What is the best way to disarm the poor and minorities?

I'd say all those choices would cause that-it depends on the extent of each

and yes, one of the purposes of gun control is to keep the poor disarmed

- - - Updated - - -

if you gun banners would stop pretending that your jihad against gun rights is based on public safety concerns, we might consider it

But I am a libertarian, I support constitutional freedoms for everyone, not just the rich

- - - Updated - - -

other being a Democrat and hating the fact that the NRA supports mainly GOP candidates, have you ever explained what causes your hatred of honest people owning guns?

 

you seem confused between rights and handouts

 

how many poor people are shot with sniper rifles? the last person I recall being murdered with a 'sniper rifle' was white separatist Vicky Weaver, shot while holding her "assault baby" by a FBI shooter

 

I don't know, but if you have one, are poor, and live in certain areas of my city, it might very well get bulldozed with your house if you forgot where you hid it. "El Chapo" Guzman apparently had some .50 calibers on hand when he got taken down, so it probably has happened in drug land.

 

criminals generally don't want to draw attention to themselves before they commit a crime. Sniper rifles aren't exactly easy to conceal. those who use them generally are going to get caught or die-like Charles Whitman-texas tower sniper. Rifles rarely are used for murder and when they are its often the commonly available and owned 22 caliber rifles or your basic deer rifle. Sure, the media has conniptions over mass shootings were suicidal berserkers have used semi auto modern sporting rifles but still, rifles are used in less than 2% of the murders

a real "sniper rifle" is generally a heavy barreled 308 caliber rifle with sophisticated telescopic sighting capability and often an adjustable stock that is equipped with a bipod. I own a Remington PSS (Police Sniper Special) which is a basic police or military sniper rifle. I also own M-21 system which is a semi auto version of the M14 with a heavy Douglas target barrel and a sophisticated Springfield Armory Generation III range finding sight (the same scope on the bolt action Remington since I am well trained it the range finding mechanism). The first rifle and scope is well over 1000 dollars when I bought it 22 years ago, the M-21 now would cost at least 3000 dollars and both weigh over 10 pounds

not exactly something criminals are packing these days

 

I suppose "sniper" predisposes they are not going to be walking around with it in their trenchcoat. I saw something once that said the Secret Service really really hated .50 caliber rifles with armor piercing rounds because even the things that stop the first round often won't stop the second. I assume they were talking about ballistic glass.

 

well there is an old saying among professional bodyguards

they almost always can stop an amateur whether the amateur minds being caught or shot

and they can stop a lot of professionals who are risk adverse

but its almost impossible to stop a professional who doesn't mind dying to carry out his hit. sniper rifles are not conducive to the latter.

yeah there are guys out there who can hit a human target at 1500 meters with a Barrett or AAI 338 rifle -stuff that costs several thousand dollars minimum with the rounds costing 100 dollars for a box of 20. Those guys are few and far between and are generally known to those who are in that field.

yeah 50 BMG or the similar rounds (designed to get around the 50 caliber ban that some morons have passed in some states) will do that if the shooter is that good

I think the SS is far more worried about some Jihadist with ten pounds of C-4 getting within 20 yards of a candidate than some Olympic class rifle shooter singing him a mile away

 

I am a little curious as to how these active listening systems that travel with the POTUS work that can detect a shot as soon as it is fired. Still seems like they wouldn't have enough time to react, so it makes me think they have something very innovative that we are just not aware of in that regard.

 

I think that technology was well beyond my pay grade but a real professional is going to have a suppressor on his rifle. 1500 meters out-in an urban environment-well, I'd be skeptical if any technology could pin point a shot that far a way on a suppressed rifle

 

It is something that they have as part of the motorcade so I am guessing they think is utility has to do more with a shot when they are moving as opposed to when they are entering/exiting at a stop.

 

Something no one does discuss is if by some magical means we do get guns out of the hands of would-be lone wolf terrorists and crazy psychotic people, they likely will switch to bombs. Bombs are the true mass kill weapons. All the massive mass killings in the country, in current and past history, has been by bombs, not guns. Sometimes, even if you get what you want, the cure is far, far worse than the disease. Be careful what you wish for. Pushing crazy people and lone wolf domestic terrorists away from guns may be exactly NOT the thing to do.

