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

[LilyM]

DarkLight:

.

But we’d figured that most of the theft wasn’t done by determined professional thieves. It was done by opportunists who swiped what was fairly easily available.

A prudent boss would impose security measures that may well inconvenience honest employees.

I don’t have access to my employer’s money except in very limited circumstances. For example, I can use a company fuel card to refuel my work vehicle, but must provide a receipt to the employer accounting for fuel purchased on the card. This can be cross-referenced to the logbook of the vehicle to show that a given purchase was during (and for) a legitimate work trip.

All of which can be quite a hassle to me as an honest employee, but one which I am willing to accept for the sake of making embezzlement more difficult.

No one is talking of firing honest employees any more than they are talking about total or near-total confiscation or banning of firearms.

Existing laws in America seem to be achieving nothing, and even limited measures in relation to bump stocks look to be incredibly unlikely to pass due to the pervasive influence of the gun lobby. So I do think you could benefit ftom at least some tightening.

 

[DarkLight]

Well it’s good you guys figured this out. (I assume this was more than mere conjecture and in some cases, the bad guys were actually caught).

So what did your boss do when they would catch embezzlers working there?

Did your boss fire or suspend the good employees?

Would YOU go after your “good guys” if YOU were the boss?

Would it be OK to ignore company protocol and dock pay from good honest employees if some merchandise “went missing”?

Actually there were a lot of regulations on every employee. I had to have my drawer counted by someone else every time I ran the register. I had to have log-in numbers and if I shared them with anyone I was responsible if money went missing. Basically everything I touched was recorded, and if the records didn’t match what was going on I could be fired. I also had to pass a drug test and a background check to be hired.

Obama said: “Ideas are more powerful than guns”.

Given that and assuming he was correct, what kind of “mental health prohibitions” that we don’t already have in place, could be implemented against citizens who may or may not have ongoing mental health issues?

Would it not ALSO be appropriate to REMOVE these people from having the ability to VOTE?

After all, if “ideas” are MORE POWERFUL than guns, we don’t want these guys voting according to YOUR paradigm would we DarkLight?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

The only thing I mentioned on mental health was the need for better treatment. I don’t even know if we need to make more of it mandatory - I’ve dealt with the mental health system before, it can be extremely hard to get help even if you voluntarily want help. Working on reducing the stigma for seeking help (especially for men) would also be a good idea.

 

[Duesenberg]

Yeah, just remember that target is a creation of God. And i’m guessing if we were to compete at the gun range you’d be going home with no money.

PM me if you live in California. I’m shooting a 3-Gun match tomorrow and would love to take your $$$.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually there were a lot of regulations on every employee. I had to have my drawer counted by someone else every time I ran the register. I had to have log-in numbers and if I shared them with anyone I was responsible if money went missing. Basically everything I touched was recorded, and if the records didn’t match what was going on I could be fired. I also had to pass a drug test and a background check to be hired.

The difference is whether or not the government is telling you. If you are responsible for certain things at work, that’s part of an at-will private contract.

 

[LilyM]

President Obama once was on 60 Minutes (if I recall correctly the interview was done while he was visiting Africa).

(I saw it on the computer as I do not have TV. The interview is probably still available too.)

Obama said: “Ideas are more powerful than guns”.

Given that and assuming he was correct, what kind of “mental health prohibitions” that we don’t already have in place, could be implemented against citizens who may or may not have ongoing mental health issues?

Would it not ALSO be appropriate to REMOVE these people from having the ability to VOTE?

After all, if “ideas” are MORE POWERFUL than guns, we don’t want these guys voting according to YOUR paradigm would we DarkLight?

Do you think President Obama’s (when he was President) guards took . . .

. . . “Firearms” to guard the president?
Or . . . “Ideas” to guard the President?
Or . . . Both?

Should we limit “ideas” to be within state lines too?

How about an “idea fine” (we can call it a surtax and make some “scratch” for the Government that we can use for department Conferences in Orlando, Florida every January and other “junkets” for us to enjoy at hard-working taxpayer expense).

Google . . .

Junket - an extravagant trip or celebration, in particular one enjoyed by a government official at public expense.

A single person’s vote makes far less impact than that same single person with a gun in hand.

 

[Cathoholic]

LilyM:

.

No one is talking of firing honest employees any more than they are talking about total or near-total confiscation or banning of firearms.

.

Yes they ARE.

You go back and re-read the thread.

