Congress snuck gun control into the funding bill.

Post Reply New Topic

Sweden seems to have a sensible approach to this.....

I'm with you on this. There were periods in my life of extreme depression & nearly constant intrusive passively suicidal thoughts and during those times I recall having the thought that I should not own a gun, not because I'd ever be a threat to others, but because it could create the possibility of me becoming a threat to myself and I'd rather simply avoid that by not owning one. Now? I could own 1000 guns and it wouldn't pose a threat to others or myself in the present moment or foreseeable future for I am drastically different than when I was severely depressed. Self regulation is a pretty useful thing & I would not be surprised to hear that it's very common.

Whether Sweden, Japan, Australia, or Canada etc I don't really get why the USA is debating endlessly over how to reinvent the wheel of gun control when they could just have a look at all the countries in the world with guns and fewer shootings and just benchmark the best practices of their gun control laws, or even just literally copy & paste, implement, and then tweak as needed. Instead they drag their feet.. I guess for a couple of reasons: 1) There's WAY too much money in guns & ammo in the USA. 2) They've created a culture of gun nuts and now they don't have any idea how to tame it.

People’s who’s education and job it is to read and understand laws are saying it likely will and can do that. The goal is to get people who are by law suppose to be on the list but who anti gun people think should be in the list.

Anti gun people want HIPA removed, so they can use medical diagnosis and records to add people to nics. Meaning you’d be added to nics solely cause you were born different and be considered a dangerous and violent person. Vice just did a show there they slanted the people and they all said they support removing hipa to do this. So they support removing medical privacy, no more what happens between you and your doctor are private and can’t legally be shared. Certainly you wouldn’t support this?

Name anything that’s ever been changed later? Name one gun control law that’s been removed? Besides the assault weapons ban as if didn’t get removed it was passed for a limited trial time and wasn’t renewed. Republicans hate Obama care and they can’t remove it. We banned china imports in 1990s and they still banned despite China now being a close economic trading partner. Now once something’s law it’s law for good. Nra and regan promised they’d fight and remove the 1986 machine gun ban, here we are 32 years later and it’s not removed.
Have we removed the patriot act everyone hates?
It’s naive to think once the government takes something that we will ever get it back again. And in my case say they pass a ban and 5 years later Supreme Court rules it illegal. I’ll be either 1.dead,2. In prison.3. Best case I lost all my guns without compensation and will never be able to get them back or similar ones again. Are they letting pot smokers out who were put in prison before states made it legal? If they do does that bring back the years they spent in prison k losing their jobs, family, the felony on their record. No we need to not let horrible laws pass. If people won’t fight to stop them they won’t fight to remove them. In case of gun control if the law doesn’t work they won’t be sorry our bad let’s remove it, they be like we need to ban more guns ad more restrictions. That’s literally where we are now. We have in to bans and restrictions they didn’t work, don’t work, and what do anti gun people want more restrictions that won’t work. , for those who say slippery slope is false, what do you say when anti gun people say we want a total gun ban but it has to be done (so I can’t spell the word and can’t find it online it starts with an i, means to do something in small steps so adjust and accept it, used a lot by gun control people) their end goal is a total ban but they going do it in small steps . Assault weapons(simi autos) then next shooting it’ll be shotguns or rifles, then next one revolvers until we don’t have anything. They admit this is their plan. They don’t think we should have guns but it’s not a immediate solution to ban guns it has to be don’t gradually .

Incrementally.

The HIPA thing is BS. However, doctors should be required to report people to some sort of authority who in their medical opinion pose a threat to themselves or others and should be prevented from owning guns. The problem with that, though, is that some nutcase that a doctor puts on a no-gun list may seek revenge against that doctor.. so the doctor may not want to put that person on a list even though they should be on it.. so then I can see the legal argument for the state wanting access to medical records in order to look for red flags of patients who should be on a no gun registry. That's a difficult one to solve, really. I can understand fully why legislators would want to use medical diagnoses to exclude people from gun ownership.. but also why doctors might not want to take the risk of reporting loose cannons to authorities. So, what's the best solution to that hot mess of a problem w/o violating doctor patient confidentiality? I'm not entirely sure, myself.