 

I really don't know about this.

there was talk about some cities putting up sensors to track the locations of shooting

in Chicago I am sure those might have some value and get lots of use

 

You are in California as am I. We both know that food is easily obtained from our vast number of food banks. I volunteered at the local food bank in fact. And we also have county hospitals that if you can't pay, still treat you for free.

 

Never considered this. But now that you mention it, all the intentions and regulations passed by the Democrat party really do negatively impact the poor and minorities. I would add to your list from another angle. By rewarding illegitimacy with xtra cash kickbacks, food stamps, housing and so on, Democrats have effectively dismantled the minority family structure, especially Fatherhood, creating throngs of fatherless angy, unguided young men and women, who then go on to commit the gun crimes. Then the Dems ignore the broken family which the Dems have created, and instead blame the gun. This results in more restrictions and costs by Democrat regulators, which in turn bury the poors access to rights even deeper. Not to mention palsying the liberty of all Americans.

 

Fair enough. Logically its utility would probably be in being able to pinpoint the shooter to direct return fire more quickly I would think. I don't see them being able to do much with a round once it is coming in other than take it and then fire back.

 

It at least ensures that a lot of people with a criminal record will be committing at least one more crime, doesn't it?

The options in this poll illustrate the absurdity of the current approach to gun control. It fails completely because it does not succeed completely; that is, with only certain regions and types of guns under tighter restrictions, and with only certain people restricted from buying and owning guns based on certain criteria, ultimately these limited gun control measures fail to accomplish what they are meant to accomplish, because they are not keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Urban gun violence statistics readily testify to this.

 

I read they use these in London (UK).

 

Social programs designed by Democrats provide HUGE economic incentives to have broken families, which so impacted low income blacks that now a broken-family welfare lifestyle is generational and, in a sense, a career choice decision. Rather than getting a job just have 5 babies by different men, none at home. The government will pay that woman vastly more $$ than she could possibly earn at a job.

 

The best way would be to take guns away. Offers 99% perfection.

 

Perfection for the criminal perhaps. Tell me. Just how exactly are you going to keep guns away from criminals? Between machine shops, 3D printing, and the black market the only ones that would be disarmed are the law abiding folks. And they'd be nothing more than cannon fodder for criminals if you took guns away.

 

My thoughts exactly. You forgot to mention that they fought to keep as many of the poor kids alive as they could with their "pro-life" stance, while turning around and putting down the mothers for having them while on welfare.

I love your quote but there are days when I almost fear spending too much time thinking. It makes me see the world for what it is behind the illusions Fear is an easy way to live life. It's comfortable. It has no risk. If you bury your head in the sand you pretend you are safe. I get it. I lived my life in fear for years and acted accordingly. My biggest fear in the world was being trapped alone with my own thoughts. I prayed that if I ever had another life, that I would be born very slow. I see beyond politics and peoples b.s. What drives it. I never knew what to do with those thoughts. They were uncomfortable. They made me accountable and the last thing I wanted was to be accountable. If I had to see that by not being part of the solution, I was part of the problem hurt and I didn't want that. I still don't have a solution. That is my pit of hell. To know we are destroying ourselves and each other out of fear or past hurt and that the hatred and terrorism and racism are byproducts of our collective thoughts and actions is hard to deal with. It doesn't have to be this way. I don't fear it though. It is the truth. I can only be a single light among the darkness and tell my truth and maybe wake someone else up, like I was woken up and when enough light fills the world, fear will be a thing of the past and love will win.

The quote I had with this was lost, so none of this makes any sense. I was trying to write back to a guy who had a quote about thought being man's worst fear. I don't remember it exactly but something like that. The first paragraph was after the person said conservatives didn't have to worry about taking guns from the poor, just healthcare and food stamps and they would all be dead.

 

I votes for complex paperwork, since they aint smart enuf to compleet it.