I’ve shown explicitly how some want to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Dianne Feinstein confiscate all guns

I’ve shown how incremental gun control is at work here.

And I and others have shown how Government confiscation of law-abiding citizens has ALREADY (in some instances) occurred (go back and re-read post 218).

.

LilyM:

“No one is talking about firing honest employees. . .”

That’s part of the point LilyM.

People get that you don’the beat up on the good employees because of bad employees.

And if you DO, and it transgressed company policies, you get a lawsuit against the company.

If that’s true about a mere business relationship, HOW MUCH MORE true is the principle to NOT attack the good guy because of the bad guy.

And all the worse if it goes against “company policy” er I mean The Constitution (which allegedly means much MORE than mere “company policies”).

 

[Cathoholic]

LilyM:

A single person’s vote makes far less impact than that same single person with a gun in hand.

That’s fine if you want to think that LilyM.

Then you think ex-president Obama was wrong on that point.

Do you think all “single persons with a gun in hand” should be in some degree, banned concerning their firearms?

Or do you just wish to disarm the good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens LilyM?

 

[Cathoholic]

DarkLight said:

Basically everything I touched was recorded, and if the records didn’t match what was going on I could be fired.

Notice what DarkLight DIDN’T say . . .

Basically everything someone else touched was recorded, and if the records didn’t match what was going on for THEM, . . . .I could be fired.

 

[Cathoholic]

Duesenberg:

.

I’m shooting a 3-Gun match tomorrow . . .

.
Hey! Good luck in your match!

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

.

No one is talking of firing honest employees any more than they are talking about total or near-total confiscation or banning of firearms.

I don’t get it. Tell me why I am NOT in practice already being ‘beaten up on’ as an honest enployee, at least sonewhat.

Your logic apoears to suggest that I am, and that I should probably march up to the boss and demand 24/7 access to the company fuel card with no corresponding duty to provide receipts, or account for my use of either the card or the vehicle. Isn’t that the level of trust hat an honest employee is entitled to?

By the same logic (name removed by moderator)osing a legal drinking age is ‘beating up on’ responsible ypung adults; as the irresponsible will just ger false IDs or get around the law in other ways.

So is random breath testing. So is requiring rigorous testing before you can be licensed to drive. So are random tax audits.

So are lots of things you don’t seem to be giving a second thought to.

I believe Jesus meant it when he said ‘he who lives by the sword will die by the sword.’ I do believe in a God given right to self-defence, but I don’t believe in an unfettered or relatively unfettered right to own guns. I think the military and police should concentrate much more on being well-trained (particularly in unarmed defence tactics) as lack of training makes arms almost completely a moot point.

I have lived in some rough neighborhoods in my time and have exercised common sense safety precautions and survived without packing.

Those times my safety has been compromised, and there have been a few but nothing serious, I am confident that no amount of weaponry would have helped.

 

[Cathoholic]

I believe Jesus meant it when he said ‘he who lives by the sword will die by the sword.’

This is non-sense LilyM.

Constitutional advocates don’t want to “live by the sword” any more than Government officials.

They just want to left alone as long as they are abiding by the law.

You don’t attack good guys because of the bad guys.

 

[Cathoholic]

By the same logic (name removed by moderator)osing a legal drinking age is ‘beating up on’ responsible ypung (sic) adult . . .

This is NOT “the same logic”.

The Constitution has no such foundation concerning “Congress shall make no law prohibiting alcohol”.

You are making this stuff up now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By the same logic (name removed by moderator)osing a legal drinking age is ‘beating up on’ responsible ypung (sic) adult . . .

Cathoholic, first just a bit of procedure forum advice. When you engage in a discussion with someone, other readers would like to know who that someone is and maybe read their posting too. When you make a posting with no quotes and no link to who you are responding to, it makes it very hard for others to do that. If you just use the

tag manually, it does not link to that poster. The best thing is to start out by clicking on the first icon on the left (the quote bubble) when responding. Then we get a link to the person and to the particular post, which we can follow by clicking on the up arrow next to that quoted section. You can still cut and paste as needed. In this case, I read backwards until I found the quote in your previous posting from LilyM. But you could have save me (and others) the trouble by using the quote bubble. I can understand not wanting to quote huge portions of the other person’s response, but you can use the quote bubble and then cut out most of their response, leaving just the bare minimum link to their response.

