Gun Control needs to be instituted

Another gun-owning republican calling for much stricter gun laws, including banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfr...nsider-to-address-gun-safety/?sh=3be2d2021567

Good to see

Now sit back and watch the little right-wing 2a-wavers wail...

 

it's good to see that you have dropped the pretense that the jihad against gun rights is based on mistaken belief it will control crime. It's nothing more than exhibiting hate towards people who don't buy into your leftist agenda.

 

Why do you think it matters to us who proposes/supports unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding?

OOOhhh....
Because YOU are a partisan hack, you believe everyone else is as well.
Fair enough.

 

Not at all. But we need to be fair because banning assault weapons, (despite the misleading classification of a semi auto AR-15 as an assault rifle) could possible save lives. But if the whole purpose of the ban is to save lives why is there no mass push by the left to ban high performance cars. "Nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting", can easily be altered to "Nobody needs a 150 MPH car to drive to the supermarket" . We could even save some of the 4.7 million Americans who will be attacked by dogs this year, and the children the dogs kill.
Just yesterday.
https://blog.dogsbite.org/2023/05/f...cally-injuries-grandmother-waterloo-iowa.html
So I'll push for the assault weapon ban if you push to restrict the ownership of fast cars and dogs.
How about it?

 

If they thought most dog owners or high performance car owners voted mainly for the GOP, they would be all for it

 

If they thought dogs or high performance cars gave the people the ability to resist the state's monopoly on force, they would be all for it

 

good point. for if say they were weak on drunk driving and they though banning McClarens or Czingers would cover up for them coddling drunks driving and killing people

 

Please don't give the left wing wacky control freaks... new ideas to run our lives.

 

Frist was always seen a a bit of a RINO. He also hasn't a clue about the constitution. Screw him and the horse he rode in on

 

As it was bipartisan, it had to be very limited. But better than nothing.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/30/us/gun-control-laws-2022/index.html

<Snip>

The package includes $750 million to help states implement and run crisis intervention programs, which can be used to manage red flag programs, as well as for other crisis intervention programs such as mental health, drug and veteran courts.


Here's what's in the bipartisan gun safety bill
Red flag laws, approved by the federal measure, are also known as Extreme Risk Protection Order laws. They allow courts to temporarily seize firearms from anyone believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

The legislation encourages states to include juvenile records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which would provide a more comprehensive background check for people between 18 and 21 who want to buy guns.

It also requires more individuals who sell guns as primary sources of income to register as Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers, which are required to administer background checks before they sell a gun to someone.

The law bars guns from anyone convicted of a domestic violence crime who has a “continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” The law, however, allows those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes to restore their gun rights after five years if they haven’t committed other crimes.
<End Snip>

 

Your opinion is diametrically opposed by fmr. ATF hostage negotiator, Jim Cavanaugh.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna52581498


<Snip>
I spent 33 years in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and if I had a dollar for every time a citizen asked me or my colleagues to run a background check on someone who wanted to purchase their firearm, I wouldn’t need my pension.

Of course we couldn’t do that, not even for the family, friends and acquaintances who asked, who only wanted to be sure their firearm wouldn’t be sold to just anyone. Such checks were allowed for law enforcement only.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, swept into law by the assassinations of the 1960’s, strengthened gun laws, and the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, passed after the attempted assassination of President Reagan, did mandate background checks. These two laws have prevented uncountable murders and violent crimes. Without them, American life would be drastically different–and worse...

...Many factors are involved, but an important one is the vigorous enforcement of firearms laws. That effort has spanned presidential administrations and has put trigger-pullers and predators in prison for long sentences. If you’re in a cell block, you’re not out with your piece, preying on your neighborhood.

That’s why I say that gun safety laws are not gun control–they are crime control.


But we can do so much better. Background checks work. Many felons have been prevented from buying guns. Criminals brag that they can buy guns on the street–and yes, it happens, but not without obstacles. And those obstacles are what allow police and ATF agents to apprehend them and stop the next murder. A criminal in a back alley may in fact be making a deal with an informant or an undercover agent.

The background check bill should pass and it should be coupled with a strong gun trafficking law and beefed up resources for police and ATF. Senator Joe Manchin has shown real leadership and insight on all of this. He was like the guy who would call and ask what he could do to make sure his gun sale was done correctly.

Leaders who either reach too far, or want it all their way, will fail. The background check bill is a compromise bill, but for some there is no compromise. I would suggest they reassess their position in light of the facts and not lobbyist talking points.
<End Snip>


Now, if I only knew, which one of your opinions is the more knowledgeable and trustworthy, on this topic...

 

ATF cannot be trusted. lots of them end up working for gun banning groups. true-the background checks stopped lots of felons from buying guns-usually people had old old felonies-such as drug convictions they they didn't realize were felonies. but that doesn't stop them from getting a gun. and as I have demonstrated, studies by even anti gun researchers, have indicated that the brady bill didn't decrease crime. it is akin to saying putting armed guards at one out of every three banks may have decreased those banks from being robbed but if the overall rate of bank robbery didn't decrease, the action did no real good

I call bullshit on his claim about private citizens wanting to have background checks being done. Most of my friends do this-if they don't know you or if you don't have a ccw permit, they won't sell you a gun. I have never sold a gun to someone I didn't know well. and everyone of them either was a law enforcement officer, a gun shop employee or someone I knew had bought a gun pursuant to a background check. I sold four guns at gun shows, all to people who were dealers.