Slavery used to be legal in the USA, but now it isn't. So, bad & unjust laws can change.

Even Trump's Muslim ban, another bad law, was quite short lived and overturned by the courts.

Why would anyone support an unbanning of machine guns ban? Those are weapons designed to kill as many people as possible and there's a reason why they're military issue vs. handed out like candy to civilians.

Sly, you don't seem to understand the simple facts that gun ownership & misuse is completely out of control in the USA and needs to be regulated with stricter controls for the safety of citizens. MANY other countries in the world have sane gun control laws and their citizens don't go blowing each other away every few seconds because gun control laws work.

YOU might not be a threat to yourself or others, but clearly there are MANY people that are and having 101 guns per 100 people in the USA hasn't reduced gun violence. It makes perfect sense that sensible gun control laws will be implemented incrementally vs. all at once. First they'll keep guns out of the hands of the most likely to use them for violent means, and then they'll slowly restrict weapons that should only be used in combat from being available to Johnny Target Shooter etc etc until there's a happy balance of legal, safe, responsible gun owners doing their thing on ranges and hunting and schools and churches are no longer being shot up every second day by lunatics. Rome wasn't built in a day, so of course it's going to take reasonable changes bit by bit to get gun violence under control in America.

Doctors are already required to report dangerous people. Having autism doesn’t make someone dangerous. It’s done anonymously and there’s no shortage of doctors who report such people or want to hand out anti gun pamphlets. Let’s make excuses for violating people’s rights solely cause they’re born different. What red flags? Do you suppose a doctor will put shows violent tendencies and not report it and they see that say ban this guy? Now they want be oh this person has autism, anxiety, delexia etc and ban them from guns. They want a blanket ban that says anyone with a medical disorder is violent.
Due process is the only solution. Go to court get a court to determine if someone is a danger, that’s the only lawful solution and it’s what we have now.

It took a civil war to make slavery illegal and it’ll take another civil war to get rid of unconstitutional laws.

Um actually the higher courts ruled his travel bans from certain countries quite legal but it was too late by the time they did. Obama did similar bans. President can place travel bans on countries, just as they can ban imports from counties.

Because it’s a bill of rights and not s single machine gun since the banning of alcohol has ever been used in a crime. The Vegas shooter could have gotten machine guns he had the money and the time. Machine-guns were legal until 1986 and none were used in crimes, they still many out there legally owned and never used in crimes. Why do we ban things never used in crimes?
Then there the 1939 Supreme Court reeling that only weapons the military uses are protected under the 2nd amendments ie machine guns. So I’ll gladly turn in my ar14 in exchange for a m4 and m240 bravo. Also no they designed to put suppression fire down so someone others can move up. Ie they designed to put lots of bullets that miss on purpose to keep people behind cover. That’s the point of full auto fire.

They are really facts that’s your opinion. Just as it’s not a fact that gay marriage means an end to family morals. Opinions aren’t facts and there no such thing as common sense when it comes to politics. Common sense is if you put your hand on the hot stove you’ll be burnt. I don’t use common sense cause it implies truth and that everyone agrees and that isn’t so. What you and I might consider common sense vary quite differently. It’s just a phrase used to slander and try to undermine ones opponent without using logic and facts.
Yes they do and they also have murder rates too and higher violent crime rates, but then we are different societies and different legal codes. Comparison is impossible. Some countries don’t consider rape a violent crime. So you need to compare them to themselves. Austrians crime rates went up. Hi crime rates went up then down back to where it was before their gun ban. USA crime rates have been on a decline, as have most the worlds. If they’d passed gun laws when crime rates were on a rise like back in the 60s it’d paint picture that gun laws increase crime , reality is as a species we are becoming less violent and gun laws have nothin to do with crime rates. Unsurprisingly that’s the exact thin the assault weapons ban study found and that the 2013 cdc study found as well as the Harvard study.
Us hey why listen to them right.

