Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t want to disarm anyone, people presumed I am anti gun because I support a ban on bumpstocks and potential limits on how many assault rifles people can own.

Those are literally the only things I support beside current law… and that got me “HE WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNS… TAKE 'R GUNS… DOOK R DUUUUNS” “HE WANTS US TO DISARM!!!” “GUN GRABBBBERRR” (all those things in caps said in a very thick southern accent)

Again I feel it necessary to remind people I am a US Military veteran marksman, a gun enthusiast, and a constitutionalist.

But I guess calling for a ban on bumpstocks and possible quantity limits on assault rifles is the same as saying all guns should be banned except guns used to protect politicians… at least to some people here.

I don’t understand the whole all-or-nothing attitude. It’s a very Protestant idea to hold - either ALL guns are absolutely legal no matter what OR none are legal whatsoever.

The Catholic view is more nuanced - both guns should be allowed AND they should have realistic controls on then.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
I don’t want to disarm anyone, people presumed I am anti gun because I support a ban on bumpstocks and potential limits on how many assault rifles people can own.
Click to expand...
“Bump stocks” are the current hot issue right now. The BATFE gave them the green light several years ago. California banned them, as we do everything else here – not that it would have made a difference in Las Vegan. I don’t care if bump stocks are made illegal – they are a novelty anyway, which makes rifles arguably LESS lethal because they ruin their accuracy.

“Assault rifles” are select-fire machine guns. They have been under extremely tight federal control since 1934. That control was tightened even further in 1986. “Assault rifles” are not to be confused with semiautomatic modern sporting rifles – apples and oranges.

What’s interesting is the gun banners never suggest that semiautomatic pistols – the type of firearm used in most violent gun-related crimes by far, be banned. They realize the people of the US – on both side of the aisle would never stand for that.
 
Spyridon said:
So we do nothing then.
Click to expand...
No, we need to take the tough steps necessary to reduce all violence – including gun-related violence. We need to:
  • Remove guns as a political wedge issue. We need to start doing the right thing, rather than the political thing.
  • Bite the bullet and begin to deal with mental health and the horrors it can lead to.
  • We need to deal with poverty.
  • We need to deal with quality education and a lack thereof.
  • We need to deal with how the media sensationalizes mass murders and murderers.
  • We need to deal with a lack of firearms safety training. Being taught to fear/hate guns rather than respect/understand them is a terrible thing.
  • We need to deal with the growing violence in out culture beginning with hideously violent video games.
Reducing gun-related violence is TOUGH! It takes TIME and it’s also EXPENSIVE. US politicians need to recognize that. Their hollow rants of “more gun control” simply take the spotlight off real issues.
 
LeafbyNiggle:
I did not make up that description. It came straight from the Wikipedia article I cited.
Click to expand...
.
Irrelevant. Why?

Because you cited it to support what you think are “moderate gun control” measures.

Virtually anyone can put up opinions to Wikipedia.

So the jig is up LeafbyNiggle. You “own” that post unless you come out and repudiate it.
 
LeafbyNiggle (on a long gun–an SKS).

.
I have lived all my 69 years without having one. I suspect you can too.
Click to expand...
.

To readers of this thread.

This is exactly part of what I am talking about.

Before LeafbyNiggleaving was talking “moderate” gun control.

LeafbyNiggle included handgun prohibition in this “moderate” paradigm.

Now we see the “moderate” morph into at least some long guns too (in this case an SKS).

LeafbyNiggle’s reasoning?

The same as many other gun-grabbers.

They arrogantly UNIVERSALIZE their own personal experiences . . . to YOU.
I have lived all my 69 years without having one. I suspect you can too.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine this time)

And THAT IS what they really base their opinions on. THEMSELVES, their own FEELINGS, and then UNIVERSALIZE these things to everyone else.

I haven’t had an SKS either LeafbyNiggle.

But it’'s NOT about ME.

It’s about WHO makes such decisions FOR good, honest law-abiding citizens.

And I am saying what this country has proclaimed since our inception (and you oppose).

