That is because if you go down that road then we have to question the use of pharmaceuticals on kids some teacher and doctor think are a little rowdy or disinterested in school. Can't go there. Congress is bought and paid for.
Trump moved to "ban" bump stocks
- Thread starter noway2
- Start date
- Replies 205
- Views 13,039
That is because if you go down that road then we have to question the use of pharmaceuticals on kids some teacher and doctor think are a little rowdy or disinterested in school. Can't go there. Congress is bought and paid for.
Oh trust me I know why they're avoiding a discussion on the real issue at hand!
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
cubrock
Swell guy
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
They are a firearms accessory. Contrary to the sh*t that is spouted in the media and by politicians, they do not transform a semi-automatic rifle into one that is select-fire.
Jefferson was clear when he penned, "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I read most of what you posted but you should read about logical argument fallacies first before we go too much deeper.
I would say you are an extreme minority of gun owners. I used to think like you when i was younger, but at that time we had real problems. They were banning guns, banning magazines, they were killing little boys in the woods and shooting women in the head holding babies. We had full fledged jack-booted thuggery going on. This was government tyranny plain and simple. But today, we have our own people creating tyranny on our own population. These kids were killed by another kid, not the "Gubment". Reasonable people can be pro gun and pro rules on gun ownership... these are not non-sequitur's. To do nothing is unacceptable. There have to be reasonable changes that can be implemented to help curb this type of issue. It cannot stop it of course, but this argument that making any new rule means all our rights will be lost is absolutely insane. This all or none mentality is why our country is falling apart from both the far right and far left. I think you are playing into the hands of Pelosi and Schumer personally.
Unalienable adj - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
So, yeah, bump stocks are about the liberty of pursuing one's happiness, i.e. they ARE about liberty...lol.
Talk about "lol".
Exactly. They are an accessory for certain weapons. If we take what you've said and run with it, there should be no reason telescopic sights, trigger upgrades or external box magazines shouldn't be banned, right? After all, they're not firearms.
You can tote a rifle for Uncle Sam at 17 years of age, but, by all means...let's keep semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of those who haven't turned 21...or is it just ARs?
NO, they are not. They are clear abrogations of liberty and fly in the face of our Republic's bedrock...the rights of the individual citizen.
Yeah....because once they are forbidden to purchase a firearm, these shootings will cease. Meanwhile, they can scurry down to Lowes and buy a chainsaw, a machete at Home depot, an aluminum baseball bat at Academy or a 4000 pound weapon on wheels at an automobile dealership.
No, it's not. When free people, who put any value at all on liberty, are confronted with a direct attack on it, it is their duty to raise hell about it.
Way to gut stomp the Bill of Rights, there, honcho.
You know...keep thinking like you do and one day, they'll be coming after something you DO care for. Whatcha gonna do then? Don't whine/cry/scream/pitch a fit, because YOU asked for it.
Just occurred to me....if they do come for something you hold dear, there may be a lanky, 18 year old kid, with an AR in his hands and a gut full-o-liberty, that stands in the gap and says, "Nah..ain't happening."
mental health needs to be addressed very carefully, as well as domestic violence - they are both ripe for misuse and abuse.
ever had a pissed off ex girlfriend hurl false accusations at you? had a clearly antigun doc probe into your gun ownership? heard about a vet with ptsd - that makes him "crazy"?
im not very comfortable with what some people define as "crazy"
ever had a pissed off ex girlfriend hurl false accusations at you? had a clearly antigun doc probe into your gun ownership? heard about a vet with ptsd - that makes him "crazy"?
im not very comfortable with what some people define as "crazy"
Last edited:
I understand where you are coming from, but I have large reservations about grabbing up the information in personal medical records. My biggest issue is with who decides what should be reported to NICS and how is the information vetted. As an example, the Patient Visit Record I received the last time I visited my doctor listed "Diagnoses/Continuing Conditions" for two medical problems that I have never been diagnosed as having. I would not want my 2A rights to be subject to that kind of random pecking by a disinterested medical clerk.
At least the current court-based system is fairly rigorous and gives a person a public forum and notice and opportunity to fight back against the loss of their 2A rights.
cubrock
Swell guy
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Or a politically motivated medical clerk or doctor. Or, an incompetent or lazy doctor.
If you have been found to be mentally ill or insane. What the general public would want would be anyone on a simple anti depressant and up to be reported. It is an ugly thought. No way to easily get removed. I agree our metal health system is fubar and unfortunately we have many people on the streets that are not safe to themselves or the public as a result of medicine. Not sure how we put those people on the list and not everyone taking anything for any metal condition. We need to fix our system so that those that are truly dangerous are not allowed on our streets.
