane. You offered your opinion. So I asked you legitimate questions concerning your answer. And now you decide that you don't want to talk about it anymore. No problem.

 

mcme

Sorry are you trying to be funny or serious I mean it’s like you are trying to be humorous but some rather sad bewilderment is seeping through.

Ok so because in real life you haven’t actually lost a fort or any men this somehow is for you an indication that your ideas are solid….sorry I don’t get it…maybe more simple ‘knock knock’ jokes are your thing?

Sorry but have you actually been reading the threads you’ve been in?