I am saying these good honest law-abiding citizens get to make such decisions for THEMSELVES. (This is repulsive to the liberal mindset who thinks they need to meddle in everyone else’s private affairs).
 
Last edited:
To me it seems to be akin to making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to drink and drive - by a multi pronged preventive approach of restricting access to alcohol in general (upping the drinking age and requiring ID at liquor stores and licensed venues) AND targeting drivers with mandatory breath testing.

This sort of multi-pronged approach absolutely inconveniences law-abiding citizens by subjecting them to breath tests and restricting 18-21 year olds who in most parts of the world are considered mature enough to drink - but hey, the breath testing in particular absolutely works in preventing accidents, injuries and deaths, so why not?
 
LilyM:

.
To me it seems to be akin to making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to drink and drive
Click to expand...
.
But we don’t have “drinking and driving” enshrined in our Constitution Lily.

Do you think we should make it harder for police to have firearms too? How about our military? What about armed guards for politicians?

Do you think we should make it harder for THEM to obtain and keep firearms?

Why or why not?
 
Last edited:
Mass gun ownership does not appear to be working in terms of keeping US citizens safe and free from harm. So the question might well be whether a right to bear arms (or at least such an unfettered right) SHOULD be enshrined in the Constitution.

Yes, yes, we can go on about self-defence. If faced with an intruder in my home, I’d much rather reach for the available and accessible kitchen knife, or a cricket or baseball bat if one is handy, than go through the palaver of getting a gun out of the safe/cabinet and putting ammunition in it prior to shooting.

Police at least seem, in places like the UK, to be equally capable as US cops of preventing and prosecuting crime without all being armed to the teeth. As for the military - well, 2nd amendment defenders frequently cite the successes of small guerrilla groups against larger and better-armed traditional military forces as a justification for their right to bear arms as protection against tyrannical governments - which seems to knock on the head the notion that the military really needs wizz-bang armoury.
 
Ah, SKS’s. I have two that I inherited. Neither of them have jumped up and started spraying the neighborhood. They must be defective. I find them inferior to the AK-47, and would likely never buy one if I had the chance to buy something else.

The truth is, firearm (and violence in general) is a product of culture. Most races and ethnicities have elements that practice a culture of violence. Yakuza, MS-13, Chicago Vice Lords, “the mafia,” “the Russian mafia,” the Peck*rwoods, etc. Just as it’s wrong to assert that one particular race or ethnicity is inherently bad, it’s equally wrong to ignore that the vast majority of violence comes from cultures of violence. It is wrong to not recognize that crime is, and always has been, a choice.

I am not sure that “dealing” with poverty is the answer. You can throw more money at a culture of violence, but all that you get back is a culture of violence that is better armed.

The same goes for education. You can have world class educational facilities, but if the culture doesn’t value it, all you have is looted and vandalized facilities. You simply can’t make somebody “learn” who does not wish to.

There is an answer that seems to be completely beyond the grasp of those seeking to ban firearms. Each state needs to establish legislation calling for a significant minimum mandatory sentence for armed offenders, up to and including mandatory life without parole (since execution seems to be an evil word these days). A minimum mandatory that cannot be negated by Departments of “Correction” or nullified by judges. This needs to be accompanied by prosecutorial agencies willing to bring these cases to trial instead of plea’ing them out.

Similarly, narcotics dealers need to dealt with harshly and not coddled. Sorry, but if you’re pushing pounds of methamphetamine or heroin, you aren’t a “low-level” offender. Some of the people that the previous administration reduced sentences on brought over a metric ton of marijuana… that’s not a “low level” offender either. Society needs to return to recognizing that these individuals enrich themselves on the suffering of others.

Not really sure that violent video games are that big of an issue. I doubt that Grand Theft Auto Mk. “X” Mod. “Y” has had much to do with MS-13 developing their pattern of brutality.
 
LilyM:
.
Mass gun ownership does not appear to be working in terms of keeping US citizens safe and free from harm.
Click to expand...
Do you think being stripped of firearms helped these people?
.
Police at least seem, in places like the UK, to be equally capable as US cops of preventing and prosecuting crime without all being armed to the teeth.
Click to expand...
I am glad you feel protected by the British police that are unarmed.

