(10-06-2015 09:31 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:28 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 07:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:47 PM)slycat Wrote:  Nothing to see here just another day in America. Nothing will get done. Both sides will push their agendas. No guns will get banned and no one will reform the mental health system. Wait a couple weeks and we can have the same exact conversation and waste our breaths.

I thought the lefts talking points is that they were not talking about bans? Nice to see some honesty..

LOL, whoops. Slycat is perpetually clueless, but that's a pretty big gaff. He needs to study his playbook a bit more closely.

It was tongue in cheek that some far left call for bans. It won't happen. The far right think the only reason this happens is mental health. But they never offer reform policies. The point is nothing gets done. All talk and no action. A solution would be to seriously address mental health and probably look at tighter background checks for guns. Even if it caused a 25% reduction in mass shootings, it's a start. Why aren't countries with high gun ownership in other countries having the same problem we are? This shouldn't be a first world problem.

I think if you proposed that we had deeper backround checks sans registration for those who pass you could make some headway.

Yeah not a fan of registration either. Deeper background checks seem at least doable without too much pushback. The solutions runs deeper then just looking at the gun angle though. You would think by know both parties could actually work together on this issue.

What's s deeper background check entail ? Please explain.

(10-06-2015 11:14 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  What's s deeper background check entail ? Please explain.

2015 Chicago Standard background check

Gang Member......Pass
School teacher.......Fail
Drug Dealer....Pass
Ex Military......Fail
Postal Worker....Pass
Doctor..........Fail
Social Media Creep ....Pass
Good Samaritan........Fail
Illegal Immigrant......Pass
Legal American Suburbanite ...Fail

(10-06-2015 09:24 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 12:30 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:47 PM)slycat Wrote:  Nothing to see here just another day in America. Nothing will get done. Both sides will push their agendas. No guns will get banned and no one will reform the mental health system. Wait a couple weeks and we can have the same exact conversation and waste our breaths.

What guns should we ban? The 3 pistols this nut had in tow? Perhaps the rifle he apparently had strapped on? Or the other 3 or 4 he had in the car?

Or, maybe, the other 7-8 he and his (legal) Mom had back at the house they lived in?

How many doors would you suggest we kick in to prevent this kind of stuff? I'll TTAOTA.

I'm not saying ban guns. But what is your solution? The second a den et says a well regulated militia. So is the solution more regulation? There are a lot of ideas and no one way to solve the problem. But maybe a little of each idea could help.

Well, interpretations differ, but in putting "well regulated" in historical context, it actually was making reference to "well trained" or, better, folks who can accurately shoot a gun. Not the modern use of "regulation".

That aside, I'd love for there to be some kind of common sense "solution" to this. But far too often the energies are put into stupid feel-goodism garbage like "Scary looking .22 rifle ban" calling them, laughably "Assault weapons". Or trying to figure out how to restrict lawful purchasers from buying a gun for some ridiculous period of time, even if they foresee a real threat, right then.

I'd suggest we actually follow and enforce the existing THOUSANDS of laws already on the books. Problem is, we don't, and won't.

First thing we should do is put some BIGASS teeth in the gun running and straw purchasing laws. You get caught with a trunk load of guns coming from Va, or NC into Joisey or NYC and you're going away for multiple felonies. A loooooooong-ass time- 5 years Federal for each gun. Broadcast that. Billboard that up and down I-95, or I-57 and 90, ditto for those doing the same thing from Ind or Wis dragging them into Chitcago, Gary and other areas.

Secondly get project exile back on track. You get caught using a gun in a crime? Mandatory Federal 5 yrs on TOP of the criminal sentence. You're a two time or more loser? 10 additional years and we can go on up from there.

Now, first problem is of course the "advocates" will piss and moan about either of those as being somehow "unfair" and "disproportionate", but we're looking for real solutions here, right?

Secondly, neither of these would have or will prevent what happened in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Charleston or Oregon.

