An honest perspective about gun control from a former anti-2nd amendment citizen

[Farmer Br0wn]

You will.

Kidding yourself if you think it's not going to happen yet again.

Aren't you from Australia?

If that's the case, I could understand why you would have such a perspective. The Australian people surrendered their independence and autonomy to their government long ago.

In the United States, all major gun control was passed inside of 60 years within the 20th century (1936-1994). Our nation still has readily available arms from the Civil War. In the last 30 years, any attempt at enacting gun control results in massive election losses for those who tried to impose such controls.

I don't doubt that the Democrats will try to push through some kind of feel-good measure if they should ever come to power. The reason that they lose political power shortly after enacting such laws, is because such laws are repugnant to the independent nature of the American people.

 

[jlagman]

You will.

Kidding yourself if you think it's not going to happen yet again.

LOL, isn't the boiler plate response from grabbers usually, "No one's coming for your guns, you paranoid redneck." You want to prove those "conspiracy theorists" right?

@jlagman he has significant point here. No one's making this kinetic as long as we're all fat, fed, and happy.

When the only steps taken so far have been to push for prohibiting bump-fire stocks and some retailers pushing the age up to 21, you're right, I wouldn't be worried yet.

The thing is, if there is any hope for true, meaningful compromise, then both sides will have to sacrifice something and trade horses.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

My idea for gun control would be flip the perspective to confuse the zealots of both sides.

Explain to the hardcore 2nd amendment people that stringent testing, licensing and restrictive purchasing would affect ownership among poor minorities the most. In turn, when the left realizes that their ideas would have the most impact on poor minorities, they may ease up on their demands.

The flaw in your thinking there is the assumption that everyone else is as racist as you are.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The flaw in your thinking there is the assumption that everyone else is as racist as you are.

Which part did you find racists? The fact that hardlined on the right may value exclusivity or hardlined on the left may disvalue it?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Which part did you find racists? The fact that hardlined on the right may value exclusivity or hardlined on the left may disvalue it?

Just your general way of thinking that everyone makes all their political decisions based on hurting or helping 'poor minorities'.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Just your general way of thinking that everyone makes all their political decisions based on hurting or helping 'poor minorities'.

So pointing out that hardliners may be swayed or denounce increased gun regulation based on exclusivity of it is racist? Cool, keep playing that card.

But you don't think it's like voter ID laws? In which some people want them because of their restrictivness and then others denounce them because of who they affect. But apply enhanced protocols on gun ownership would flip that narrative?

You think the ACLU would support gun laws that would overwhelmingly affect poor minorities?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

So pointing out that hardliners may be swayed or denounce increased gun regulation based on exclusivity of it is racist? Cool, keep playing that card.

But you don't think it's like voter ID laws? In which some people want them because of their restrictivness and then others denounce them because of who they affect. But apply enhanced protocols on gun ownership would flip that narrative?

You think the ACLU would support gun laws that would overwhelmingly affect poor minorities?

But voter ID laws aren't racist. Again you assume everything is about race.

Voter ID laws would help combat voter fraud. Nothing to do with race.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

But voter ID laws aren't racist. Again you assume everything is about race.

Voter ID laws would help combat voter fraud. Nothing to do with race.

Voter fraud makes up a ridiculous small percentage of cases and if you look at the numbers, who do they effect more? If you look at the states, which are more likely to enforce them? Look at which political sides support them and which oppose...You don't see a pattern there.

Now if you applied that to gun laws, you don't think you would see the narrative switch?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Voter fraud makes up a ridiculous small percentage of cases and if you look at the numbers, who do they effect more? If you look at the states, which are more likely to enforce them? Look at which political sides support them and which oppose...You don't see a pattern there.

Now if you applied that to gun laws, you don't think you would see the narrative switch?

The only pattern I see is that you think everything the Republicans support is because of racism and every position the Dems take is because of the 'good' kind of racism that you yourself seem to practice.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The only pattern I see is that you think everything the Republicans support is because of racism and every position the Dems take is because of the 'good' kind of racism that you yourself seem to practice.

So you really don't see why red states implement voter ID laws and you don't see who it impacts the most?

And you can't see how that narrative would apply to gun ownership under a system of more training, course work, background checks and further regulation?

Welp, ok then.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

So you really don't see why red states implement voter ID laws and you don't see who it impacts the most?

And you can't see how that narrative would apply to gun ownership under a system of more training, course work, background checks and further regulation?

Welp, ok then.

Did you watch the video I posted? Where are you getting the idea that black people don't have ID?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Did you watch the video I posted? Where are you getting the idea that black people don't have ID?