So you think police and military should be UNARMED or armed? (I can’t tell what you think yet from your answer).
Did police run away during London attack?
Witnesses report that civilians were forced to defend themselves by throwing chairs as police fled scene of terror attack.

Gary Willig, 05/06/17 17:28

Unarmed civilians had to defend themselves with chairs during the terrorist attack on the London Bridge and the British capital’s Borough Market Saturday night - because the police at the scene had run away . . .
Click to expand...
www.israelnationalnews.com

Did police run away during London attack?

Witnesses report that civilians were forced to defend themselves by throwing chairs as police fled scene of terror attack.
www.israelnationalnews.com www.israelnationalnews.com
 
Last edited:
LilyM said:
This sort of multi-pronged approach absolutely inconveniences law-abiding citizens by subjecting them to breath tests
Click to expand...
And in the case of guns, it does nothing but inconvenience and give some the fantasy they are “doing something.” I think the worst of all was the ridiculous “gun free zone” malarkey. How many politicians made the evening news as they dedicated new “gun free zones” also known as Unarmed Killing Fields?
 
I suspect THESE British police are glad THEY were armed with more than a baton . . . .
SECONDS FROM SLAUGHTER
London Bridge attack – ISIS claims responsibility for Borough Market terror as video shows jihadis stalking pubs searching for victims
.
One officer was seriously wounded while heroic cops gunned down extremists within eight minutes of first emergency call
.
By Mark Hodge, Neal Baker and Emma Lake
.
7th June 2017, 1:20 pmUpdated: 7th June 2017, 1:36 pm
ISIS has claimed responsibility for the depraved attack in London Bridge as chilling video shows three jihadis calmly strolling past a pub while in the midst of the van and knife rampage that killed eight and critically injured 21.
.
The twisted killers are seen calmly walking through Borough Market moments before they launched a stabbing attack on pubgoers while shouting “this is for Allah”, having already driven a van into crowds. . . .
Click to expand...
www.thesun.co.uk

Three terrorists shot dead after killing seven and injuring dozens more as they ploughed through crowd in van at 50mph before going on rampage with hunting knives

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the depraved attack in London Bridge as chilling video shows three jihadis calmly strolling past a pub while in the midst of the van and knife rampage that kille…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk

Eight minutes is a long time for civilians to be trying to deal with this.

When SECONDS count, British police with real arms were only MINUTES away.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Did police run away during London attack?

Witnesses report that civilians were forced to defend themselves by throwing chairs as police fled scene of terror attack.
Click to expand...
kinda sad, but what honestly should you expect when the Police only have a baton.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafbyNiggle:
I did not make up that description. It came straight from the Wikipedia article I cited.
Click to expand...
I have no need to repudiate anything I have said. But’s let’s review. Joe_5859 asked “What type of gun control laws does Canada have?”. I said “Canada has moderate firearm laws according to this overview” where I cited the Wikipedia article, which actually summarizes those laws. Did you read the summary? But if you want to call them something other than moderate, that’s OK with me too. I only cited the Wikipedia article so people could read what the laws in Canada actually say. They can decide for themselves if those laws are “moderate.”
Now we see the “moderate” morph into at least some long guns too (in this case an SKS).

LeafbyNiggle’s reasoning?

The same as many other gun-grabbers.

They arrogantly UNIVERSALIZE their own personal experiences . . . to YOU.
Click to expand...
I am willing to let my personal experience be averaged in with all the other citizens’ personal experiences in the ballot box. If your side wins, then so be it. If not, then that is the will of the majority and that will be OK too.
Click to expand...
 
LeafbyNiggle:
I am willing to let my personal experience be averaged in with all the other citizens’ personal experiences in the ballot box. If your side wins, then so be it. If not, then that is the will of the majority and that will be OK too.
Click to expand...
.

This is another attitude example people who are reading this thread should take into consideration.

Putting “my personal experience” (and others) OVER the Constitution.

This universalism of your own experience and the “ballot box” mentality in certain areas is part of exactly what the Consituation protects us from.

Thank God for the insights He gave to our founding Fathers in this respect.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top