Gun violence and violence as a whole have been decreasing for quite a while so there’s no evidence more guns or less guns has any effect on crime. The us is a much less violent and safer place then it was in the 70s.
It doesn’t make perfect sense to me or 100 million other people. There hasn’t been any sensible gun laws proposed.
Ah so they going dispatch police and feds to hit the ghettos and take guns from known criminals? No they aren’t they say, so then they don’t have any interest in taking guns from those most likely to use them for violence means.

Again the point is for us to have weapons to fight our government so we need combat weapons but we don’t even have them we have civilian neutered weapons. And now you want to take those too. And still we get nothin I’m return.
We’ve well passed the balance point. Gun owners are done with fake compromises and lies.
Mass shooting are are and can not be stopped. They use bolt guns or bombs. Even if you banned all guns they’d still do mass shootings. Except now their target list would be anywhere as now everywhere would be a gun free victims zone.
But hey you admit you support and they support total ban and that’s the end goal so points for not lying. Many say we don’t want to ban guns but they do they trying to lie and trick us but they already fooled us too many times we wised up.

They aren’t any more reasonable then when the Germans reasonable sent the Jews to camps, then reasonable sent the, to gas chambers. Stop using reasonable. Many people things it’s reasonable gays should be married or that gays are bad. Is that reasonable To you? Well gun regulation that does nothing buy hurt innocent people and treat us like 2nd class people with 2nd class civil rights isn’t reasonable.

Just cause you want to do something to others against theirnwill doesn’t make it reasonable. That’s another word thst can’t be used with politics.

I haven't seen the word Autism or Autistic in any of the articles so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

If doctors aren't following through on their legal obligations to report people that are threats I can understand why government would want to take steps to correct that to ensure that people who are threats to themselves or others are put on a no gun list.

Travel bans from countries are legal for US Presidents to make when justified. Trump's ban was a Muslim ban designed to fuel rivalries between weak minded Christians & Muslims. There's a difference.

We ban all sorts of things never used in crimes because of their potential to be used in crimes & the fact that they have no good civilian use whatsoever. You think we should all be able to go down to 7-11 and buy some anthrax or ricin?

Suppression fire is a military tactic for military use. This isn't exactly something that Johnny Target Shooter needs the capability of. Like tactical shooting? Get an airsoft or paintball gun and have fun with your friends to your heart's content.

Does it matter if overall crime rates are down if gun violence & mass shootings are up? There's no sense in creating stronger laws against theft when it's guns that are being used to kill people. The USA has a mass shooting every couple days now. There's no denying this. This did not happen in the 1970's nor any time prior or since. It's happening Now, so now is the time to deal with it.

Just because ghetto criminals aren't going to voluntarily give up their guns doesn't mean that mentally unstable people who are prone to violence should easily be able to obtain all the guns and ammo they want. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Weapons to fight your government, eh? Do you really think that armed citizens stand a chance against any branch of the US military, national guard, or even local law enforcement?











Really? Comparing shootings to bombings & gun free zones and the like?



I've never said I support a total ban on guns. Don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I've posted several times over in various threads that I do not support a total ban on guns.

No one is sending anyone to a gas chamber. It's absurd to compare gun control to The Holocaust. Especially since they have the exact opposite intentions.. one prevents deaths, the other caused them. Every country in the world with better gun control laws and a safer gun culture is proof of this.

Comparing gun ownership rights to Human Rights of sexuality is completely ridiculous and doesn't even really deserve any kind of comment or debate, really. You're really grasping at unconnected straws with that one, sly, and I'm not going to take the bait to bother even explaining the difference to you because you're smart enough to already know.

What myself and those for sane and reasonable gun control laws want is public safety. Just because you don't want public safety doesn't mean others should be subjected to being shot up by people who should have never been able to obtain a firearm in the first place.