Now on to the content. You say LilyM’s “same logic” argument is flawed because the second amendment makes it illegal to pass laws that ban guns generally. However, implicit in LilyM’s proposal might be first a repealing of the second amendment followed by the laws that you say are “beating up” on the law-abiding gun owner. Under that scenario, the Constitutional argument no longer applies, and under those circumstances, LilyM’s argument of the “same logic” is totally valid. That is, under those conditions, banning guns from decent responsible gun owners is no different than banning alcohol from decent responsible drinkers. The fact that you had to rely on the second amendment to dispute the analogy shows that without the second amendment, that particular argument against banning guns evaporates.

 

[Melchior_1]

My apologies for asking this if it has already been addressed, but is there really a tangible need for the following items to be legal?

• Fully automatic weapons?
• Sniper rifles?
• Machine guns?
• Suppressors and/or silencers?
• Armor-piercing rounds?

 

[SuperLuigi]

The difference with employment is that it is an at-will contract. You can either resolve your differences or walk away from the job. With the government, you don’t have as many choices.

I have lived in some rough neighborhoods in my time and have exercised common sense safety precautions and survived without packing.

A lot of gun owners, I would say the vast majority, have other means to ward away threats. It’s almost always a last resort.

Those times my safety has been compromised, and there have been a few but nothing serious, I am confident that no amount of weaponry would have helped.

That’s your call, but you need to allow people to make it for themselves.

I think the military and police should concentrate much more on being well-trained (particularly in unarmed defence tactics) as lack of training makes arms almost completely a moot point.

You have to be trained to use a gun effectively. That’s why most gun owners see it as a responsibility and take care of their guns.

 

[DarkLight]

The difference with employment is that it is an at-will contract. You can either resolve your differences or walk away from the job. With the government, you don’t have as many choices.

I’ve always wondered about this one. In my experience, in many, many circumstances, your choices are, “do this job”, “do another job with the same requirements”, or “don’t work.” And we’ve gutted unions so much that anyone who even tries is going to start having “performance issues” pretty fast.

 

[Duesenberg]

My apologies for asking this if it has already been addressed, but is there really a tangible need for the following items to be legal?

Fully automatic weapons?

Machine guns have been under very tight federal control since 1934. The controls were tightened even further in 1986.

Sniper rifles?

What exactly is a “sniper rifle”? Most are extremely accurate, bolt-actions rifles. That description would include millions of hunting rifles in the US. CA did ban rifles chambered for the .50 BMG round, yet the somewhat more powerful .510 DTC round is 100% legal.

Machine guns?

Machine guns are select fire, fully automatic firearms. See above.

Suppressors and/or silencers?

Suppressors are under very tight federal control but they shouldn’t be. They don’t make firearms any more lethal – nor do they make them anywhere near silent. They were “added to the list” in 1934 because during the depths of the Great Depression (you could buy a suppressor in a hardware store for $1.50), hunters used them when the hunted (poached) for game to feed their families. Through most of Europe, suppressors are not only not highly regulated, they are REQUIRED – whether hunting, at shooting ranges, etc. due to their hearing protection qualities.

Armor-piercing rounds?

A few states ban certain types of ammo as political measures. However I cannot think of an instance of deadly violence in the US that was made possible or made worse by the use of “armor piercing rounds.” Not ever.

 

[Melchior_1]

Machine guns have been under very tight federal control since 1934. The controls were tightened even further in 1986.

So that means there already is gun control in place?

 

[Theo520]

My apologies for asking this if it has already been addressed, but is there really a tangible need for the following items to be legal?

Fully automatic weapons?
Sniper rifles?
Sniper rifles?
Machine guns?
Suppressors and/or silencers?
Armor-piercing rounds?

You might want to look up definitions when making your anti-gun lists.

Fully automatic Weapons & Machine guns?
Fully automatic weapons are low caliber machine guns, effectively one in the same. Not owned nor available to your average citizen.

x2 sniper rifles?
Was it repeated for emphasis?
Do you know what they are?
Virtually all hunting rifles fit the definition.

Suppressors?
They save your hearing but they don’t silence the sound like in the movies. They are readily available to criminals yet rarely used.

Armor piercing rounds?
They really aren’t an issue, why are you worried about them? Can you name a single example where the police were shot with one via a handgun? Most rifles are already armor piercing.

 

[Duesenberg]

So that means there already is gun control in place?

Indeed. Some states have even tougher controls yet.