So we're either interested in trying to limit the number of OVERALL gun crime deaths, or addressing these nutjobs that do this as a cowards way of suicide by Cop. If it's the FAR more serious issue of gun related crime and deaths, then start locking them up. The cops know who the bad guys are. quite often, but they drag them in, then see them back out on the streets a relatively shirt time later.

It's something like 10-15% of criminals commit 85% of the crimes. Start there.

(10-06-2015 11:14 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  What's s deeper background check entail ? Please explain.

I don't know this is worthy of discussion though....

(10-03-2015 11:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-03-2015 07:43 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 05:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 04:09 PM)BobL Wrote:  When I was asked to present specifics on how I would deal with the issue I did so and never once did I mention making guns illegal, limiting what guns could be bought, what ammo could be bought...not once.

NRA and those that follow have no interest in any law regardless if it may make sense this is why nothing gets done.

I agree, you didn't.
What you specified was a policy that has already proven to be an abject failure and shows that criminals don't care about gun control laws and will likely be proven to be a failure again this weekend when the death toll in Chicago is announced.

It does not work because its local/state..it needs to be national.

Like Prohibition. That worked well. Or maybe the War on Drugs.

Or the laws against murder.

(10-06-2015 09:22 AM)slycat Wrote:  Y'all missed my point completely. I'm against gun bans. I was pointing out that both sides have extreme solutions to issues. The far Left wants to ban guns or at least increase background checks and the Right wants to give everyone a gun and get rid of gun free zones as if that is "freedom". Both these solutions won't happen. The point is everyone a shooting happens, people jump onto "solutions" and then never ever flow through with even the smallest solution to fix the problem.

And I'm not some liberal with an agenda. I'm a moderate that tried to look at both sides of an issue over blindly following a political party.

Yea we need more people that are actually interested in trying to do something. One would think that we could find some middle ground but the NRA and the politicians they support will have none of it, not even discussion.

(10-06-2015 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:22 AM)slycat Wrote:  Y'all missed my point completely. I'm against gun bans. I was pointing out that both sides have extreme solutions to issues. The far Left wants to ban guns or at least increase background checks and the Right wants to give everyone a gun and get rid of gun free zones as if that is "freedom". Both these solutions won't happen. The point is everyone a shooting happens, people jump onto "solutions" and then never ever flow through with even the smallest solution to fix the problem.

And I'm not some liberal with an agenda. I'm a moderate that tried to look at both sides of an issue over blindly following a political party.

Yea we need more people that are actually interested in trying to do something. One would think that we could find some middle ground but the NRA and the politicians they support will have none of it, not even discussion.

So how much of your Constitutional rights are you willing to give up for a false sense of security? After we gut the Second Amendment we set the precedent to go after the rest. The often used "The Second Amendment was written in the time of muskets not assault weapons" can be adapted to "The First Amendment was written in the time of newspapers not the internet". That way we can shut down hate speech.

You might be prepared to go down that rabbit hole but I'm not.

(10-06-2015 03:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:22 AM)slycat Wrote:  Y'all missed my point completely. I'm against gun bans. I was pointing out that both sides have extreme solutions to issues. The far Left wants to ban guns or at least increase background checks and the Right wants to give everyone a gun and get rid of gun free zones as if that is "freedom". Both these solutions won't happen. The point is everyone a shooting happens, people jump onto "solutions" and then never ever flow through with even the smallest solution to fix the problem.

And I'm not some liberal with an agenda. I'm a moderate that tried to look at both sides of an issue over blindly following a political party.

Yea we need more people that are actually interested in trying to do something. One would think that we could find some middle ground but the NRA and the politicians they support will have none of it, not even discussion.

So how much of your Constitutional rights are you willing to give up for a false sense of security? After we gut the Second Amendment we set the precedent to go after the rest. The often used "The Second Amendment was written in the time of muskets not assault weapons" can be adapted to "The First Amendment was written in the time of newspapers not the internet". That way we can shut down hate speech.

You might be prepared to go down that rabbit hole but I'm not.