Most the us militate are gun owners. And the us gov won’t use planes, helicopters or nukes in a civil war unless they want to lose all their support. Didn’t even read the rest. I’m going have to ask you nicely to stop replying as this is a haven thread. I’m willing to accept some civil discussions but you’ve gone beyond that.

Well yeah I also read some kind of blog thing that criticized Swedens approach because they still have some gun crimes and have had some larger shootings. However it seems they have a lot less than we have in the U.S, so it didn't seem like a very good argument.

Also I think they have some kind of system where people can still use what people call 'assault rifles' but they have to be kept in a safe facility and people can't just collect them up in their home...sure it could be a 'hassle' but guns like that should not be lying around. Like any show/movie/documentary I've larger caliber weapons are always in some kind of secure storage locker or people are armed with them, they aren't just laying around or in some questionable container that's not really secure. However plenty of homes are like that they have guns about, not stored safely or appropriately that could pose a threat if a small child got ahold of it...or someone that's mentally unstable as they could harm themselves or someone else.

That loop hole is due process. You can’t put someone into nics without it. God help us if that changes.

You said you didn’t even read my post so you can’t even react to it or judge it. It is civil discussion. It’s my response to your post. I’m not obligated to agree with you in order to post in a thread. I disagree with you respectfully; I haven’t posted any rude or insulting comments.

You posted rude and insulting pictures that pretray gun owners as idiots. That’s not civil.

I posted memes that make the debate point that unorganized civilian gun owners who think they're going to overthrow every branch of the US Military are sadly mistaken and their argument that they need assault weapons to do is is deeply flawed because they stand exactly zero chance.

You’re so utterly wrong because you lack understanding of military and untraditional forces along which who makes up the military and police.

They aren’t assault weapons. Your side can’t just make up a word and ban 90% of guns.

Im going ask one more time for you to leave my thread alone.

Feel free to go make a gun owner bashing lies thread in the politics section if you want. This isn’t a thread for thst.

I did not make up the term "assault weapon."

Respectfully disagreeing with your position is not "gun owner bashing lies." Not everyone is going to agree with you on everything, sly. That's simply a matter of life.

I've also been abundantly clear that I do not support a total ban on gun ownership. I also posted in defence of your position in another pro gun thread stating that I believe (some) disabled people ought to be even more entitled to own guns as their recreational hobby interest because they have ample time to enjoy that part of life since they're not going to work full time.

Just because I don't agree with every word of your side of the gun ownership debate does not mean that I am completely against what you believe. I've proven that by my posts.

Getting upset and telling someone they can't make a post on a public forum because they don't side with you entirely is silly behaviour, sly, and does nothing to strengthen your argument in this discussion.

Assault weapons is a made up term by your side. That’s why there’s no definition of it. Even the anti gun people don’t know what it is. It doesn’t exist.

This isn’t a political debate thread. If I wanted to be told how horrible guns are and how horrible wrong and immoral I am I’d go to Facebook.

Again, I didn't coin or define the phrase. According to a google search for "define:assault weapon" this is the first result:



My personal use of the phrase refers to weapons that appear to be military style weapons designed for the express purpose of intimidation by appearance and to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible by function. These aren't the type of guns that hobbyists need to shoot targets at a range, or to shoot wild game while hunting. Their only real purpose is as killing machines and that's why they exist and are issued to soldiers who are trained to use them as intended in war. Makes perfect sense to me that soldiers would require the most perfect killing machines of weaponry, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever why a civilian would have any need to own one besides emulating soldiers because war games are fun. But that's why airsoft & paintball replicas exist.

This thread is about the gun control measures that congress slipped into the spending bill. It's common practice in every government to attach other laws to passing spending bills as withholding funds until laws are passed is how many laws get passed at all. I've already agreed with you that the sweeping generalized language about it that was reported in news articles is ridiculous and that I don't believe so many American citizens should be broadly prevented from owning guns, especially not veterans or pot smokers. Nowhere in the articles did it mention anything about Autism, Autistics, Aspergers, or ASD, though so I'm still confused as to where you're getting the information that anyone with ASD is now prevented from owning a gun.