That's a solid point as well. Hard truth though is many of those drugs have very bad side effects and should probably be treated just like any other drug usage as it relates to firearms. I know that may ruffle some feathers but it's real talk because the side effects some of those drugs carry is worse than the effects of many illegal drugs.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I hear and understand the point you're making here. The issue is that being looney tunes crazy isn't a crime so they just continue to slip thru the loop. Maybe we should call it the Mental health loophole..lol
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I am not sure what you are arguing about really. You also need to read about logical argument fallacies. Your second "sentence" is called a "Strawman" and the third is called a "Red Herring" while the whole shebang could be called an "ad hominem"
What is reasonable is not based on your opinion alone, in law it would be something akin to "what a group of reasonable people would agree is reasonable" i guess. Do you think it is possible that your views (whatever they are) would not be considered "reasonable" by 12 jurors let's say? That is the biggest question with this type of topic, can you present a logical, valid and justifiable argument that reasonable people would fine agreeable and reasonable?
V
Some would not like it, but I agree - make a list of drugs and anyone taking those drugs couldn't have firearms.
OP
From what I recall reading on the subject, it is easy to see after the fact that the evil doer that commits violence was mentally ill, but it is very hard to say whether someone with mental illness will commit violence. At what point does one give up their inherent rights and by what metric and who evaluates it?
Having read at least part of the book The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker, in which he goes through the process of analyzing and developing methods to predict who will commit violence I am inclined to think that while there may be a viable means to evaluate who should be prohibited, I also think that this falls into the "Minority Report" (the movie) category of convicting people of pre-crime.
Last edited:
I hear you but in many of these cases the writing was on the wall as there was a history of things to help with making that determination. This latest case is a prime example. Again, it won't stop everyone but some of these cases have been "low hanging fruit"
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
HA! That alcohol law is a ringing endorsement huh? Quite a success. I know I never had a drink before becoming legal age.
So it sounds like you are saying that if our government passes a law by that fact alone it is just and correct? We shouldn't question or fight anything that has been decided by the government?
Again, we are not talking about the same things. It is not about whether the passing law "X "magically make a problem and every possible variation of potentiality of the problem solved. That is not the point. Laws affect people who are law abiding right? Why do we have a law for legal drinking at age 21? Is your argument that because i can ask a homeless guy to buy me a bottle of scotch when i am 17 the law is meaningless? I do not think you can make that argument. It means it puts a barrier up that is reasonable. It is meant to curb access AND put legal ramification on those that would flaunt the law. Thats about all it can do really.
Bump stocks would be slightly different because it would affect manufacturing and importation. So while you could make one yourself it would be a barrier and using one (depending how they defince the rule) would have legal ramifications. It cannot stop anything. That is obvious.
As for whether passing a law means it is just or correct, again that is not what i am saying. My point is that there are reasonable things we can do to put up barriers, hoops, hurdles whatever you want to call it, to help mitigate some possible future event. Because it doesn't solve every thing magically is not a sound argument for doing nothing. Like mandating air bags. It doesn't prevent ALL deaths, but it does mitigate some of the deaths during an accident. Your argument sounds like you would say, because they do not prevent all injury the introduction of them is somehow a failure and should not occur.
Again, we are not talking about the same things. It is not about whether the passing law "X "magically make a problem and every possible variation of potentiality of the problem solved. That is not the point. Laws affect people who are law abiding right? Why do we have a law for legal drinking at age 21? Is your argument that because i can ask a homeless guy to buy me a bottle of scotch when i am 17 the law is meaningless? I do not think you can make that argument. It means it puts a barrier up that is reasonable. It is meant to curb access AND put legal ramification on those that would flaunt the law. Thats about all it can do really.
Bump stocks would be slightly different because it would affect manufacturing and importation. So while you could make one yourself it would be a barrier and using one (depending how they defince the rule) would have legal ramifications. It cannot stop anything. That is obvious.
As for whether passing a law means it is just or correct, again that is not what i am saying. My point is that there are reasonable things we can do to put up barriers, hoops, hurdles whatever you want to call it, to help mitigate some possible future event. Because it doesn't solve every thing magically is not a sound argument for doing nothing. Like mandating air bags. It doesn't prevent ALL deaths, but it does mitigate some of the deaths during an accident. Your argument sounds like you would say, because they do not prevent all injury the introduction of them is somehow a failure and should not occur.