I don't consider it a rabbit hole. I call it the willingness to interpret the entire clause and not just look at one phrase of it. The first amendment didn't have clauses changing the possible meaning of it.

(10-06-2015 03:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:22 AM)slycat Wrote:  Y'all missed my point completely. I'm against gun bans. I was pointing out that both sides have extreme solutions to issues. The far Left wants to ban guns or at least increase background checks and the Right wants to give everyone a gun and get rid of gun free zones as if that is "freedom". Both these solutions won't happen. The point is everyone a shooting happens, people jump onto "solutions" and then never ever flow through with even the smallest solution to fix the problem.

And I'm not some liberal with an agenda. I'm a moderate that tried to look at both sides of an issue over blindly following a political party.

Yea we need more people that are actually interested in trying to do something. One would think that we could find some middle ground but the NRA and the politicians they support will have none of it, not even discussion.

So how much of your Constitutional rights are you willing to give up for a false sense of security? After we gut the Second Amendment we set the precedent to go after the rest. The often used "The Second Amendment was written in the time of muskets not assault weapons" can be adapted to "The First Amendment was written in the time of newspapers not the internet". That way we can shut down hate speech.

You might be prepared to go down that rabbit hole but I'm not.

I don't consider it a rabbit hole. I call it the willingness to interpret the entire clause and not just look at one phrase of it. The first amendment didn't have clauses changing the possible meaning of it.

Neither does the Second.

"shall not be infringed"

(10-06-2015 03:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:22 AM)slycat Wrote:  Y'all missed my point completely. I'm against gun bans. I was pointing out that both sides have extreme solutions to issues. The far Left wants to ban guns or at least increase background checks and the Right wants to give everyone a gun and get rid of gun free zones as if that is "freedom". Both these solutions won't happen. The point is everyone a shooting happens, people jump onto "solutions" and then never ever flow through with even the smallest solution to fix the problem.

And I'm not some liberal with an agenda. I'm a moderate that tried to look at both sides of an issue over blindly following a political party.

Yea we need more people that are actually interested in trying to do something. One would think that we could find some middle ground but the NRA and the politicians they support will have none of it, not even discussion.

So how much of your Constitutional rights are you willing to give up for a false sense of security? After we gut the Second Amendment we set the precedent to go after the rest. The often used "The Second Amendment was written in the time of muskets not assault weapons" can be adapted to "The First Amendment was written in the time of newspapers not the internet". That way we can shut down hate speech.

You might be prepared to go down that rabbit hole but I'm not.

I don't consider it a rabbit hole. I call it the willingness to interpret the entire clause and not just look at one phrase of it. The first amendment didn't have clauses changing the possible meaning of it.

Neither does the Second.

"shall not be infringed"

"be infringed" - looks like there should be regulation based on that piece of the wording.

(10-06-2015 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:22 AM)slycat Wrote:  Y'all missed my point completely. I'm against gun bans. I was pointing out that both sides have extreme solutions to issues. The far Left wants to ban guns or at least increase background checks and the Right wants to give everyone a gun and get rid of gun free zones as if that is "freedom". Both these solutions won't happen. The point is everyone a shooting happens, people jump onto "solutions" and then never ever flow through with even the smallest solution to fix the problem.

And I'm not some liberal with an agenda. I'm a moderate that tried to look at both sides of an issue over blindly following a political party.

Yea we need more people that are actually interested in trying to do something. One would think that we could find some middle ground but the NRA and the politicians they support will have none of it, not even discussion.

Such as?? Let's hear your ideas of middle ground ?

You are ok with thousands of abortions on a daily basis. Right?

Deal with it. It's the law of the land. Sound familiar??? Rowe v Wade.

Suck on it. Nothing will change the Second Amendment. !!

Another example of Black On White Crime !