 

And the Supreme Court doesn't need any ethics rules-- just ask Justice Thomas! Or any of them.

Let me see if common sense, can have any effect on your ideas, or if they are just to calcified, to be changed, regardless of any argument or evidence, to the contrary.

So you are thinking that the more likely possibility is that this, by all appearances, very credible, respectable person, is blatantly lying, in his article in Newsweek magazine, rather than that not every single gun owner in the country, is exactly like you and "most" of your friends? Take a minute to think about that, before answering. Some may use it, as a guage of your reasoning powers, and the accuracy with which you perceive reality.

When you are directly contradicting a verified expert, FYI, you need provide evidence. Between your word, and his, any sane person would know which to choose. This is doubly true, when you contradict yourself! You admit that it is true that the background checks "stopped lots of felons from buying guns." But then you end with "but that doesn't stop them from getting a gun." I can only interpret your point to be that they "simply" buy one illegally. The thing is, it is not so simple, that it is an automatically done deal, as you seem to take it to be. Let me ask-- did you even read the full snip of mine, you'd quoted? Because Cavanaugh-- the 33 yr. veteran of the ATF, who it must be accepted, knows a bit more about the illegal gun market, than you do-- speaks directly about this, saying that, in a felon's trying to get a gun illegally, the police are often able to find out and stop him, either through an undercover agent, masquerading as a fence for guns, or through the tips from law enforcement informants. So, if they'd made any arrests, whatsoever, of people trying to get around the background checks, how can you possibly not concede that these represent a reduction in violent crime, and probably murders, as well?

Umm...despite our numerous conversations on the topic, I somehow have missed your "demonstrating" this. Do you have an objection to proving your point to me, who you are currently debating, or am I expected to take your word for it, that you've previously demonstrated this, in a way that I couldn't possibly question, or poke holes into?

Or is this just another instance of your textual legerdemain? The quote, from the person we would naturally be inclined to think, knew his topic, was: "These two laws have prevented uncountable murders and violent crimes." Now, I will allow that it is not impossible, that he is wrong-- only more likely, that you are. But are you merely going to redefine the question? You talk about it not decreasing, just overall "crime." So are you going to point to an increase in non violent crime, and claim that offsets, reduced murders, and violent crimes?

Also, I would need to see how this data is calculated. Our population grows, every year. The number of guns grows far faster, every year. In the last 20 years, we have gone from 200 million guns in this country, to 400 million guns. And the more guns, the more gun deaths-- funny coincidence? My point is that, with more guns, and more people, each year, it would not be surprising for the numbers in all categories, to go up. Are your figures proportionally based, as the number per 100k in population, or are they just raw totals? Even if a total increases, that does not mean that it would not have increased more, if not for the additional laws. So can you definitively show, that these background check bills, had no effect on either murders, or violent crime? If so, let's see the proof.

I hope that is not your idea of "demonstrating," the truth of something.

 

Gun bands again? Really works good for Nazi Germany, Stalin’s, Russia, pol pot, North Korea, China any number totalitarian states that added to the over 100 million civilians, murdered by theor governments. Murdering leftists.

 

can you actually make a point in say no more than 3X the number of words contained in the post you are responding to? All you do is speculate and pontificate while ignoring several facts that you should be aware of including the war on drugs and the fact that we did increase-by at least 25%, the number of guns in private hands in 30 years and the violent crime rate DID NOT increase

that ATF clown is not a "certified expert" on constitutional law or even on guns since he calls AR 15s assault rifles. what he was -was a hostage negotiator not an expert on firearms laws, that would be say someone with a law degree who handled firearms cases and actually qualified expert in various law enforcement qualification courses. Meaning I would put my expertise on firearms well above that media attention whore who is pretty much a joke to us who actually understand the ATF. He was part of the technical branch either.

 

If BGC are working, then why do we need socalled universal background checks?

 

what do you think of the claim that a guy who was neither a lawyer nor a technical branch expert, but a "hostage negotiator" being touted as an EXPERT on gun laws when he is so dishonest that he calls AR 15s weapons of war (and the ATF routinely uses fully automatic M4 carbines and MP 5 Submachine guns in CIVILIAN law enforcement?)

 

He's just another commie that used to work for the government.

 

It would be similar to the CDC trotting out an "expert" on infectious diseases who claimed COVID was a bacterial infection

 

Oh look. A fallacious appeal to authority.

 

which is why every gun banner we encounter is a leftwing activist. more government control, less personal freedom

 

what sort of authority does a HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR who is so stupid as to claim an AR 15 is a military assault rifle, have? He wasn't a legal authority nor a firearms technical branch expert. he was just another big government bureaucrat who thinks working for the ATF makes him an expert

 

LOL-- look who's talking about misleading. You even admit, yourself, that you are calling the desire to ban assault weapons, "misleading," because they are not assault rifles. The two things are different-- that's why they have different names.

 

What is fallacious about it?
BTW-- I suggest you will want to actually look up the meaning of "fallacious," as it appears you do not know it.

 

Because they can only work, with those who they are used on... Are you kidding me, with that question?