The broader point you seem to be missing about bump stocks is that people aren't troubled by the device, but by their effect. The problem with trying to legislate on the basis of removing the device to eliminate the effect, is that the effect is easily accomplished in the complete absence of the device and therefore becomes not only ineffective as a solution, but an impediment to the freedom of those who use them harmlessly and responsibly.
A 19 year old Marine should be exempted from certain things? So we should have separate laws for different citizens? Or different classes of citizens? Up to now this was good banter. But you just made my head hurt.
Different laws for different citizens? Of course! Isn't that already the case? The ability to drive a car and have a concealed carry spring to mind. I am sure i could find a few more after some thought. How about being a pilot? No issues at all.
I think a reasonable case could be made that serving in the armed forces allows an exemption to drinking limitation after some time has passed and graduation is accomplished. It would have to be discussed and a law created and voted on. But i think it is not unreasonable to attempt it. Again, we are not talking about whether we can wave a magic wand and make X happen or even if X would happen. I am just saying it seems perfectly reasonable to discuss it.
V
It's reasonable to discuss anything. When it's time to legislate, what is reasonable should be determined very conservatively.
Again, we are not talking about the same things. It is not about whether the passing law "X "magically make a problem and every possible variation of potentiality of the problem solved. That is not the point. Laws affect people who are law abiding right? Why do we have a law for legal drinking at age 21? Is your argument that because i can ask a homeless guy to buy me a bottle of scotch when i am 17 the law is meaningless? I do not think you can make that argument. It means it puts a barrier up that is reasonable. It is meant to curb access AND put legal ramification on those that would flaunt the law. Thats about all it can do really.
Bump stocks would be slightly different because it would affect manufacturing and importation. So while you could make one yourself it would be a barrier and using one (depending how they defince the rule) would have legal ramifications. It cannot stop anything. That is obvious.
As for whether passing a law means it is just or correct, again that is not what i am saying. My point is that there are reasonable things we can do to put up barriers, hoops, hurdles whatever you want to call it, to help mitigate some possible future event. Because it doesn't solve every thing magically is not a sound argument for doing nothing. Like mandating air bags. It doesn't prevent ALL deaths, but it does mitigate some of the deaths during an accident. Your argument sounds like you would say, because they do not prevent all injury the introduction of them is somehow a failure and should not occur.
I would say we do not need a law mandating airbags, and raising the price of vehicles. I would leave that to manufacturers to decide. And people could buy the cars they want. If most people want air bags and other safety features then most cars would have them. It is not the government's place to decide what we buy.
So you want the armed forces young men and women that have access to military weapons and systems, drinking more and at a younger age than similar people without access to those weapons? Cool idea.
I am pretty sure i am on point. But let me play devils advocate to one part of your argument "The problem with trying to legislate on the basis of removing the device to eliminate the effect, is that the effect is easily accomplished in the complete absence of the device and therefore becomes not only ineffective as a solution, but an impediment to the freedom of those who use them harmlessly and responsibly." Given this logic, banning them would have no effect on the effect so why are you against banning them? Impediment to freedom of bump stocks? Really? I don't think that would hold weight in any court. This is a kind of circular logic.
I think what you mean is that rapid fire could be accomplished with other devices so in order for a ban on bump stocks to be logical we would have to ban all them. I think the idea of most law is to put barriers in front of things we don't like and ramifications. That is really all we can do. No one can reasonably expect that banning bump stocks will stop all mass shootings. That really is not a good argument for not banning them. It is not a really good argument for anything. All you could reasonably say is that they would not be for sale any longer.
V
It's pretty consistent with the rest of his rhetorical logic...
Last night he said that he would remove the right to allow an 18 year old purchase a gun, probably jumping on the same 21 year age limit bandwagon. I'd steer clear of Rubio.
Be nice. He is very civil and reasonable. And a fine academic debater.
uhh no.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.
"People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor."
In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.
"People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor."
In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.
OP
It would not have the effect of stopping someone from using one illicitly as they could still obtain or make one, or using a similar technique to achieve rapid fire from a semiautomatic gun. It would infringe upon the rights of someone who wants one for recreational purposes.
np307
Happy to be here.
@Variable
You are starting way further down the rabbit hole than most here. You are accepting the premise that government's responsibility is to provide safety for the citizenry. I reject that premise. Government is for the intended purpose of promoting life, liberty, and property. In promoting those three, one cannot be at the expense of another. To deprive of liberty in the area of arms is to deprive of both property and life.
The divide between your point of view (which accepts restrictions such as concealed carry permits and background checks) and my point of view (which recognizes them as infringements) is a difference in the understanding of Natural Rights and the purpose of Government. You have stated multiple times that it is reasonable to put up certain barriers to do as much as we can to prevent these things from happening. We both seem to agree that nothing can be done to completely prevent these kinds of events.