(10-02-2015 08:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 07:38 AM)BobL Wrote:  1) A federal law similar to the Illinois FOID law. http://smartgunlaws.org/licensing-of-gun...-illinois/ 2) All weapons purchased must have serial numbers listed on FOID card.
3) No private gun sales/transfers. Sell to a licensed shop who can then resell.
4) All guns have a chain of custody associated with them in a national database.
5) Licensed gun sand ammo sellers must report any sales of weapons that fell under the old assault weapon law and anyone that is purchasing large amounts of weapons and ammo in a short period of time. The details would have to be worked out.
6) Minimum jail time for anyone found guilty of violating the laws above.

None of which (except 6) would have any material impact on gun crime, but all (again, except maybe 6) would have a significant impact on the ability of a tyrannical government to disarm its populace.

You cant say that at all..since we have not had any real meaningful federal laws no one cay say they wont work. Put a ten year expiration on it...if the laws work then renew.

It would require a check of all state and federal legal and mental health records. Would certainly help in keeping guns away from those who should not have them.
It would seriously curb the legal purchase and illegal resale of guns which is very common here in IL.
It would make gun owners completely responsible for the weapons they own.
It would allow authorities the ability to receive a warning if a particular person is hoarding and allow investigation.
It would establish mandatory jail time for any one caught with a gun without proper records.

Lets get rid of all the mandatory drug sentences and replace them with guns sentences.

my suggestions do not ban guns, ammo, etc. So yes I would call it a compromise

What's the point of registration of firearms ?? Be honest ?

(10-07-2015 08:29 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  What's the point of registration of firearms ?? Be honest ?

There is none. The mass shooters want you to know who they are and all of them aside from the Aurora guy were essentially committing suicide. They were outcast nobodies making a name for themselves. All of them. Gun registration wouldn't have stopped a single one.

Bob wants to do something. If it amounts to nothing more than making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get guns, so be it. Got to do SOMETHING.

(10-02-2015 07:38 AM)BobL Wrote:  1) A federal law similar to the Illinois FOID law. http://smartgunlaws.org/licensing-of-gun...-illinois/

Not thrilled with some of the disqualifying language for FOID and I sure don't want something like this determined at the federal level.

Also would not help: Besides FOID has not stopped the violence in Chicago because law breakers don't wait for FOID approval.

Quote:2) All weapons purchased must have serial numbers listed on FOID card.

Totally unacceptable. The only purpose of this is future confiscation.

Also would not help: Besides FOID has not stopped the violence in Chicago because law breakers don't wait for FOID approval.

Quote:3) No private gun sales/transfers. Sell to a licensed shop who can then resell.

So I can't give my son/daughter a gun? Totally unacceptable

Also would not help: Law breaker are already breaking the law to obtain guns.

Quote:4) All guns have a chain of custody associated with them in a national database.

Totally unacceptable: once again the only purpose of this is confiscation.

Also would not help: You can not stop the black market and guns would find their way through the system.

Quote:5) Licensed gun sand ammo sellers must report any sales of weapons that fell under the old assault weapon law and anyone that is purchasing large amounts of weapons and ammo in a short period of time. The details would have to be worked out.

Totally unacceptable: if the "old assault weapon law" is not on the books it would be borderline unconstitutional to enforce it in this manner.

Also would not help: The details would have to be worked out indicates you understand that this is not really workable.

Where's is Bobl and all others regarding my question regarding registration? Btw, there are already laws and penalties regarding Gun charges. It's just that these are the first charges dropped upon the request of all the public defenders.

Bob's approach does not absolutely ban guns, as he correctly asserts. It simply increases the hassle factor involved in owning guns to a level that many law abiding citizens will simply say it's not worth it and voluntarily give up their guns. Disarmament of the populace by hassle. Some compromise. I won't outlaw it, I'll just make it so much trouble that you give up.

As for effectiveness, those steps are extremely effective at increasing the power of the state to hassle its citizens, but nowhere have any of them ever produced serious reductions in gun crimes. Specifically, Australia and England are not examples of places where they worked. They both had extremely low rates of gun crime before they passed restrictive gun laws, and the laws had no material impact on pre-existing trends.