Gun Control

Many (non gun owners) vs few (gun owners, legal or not) is what I am focusing on…

1 Like

Like the lawyer I talked to the other day, he reminded me of how brainwashed are those mumbling the second amendment crap.

NRA you are safe

Sorry, but how does gun ownership impact non-gun owners? Unless someone is a victim of a gun crime, then the millions of gun owners in America aren’t impacting your life. The only way guns are going to impact your life is if you’re the victim of a gun crime. Do you really think laws will make it so criminals won’t get guns? Your life may actually get more dangerous, since the data shows assault, sexual assault, and armed robbery increase when guns are banned.

Overall, the homicide rate trend has been declining for decades despite guns becoming more advanced. More advanced guns doesn’t mean more homicide.

Blah blah blah…how many people died and got injured Sunday night? You actually think the status quo is fine??? So, are you or are you not for banning or regulating bump stocks??? Yes or no please.

1 Like

He must work for the NRA

You admitted that guy still would have killed a bunch of people even if guns were illegal. He was highly motivated and spent years on his plan. So what exactly do you want? You reference a tragedy and want guns banned because of it. Yet, you admit the very laws you want wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy.

The argument boils down to something terrible happened, so we must do something. We have to do something and do it now. It doesn’t matter if what we do wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy. We have to take some sort of action.

If you want a weapon of mass destruction, prepare to pay taxes on it, having insurance and so on.

But, we are against the tyrant organization well know as the NRA. They pay most politicians, most republicans, for their henchmen job at keeping the status quo and the piling up of dead American bodies all over the country.

National Firearms Act of 1934

The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on any transfers of such weapons. Despite these limitations, it led to a precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In the 1930s, the United States faced a run of much-publicized gangster violence, led by such well-known criminals as John Dillinger, al capone, Baby Face Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde. The sensationalistic aspect of their crimes convinced the administration of President franklin d. roosevelt that something needed to be done to control the spread of weapons into the general population. U.S. Attorney General homer cummings and his staff began the process of drafting recommended legislation that would achieve this goal. Cummings and his staff quickly determined that, rather than ban weapons and run afoul of the Second Amendment, they would try to tax such weapons out of circulation. As originally proposed, the NFA covered a fairly broad range of weapons, but as passed by Congress, it’s scope was narrowed to cover only “A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun.”

The statute levied a $200 tax on each firearm defined as above, for any transfer involving the firearm. The tax was to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the commissioner. It was declared unlawful for anyone to sell or receive a firearm in violation of this section, and they could be fined $2,000 and imprisoned for up to five years for violating it.

While the $200 tax does not seem like much in current dollars, it represented a very large amount in 1934—in many cases the tax was more than the cost of the firearm itself. The act also required dealers of the listed firearms to register with the federal government, and also required for firearms sold before the effective date of the act, that "every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof."
The NFA did not inspire as much controversy in 1934 as gun-control acts do today, in part because of the general public perception that crime was out of control and in part because anti-gun-control groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) did not have nearly the strength or Lobbying power they would later have. In fact, the NRA formed its legislative affairs division, a precursor to its powerful lobbying arm, in 1934 in belated response to the NFA. Nevertheless, the NFA did result in several lawsuits claiming the law was unconstitutional, one of which reached the Supreme Court.
In Miller v. United States, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (U.S.Ark. 1939), two men were charged with transferring a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun in violation of the NFA. A federal district court quashed the indictment, ruling that the NFA did indeed violate the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, disagreed.
Writing for the court, Justice james mcreynolds famously dismissed the defendants case with this statement: “the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” McReynolds added that “certainly it is not within Judicial Notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” He also noted that many states had adopted gun-control laws over the years.

The NFA is still in force, codified in amended form at 26 USCA § 5801 et. seq. As the first federal gun-control legislation, it set the stage for all other federal Gun Control laws, and its legacy overshadows the scope of the law and the limited number of weapons to which it actually applied.

Have you not read my posts? I said pretty much only semi auto rifles that are really for military purposes. I am not one of those who can’t possibly see the other side. Again, that is why I hate pro gun people. No compromise, whatsoever…

1 Like

What you need is criminal control.

“58% of all murderers had at least one felony conviction, 70% had other convictions, and 81% had arrest records.”

Felons can’t legally buy a gun. So all the convicted felons that use guns to kill are already breaking the law to acquire the gun. Do you think more gun laws will stop them?

California is going the other direction with reducing or eliminating prison sentences for crime. I know. People will cry about the prison industrial complex, but data says we’d be safer if felons were kept in prison.

If there weren’t so many idiots buying guns for the sake of buying them because that’s their second amendment right we wouldn’t have them guns being lost, stolen, left unattended even by the FBI knowitall guys.

The proliferation of guns is the final purpose of the NRA, the boss of the government. We have a government within a government, and it’s paid for by the NRA. Don’t you dare to talk about gun legislation that they scream and yell “the government is there to get you”, the same government they pay for. Then they make the dumb conservative people stock up out of fear of that malign government, all paid for by the same group, the NRA.

It’s wrong. I explained it a previous post but maybe not explicit enough.

The Australian number of 1.2 is for the year 2006. So you should also use the 2006 American number for comparison. Instead you cherrypicked the lowest point in your graph, that of 2014.

So for US, 1996 is 7.4, 2006 is 6.1. an 18% decrease. While Australia has a 36% decrease.

Also you are ignoring suicides and gun accidents. In the last few weeks there were 2 accidents I am aware of, and I am not actively looking for these things. One involves a kid looking for candies in her grandma’s purse but found a gun instead and killed herself. One involves a boy shooting his dad to death who was napping at the time.

I think you are showing a strong case of “motivated reasoning”. You are only actively looking for evidences that support your pre-determined thesis and ignoring all the evidences pointing the other way.

Australia’s homicide rate was 1.9 in 1996 and 1.2 in 2013. That’s a 37% reduction.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html

US rate was 7.4 in 1996 and 4.5 in 2013. That’s a 39% reduction.
https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014

Plus, there’s the data of sexual assault rates increasing in Australia during that time while US rates were decreasing.

Poor guy, drowning in ignorance and can’t let it go.

We need a real man kind, not a sissy’s debate about the idiotic sense that you for being an American you “have to” own a gun. That is so 1700s.

It must be hard to be alone in that dark world. Nobody to support you, but there you are, knocking on that door nobody is going to open.

We can do better…it is call evolution.

1 Like

Have we evolved criminals out of the human race?

1 Like

Don’t you love the Supreme Court judges?

I agree, the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud committed on the American people.

Isn’t funny? The bunch of troglodyte people menacing, threatening the government causing chit if Hillary won, are the ones who swear to God they love the constitution. Under the constitution, the second amendment mentions “regulated militia”. I don’t know if you or I are a dummy, but regulation is what most Americans are wanting.

By the way, as the judge above said, a regulated militia means they are under the leadership-scrutiny of the government. By militia, the founding fathers didn’t think or explicitly said they are your usual gun-ho cheap copy of Rambo pissed off at the future outcome of an election.

1 Like

I hope is the same video where I remember he confronted people asking valid and paranoid questions. And I remember vividly he dismissed the notion that he, or Hillary were going to take Americans guns away.

The way he confronted and talked to “the people” about guns or any issue is being missed by the majority of Americans. Back then, we had a president coming out as a mature person disregarding what you thought of him, now, we have a toddler.

1 Like

NRA spends $3M/yr lobbying. They control the whole country with $3M? It seems all you’d need is an anti gun person to come up with more money than the NRA, and politicians would magically change their minds. That is if you believe $3M/yr is the problem.