My fundamental disagreement with your point of view is basically around the purpose of Law. The Law is to be a deterrent to evildoers, but only insomuch as it does not restrict life, liberty, and property. The law should be very harsh for anyone who violates these for another person. So a quick death should be in order for someone who commits murder and so forth. When the law begins to restrict the liberty of the individual, regardless of how noble its intentions, it has violated the basic responsibility of government.
Before you again raise the issues of airbags, concealed carry permits, alcohol, or anything else, understand my point of view. Those regulations are infringements on liberty and property. They are outside of the parameters of a properly functioning government. The fact that society at large has acquiesced to these regulations does not make them proper.
You are starting way further down the rabbit hole than most here. You are accepting the premise that government's responsibility is to provide safety for the citizenry. I reject that premise. Government is for the intended purpose of promoting life, liberty, and property. In promoting those three, one cannot be at the expense of another. To deprive of liberty in the area of arms is to deprive of both property and life.
The divide between your point of view (which accepts restrictions such as concealed carry permits and background checks) and my point of view (which recognizes them as infringements) is a difference in the understanding of Natural Rights and the purpose of Government. You have stated multiple times that it is reasonable to put up certain barriers to do as much as we can to prevent these things from happening. We both seem to agree that nothing can be done to completely prevent these kinds of events.
My fundamental disagreement with your point of view is basically around the purpose of Law. The Law is to be a deterrent to evildoers, but only insomuch as it does not restrict life, liberty, and property. The law should be very harsh for anyone who violates these for another person. So a quick death should be in order for someone who commits murder and so forth. When the law begins to restrict the liberty of the individual, regardless of how noble its intentions, it has violated the basic responsibility of government.
Before you again raise the issues of airbags, concealed carry permits, alcohol, or anything else, understand my point of view. Those regulations are infringements on liberty and property. They are outside of the parameters of a properly functioning government. The fact that society at large has acquiesced to these regulations does not make them proper.
Again, because a ban that has no meaningful impact apart from creating a new criminal class doesn't serve the best interests of the people as a whole, it is factually only an impediment to those who currently enjoy the implement in a legal and responsible manner.
Really? I wasn't expecting the hypocrisy of a strawman, but I'm delighted to see it. Thank you.
No, I said what I meant, which is 'the effect is easily accomplished in the complete absence of the device.'
Was 'complete absence' too vague? It means no device is required to obtain the effect. Glad I could clear that up.
I disagree, I think it's irresponsible to legislate on the basis of what you like or what you don't.
I agree, and I have yet to hear a good argument for banning them. The absence of a good argument against banning them is not an indication they should be banned.
Agreed.
I am being nice, in conjunction with being factual. To the degree I'm able, I try to convey things affably. Please understand the difficulty of being succinct, factual, and affable all at once in a debate.
Want real talk huh?
Some of them have been after semi autos for at least 20 years, that I can remember. They found out they could not get that idea passed so they backed up to banning specific SA's. It's not new, it's just back out in the open again. And I'm already seeing it put out in the open on this one.
Now for the hard truth. My dad went on anti depressants about a year before he passed. He quit taking them and refused to ever take any more. The reason? He was trying to decide if he should just kill himself or kill his wife (step-mom) and himself. He flat out said the things made him nuts. Scary part, my dad was not unfamiliar with killing people in some pretty creative ways. Marine Force Recon. Avid gun owner. Built AR's and open carried all the time. Adamant distrust of the gov and dems. My dad would have probably made big news in some circles.
I've worked with kids that also attempted suicide, with zero history of thoughts or attempt, within a week of beginning psychotropic medications. And I've seen it have other behavioral side effects on other kids. The elephant in the room is bigger than just mental health, it's the detrimental effect of these medications that are being over proscribed. And if that ever comes to the fore front it will make the NRA's lobbying efforts look like a band camp fundraiser.
Also, glad to see you back posting.
Last edited:
Please, would any anti bump stockers please define what a bumpstock is? Has to be defined in order to ban.
The media and politicians are talking shooting statistics, “mass shootings”, “mass shooters”, etc ... I seem to remember some FBI profile saying the vast majority are white male. What’s next white males are to likely to go on a shooting spree so they can’t buy an AR? I bet that would help the South Chicago problem ...
