Poll: 2/3 of American voters would defy gun laws

Page 7 of 9 [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

03 Feb 2013, 4:25 pm

JBlitzen wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Seems like a bit of a red herring. The assault weapons ban not only won't pass but it also wouldnt take away anyone's current guns. It would just regulate the future sale of certain weapons.

But it's a chance for macho or paranoid posturing I guess.

The SAFE Act passed on January 15th.

Stop your macho posturing and read the news.



The article was talking about a federal law. That's a NY law that doesnt take away guns from current owners either. The poll's only purpose to is gin up paranoia.

One aspect of SAFE that I like is that mental health professionals can put a hold on someone without them being involuntarily committed. That might have prevented the Virginia Tech killings. Assault weapons are regulated and registration is required but they arent taking them away.



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

03 Feb 2013, 4:47 pm

The SAFE act mandates that registered assault weapons be turned over to the state upon the death of their owner. That is posthumous confiscation.

Unregistered assault weapons are subject to confiscation after January 2014.

Standard capacity magazines are subject to confiscation right now.

So, everything is confiscated, which makes your rebuttal about as wrong as it could possibly be.

And NO part of this law will prevent an SSRI taker with induced psychosis from taking a pump action shotgun and a duffel bag of ammunition into an elementary school.

In fact, semiauto rifles are very rarely used in mass shootings.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

03 Feb 2013, 5:29 pm

MadMonkey wrote:
My comparison to the Rwandan genocide was based on have two groups that, for many years, expressed an unwillingness and inability to compromise. For many years, both groups, argued that the basic existence of the other group made it impossible for them to pursue their own health and happiness. Additionally, for many years before the genocide, Rwandans expressed a belief that civil war was coming to them.

Perhaps the American civil war would be a better example then?


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

03 Feb 2013, 5:42 pm

simon_says wrote:
One aspect of SAFE that I like is that mental health professionals can put a hold on someone without them being involuntarily committed. That might have prevented the Virginia Tech killings. Assault weapons are regulated and registration is required but they arent taking them away.

I mentioned this to my therapist last week and she said deciding when to report someone who did not make a specific threat is a delicate balance. Once a therapist does that, it will likely be the end of any meaningful voluntary treatment, or any treatment at all. If doctors and therapists are pressured to report people over the slightest thing, patients won't be honest, some will quit going, and others won't start. Democrats have a bad habit of creating restrictions and social programs and expect people will go along not just wit the letter but the spirit of the law, and then later wonder why it isn't working.

Virginia tech isn't as good an example of mental health policy. He was involuntarily committed but released in less than a day. He was supposed to raise a flag but there was a screw-up somewhere.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

03 Feb 2013, 8:55 pm

JBlitzen wrote:
The SAFE act mandates that registered assault weapons be turned over to the state upon the death of their owner. That is posthumous confiscation.

Unregistered assault weapons are subject to confiscation after January 2014.

Standard capacity magazines are subject to confiscation right now.

So, everything is confiscated, which makes your rebuttal about as wrong as it could possibly be.

And NO part of this law will prevent an SSRI taker with induced psychosis from taking a pump action shotgun and a duffel bag of ammunition into an elementary school.

In fact, semiauto rifles are very rarely used in mass shootings.


A dead guy is hardly going to argue over the loss of a rifle from his former estate as the poll suggested. And from what I could see failing to register was a misdemeanor. They could take your assault weapon if they knew you had it and you failed to register but they can do something like that with the heavier regulated arms already. It's a matter for the courts to decide if legislation is establishing reasonable categories of arms. And if someone doesnt respect the local laws (that wouldnt take their weapons) I don't have much sympathy for them.

Semi-auto rifles are rarely used, I agree. But they are used sometimes. They were used by mass killers three times in the past few months. I'm not really a fan of semi-auto bans myself but I like the mental health rules and the idea of the magazine restriction. Though seven bullets is pretty skimpy. Ten seems reasonable to me but everyone will have their own estimate of what's reasonable.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

03 Feb 2013, 9:50 pm

Something funny: the police always have "amnesty" periods here in Oz each year for people to hand in the semi-auto rifles [or register anything else].

That's generally because there's literally thousands upon thousands of Norinco SKSs and ex-military M1 Carbines (10/22s, Norinco M-14s, Garands, Imperial FALs and whatnot, but nowhere near the number of SKSs and M1 Carbines) out there that people didn't turn in. Machine guns too (Browning 1919s were popular), especially in Tasmania.

Pretty funny, really. There was noncompliance here on a mass scale (which is contrary to popular opinion), but it was of the selfish make, i.e., we keep our toys. Which I loathe personally (best to be selfless and show that you have them and that you're not giving them in; if everyone does this, the government loses).

I turned 18 when all the laws were in effect, so I never experienced the "good times" (it was just as safe then as it is now, 20 something years on).



JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 364
Location: Rochester, NY

03 Feb 2013, 9:55 pm

simon_says wrote:
JBlitzen wrote:
The SAFE act mandates that registered assault weapons be turned over to the state upon the death of their owner. That is posthumous confiscation.

Unregistered assault weapons are subject to confiscation after January 2014.

Standard capacity magazines are subject to confiscation right now.

So, everything is confiscated, which makes your rebuttal about as wrong as it could possibly be.

And NO part of this law will prevent an SSRI taker with induced psychosis from taking a pump action shotgun and a duffel bag of ammunition into an elementary school.

In fact, semiauto rifles are very rarely used in mass shootings.

A dead guy is hardly going to argue over the loss of a rifle from his former estate as the poll suggested. And from what I could see failing to register was a misdemeanor. They could take your assault weapon if they knew you had it and you failed to register but they can do something like that with the heavier regulated arms already. It's a matter for the courts to decide if legislation is establishing reasonable categories of arms. And if someone doesnt respect the local laws (that wouldnt take their weapons) I don't have much sympathy for them.

Semi-auto rifles are rarely used, I agree. But they are used sometimes. They were used by mass killers three times in the past few months. I'm not really a fan of semi-auto bans myself but I like the mental health rules and the idea of the magazine restriction. Though seven bullets is pretty skimpy. Ten seems reasonable to me but everyone will have their own estimate of what's reasonable.

I'm glad you feel it's a good compromise. But nobody on the other side of it does, and they're the ones with guns.

Perhaps if you were more informed on the subject, your view would be significant.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

03 Feb 2013, 10:09 pm

simon_says wrote:
... mental health rules ... .


You got AS?

That's what mental rules includes.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

03 Feb 2013, 10:44 pm

simon_says wrote:
A dead guy is hardly going to argue over the loss of a rifle from his former estate as the poll suggested.

There's a sentimental factor. If I was dying, one of my final instructions to my family would be not to let the cops have my guns. Keep them for yourselves or even sell them to the 3% under the table, but do not turn them in!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,795
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Feb 2013, 11:21 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
the only guns we are allowed to own were the guns available at the time of the second amendment. yes a musket was the most technicaly advanced firearm of that era.so people being able to own the most advanced weapons of there time is in the spirit of the constitution.

if back in the colonial days there existed glocks and tommy guns and ar15s and the like, would the founding fathers have had the same opinion regarding the right to bear arms?



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

03 Feb 2013, 11:26 pm

auntblabby wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
the only guns we are allowed to own were the guns available at the time of the second amendment. yes a musket was the most technicaly advanced firearm of that era.so people being able to own the most advanced weapons of there time is in the spirit of the constitution.

if back in the colonial days there existed glocks and tommy guns and ar15s and the like, would the founding fathers have had the same opinion regarding the right to bear arms?

Yes because the people would need them for militia and personal use. There was no differentiation between things to defend against. Those technicalities came later.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

03 Feb 2013, 11:45 pm

:roll:
Obviously if they'd had them they would have used them.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

04 Feb 2013, 12:29 am

Quote:
I'm glad you feel it's a good compromise. But nobody on the other side of it does, and they're the ones with guns.

Perhaps if you were more informed on the subject, your view would be significant


I don't know who cares about your opinion but it's not me.

Quote:
You got AS?

That's what mental rules includes


There was no mention of AS, just a reference to a professional flagging someone for being unstable and a danger to others. That seems reasonable.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

04 Feb 2013, 1:04 am

auntblabby wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
the only guns we are allowed to own were the guns available at the time of the second amendment. yes a musket was the most technicaly advanced firearm of that era.so people being able to own the most advanced weapons of there time is in the spirit of the constitution.

if back in the colonial days there existed glocks and tommy guns and ar15s and the like, would the founding fathers have had the same opinion regarding the right to bear arms?
yes because that was part of a free and equal society.weapon control started in medivel times.a peasant could own blunt tiped arrows to hunt rabbit but could not be caught in the forest with real arrows because that was poaching the kings venison.a crime punishable by death.
in those days things like chain mail and good swords were very expensive.the type of things a knight had in battle as to what a peasant had in battle was the equivelent of $75,000 in todays money.the kings kept power by keeping weapons from the commoners.

the musket gave a level playing field and the right for everyone to own was part of equality


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
WrongPlanet is rancid,goodbye forever


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

04 Feb 2013, 2:38 am

simon_says wrote:
There was no mention of AS, just a reference to a professional flagging someone for being unstable and a danger to others. That seems reasonable.


Ain't that what doctors can already do? Threat to yourself and/or others and all that.



tangojuliet
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12

04 Feb 2013, 6:43 am

ide never break the the law i would just be ignorant of it :D