Because

Study: Voter ID laws hit minorities

And:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html


And

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hajnal-voter-id-research-20160908-snap-story.html

And

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/

And why do you assume minority equals black? Why are you so racist??? How about disabled people, Latino, elderly??

Now, back on track to gun laws -- you don't see how restrictive means would appeal to people sense of exclusion and how people would be against It because of who it would affect?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Because

Study: Voter ID laws hit minorities

And:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html


And

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hajnal-voter-id-research-20160908-snap-story.html

And

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/

And why do you assume minority equals black? Why are you so racist??? How about disabled people, Latino, elderly??

Now, back on track to gun laws -- you don't see how restrictive means would appeal to people sense of exclusion and how people would be against It because of who it would affect?

No proof of causation in that study.

This guy isn't representative of all minorities. Read the article you posted.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You think the ACLU would support gun laws that would overwhelmingly affect poor minorities?

I guess they do if there's validity to the whole minorities can't get ID's narrative. What's one thing you need to pass a background check? Don't see them challenging it.

 

[HIMBOB]

Aren't you from Australia?

If that's the case, I could understand why you would have such a perspective. The Australian people surrendered their independence and autonomy to their government long ago.

In the United States, all major gun control was passed inside of 60 years within the 20th century (1936-1994). Our nation still has readily available arms from the Civil War. In the last 30 years, any attempt at enacting gun control results in massive election losses for those who tried to impose such controls.

I don't doubt that the Democrats will try to push through some kind of feel-good measure if they should ever come to power. The reason that they lose political power shortly after enacting such laws, is because such laws are repugnant to the independent nature of the American people.

See you say that but think it through, is the American citizens ability to overthrow the it's government greater than an Australians?

Sure you have lots of small arms more than any other country but you would be facing the most powerful fighting force the world has ever known. We however have a very high rate of gun ownership against I'd say a pound for pound roughly equal army but it's clearly a very different weight class.

Now of course you could vote out a tyrannical government but so could we. And what do you mean attempt? Surely you don't think your right to bear arms hasn't been infringed already.

I repeat the 2nd is so vague that it's meaningless as proven by you yourself saying it's democracy that protects your gun rights, the 2nd doesn't.

 

[HIMBOB]

LOL, isn't the boiler plate response from grabbers usually, "No one's coming for your guns, you paranoid redneck." You want to prove those "conspiracy theorists" right?
.

That's not even kind of a rebuttal.

Let me know if you think I am wrong but in the absence of any reason to think otherwise I assume you agree.

 

[skaleton]

what about those registries would stop any of those crimes?

Nothing. Call it an unconstitutional think tank. Especially with the ease of homemade weapons of the type cubo was talking a registry is a total joke.

 

[skaleton]

Beautiful post, but how did you arrive at limiting ammunition from all of the rest of this?

Switzerland is one of the few countries that I'm aware of that has any thing close to the number of guns that we do. Also, again, my love of the 2nd is from an anti military, anti strong central government point of view. Switzerland is again a good example, militarily, of what I'm talking about.

The two biggest differences I see between them and us, is they view guns more from a sense of civil duty and they also limit quantities of bullets sitting around in civilian houses.

Concessions are the name of the game. If there is a monstrous gun control debate in our country right now and I start arguing to the opposing side that we need more and better guns I'm not gonna make much headway with my argument. Where's my concession? The bullets.

 

[skaleton]

Wouldn't mean jack or shit if they did.... "The right to keep and bear..."

Don't get what you're saying.

 

[skaleton]

Ok. I'm must surprised I'd have to name some.

• National Firearms Act of 1934 created an exorbitant tax on owning full-auto, short-barreled rifles and shotguns

If you want to decrease gun deaths I'd say end drug prohibition. It creates violence. Here I don't know what you do. Smaller classes and more attention from adults might go further than some kid having to reload a couple extra times because of magazine capacity restrictions. I'd be interested in possibly punishing parents who allow unsupervised access to minors.

Thanks for the list of laws, just wanted to see what you had in mind for the discussion. The sawed off shotgun law always disappointed me the most. I've got a house with no room bigger than 15x15. A sawed off with some level of choke would be ideal for home defense.

Nothing would make me happier than a legalization of drugs. I think Portugal's decriminalization has gone swimmingly well. And if I could have a joint in my pocket at all times I'd be a happy man. Or at least one rip away.

In my opinion doing away with money spent on overseas military and drug enforcement in the states would leave us a lot to spend on things like smaller classroom sizes, mental health and other hippy dippy type things that could greatly improve the country we all live.