I think i smell a Libertarian! I understand and agree with many of the tenants of Libertarianism. What really concerns me is that the gun community as a whole, who have enjoyed so much success after the dark years of Clinton, have become far to head strong and inflexible to an extreme. I understand what you are saying, my disagreement is basically that... your ideas don't run the real world. So i tend to think not so much in a idealogical theory, but what we can reasonably expect will happen in reality. What i believe we are seeing is that if this trend of evil continues, our gun rights are going to get hammered. Here is how it will happen. Someone will bring a case to the Supreme court, they will argue that the world is a different place now, that the unfettered access to dangerous weapons has become overwhelming, that the legislature and populace are in effect held hostage by the political realities of both sides. This inability to act even in the most rudimentary restrictive way is resulting in a large number of deaths. And i believe they will act in some unilateral way that will have unforeseen consequences. We have seen this movie before haven't we? It comes down to law precedent and what is reasonable. Judges are human. If this trend continues and we as responsible gun owners just sit on our hands and point at the second amendment... we are not going to like what happens. To ignore this is a HUGE mistake IMHO. I hope i am wrong. But i am seeing staunch gun owners I know bend on some of these issues. We need to be part of a solution not simply an obstinate wall.
Last edited:
I'm not fond of labels, but there are libertarian ideals that are coincident with my own, as are many other types of ideals.
I'm appalled at the demand for a reasonable conversation wherein what is reasonable is left to the imagination of the debating parties. There's a lack of intellectual integrity to saying "We need to have a reasonable conversation on the basis of what I think is reasonable."
I'm all for the debate but when it comes to legislation, I'm concerned with the realistic understanding of the full impact, not with the politics of people's feelz.
That's the reason I don't currently see a conversation to be had, nothing being proposed is meaningful in terms of the change in circumstances that is desired. Unless of course the circumstances in question are that we still are keeping and bearing arms, the current conversation has everything to do with whether or not that right will be preserved.
Last edited:
np307
Happy to be here.
There are several issues I wouldn't be considered a Libertarian on. Furthermore, to roll over on issues that seem to be minor in the hopes that further infringements won't occur will not help the cause of liberty. Gun owners must remain adamant that we will not move. The Clinton-era restrictions occurred as a part of a much larger century-long march towards control. It was an incremental march. Now we are seeing the same things play out. One element at a time, the progressive intrusion into liberty will continue to be carried out. This will not be the last straw, and once you cede the moral high ground to the left, the argument will be pulled out at every turn.
It is absolutely not more moral to restrict freedom for the sake of trying to save a few lives. The moral thing to do is to allow people to live in freedom. There are real solutions that could be carried out, but a solution that infringes on the rights of those who haven't harmed anyone is an immoral solution.
Unfortunately you make reasonable points. The ATF recent rulings on some items have pushed the bounds of regulations but the crimes in the last decades pertaining to mass killings have been disturbed individuals who had access to guns. Mental illness should disqualify ownership. We have laws here that you can have all legal access to guns revoked immediately- domestic abuse and even saying you wish you were dead.
I see it as a sweeping attack on gun ownership by those who have never been around a gun. The government cannot protect us. These anti gun advocates have isolated themselves from reality. The truth is mental illness is shunned by the public. The truth is mental facilities have been defunded for decades. The truth is mental facilities have been closed or downsized. Instead of a sweeping attack on guns why do we not insist mental facilities be once again funded? The reason is because taking rights of the individual to have guns is no cost compared to the root cause of mass shooting being very costly to the taxpayer.
I see it as a sweeping attack on gun ownership by those who have never been around a gun. The government cannot protect us. These anti gun advocates have isolated themselves from reality. The truth is mental illness is shunned by the public. The truth is mental facilities have been defunded for decades. The truth is mental facilities have been closed or downsized. Instead of a sweeping attack on guns why do we not insist mental facilities be once again funded? The reason is because taking rights of the individual to have guns is no cost compared to the root cause of mass shooting being very costly to the taxpayer.
Actually, that started with Mother Jones and a rather flawed "research" article. Now, males are responsible for around 90% of violent crime across the board. But the "white male mass shooter" issue has been floated and proved lacking. White shooters account for around 65-70% of shooters while whites account for closer to 75% of the population. So technically they are under represented. While Asian (7.4% of shooters versus 5.7% of pop) and Black (17% of shooters versus 13.3% of pop) shooters tend to run as a higher percentage of shooters than the population by a few percentage points so they are actually over represented.
Once again, statistics are a funny thing.
Pretty interesting article in places. Wouldn't call it unbiased, but if you pick through the hard numbers it's interesting.
http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/the-parkland-teens-will-win-eventually.html
Who should get to arbitrate that? Take a moment to think about what is happening politically at the collegiate educational level before you reply with 'trained psychologists'.
