Firearm Bans Under Obama

Oh. You're still butt hurt over not knowing what "per capita" means.

My advocacy for universal healthcare is fiscally motivated. If it makes overall healthcare cheaper than it is now, then I'm for it. If it doesn't, then pthththt.

Even if it's utterly pointless, a waste of time and money that doesn't resolve immigration problems? It's just a simple sounding solution for the simple minded. A big shiny wall that impresses morons because they like big shiny things. Border walls haven't stopped anyone from crossing them, Germany learned that during the Cold War. I get that you're dumb, but you can't be that dumb.

I don't think it's pointless nor a waste of time and money. "Immigration problems" are part of a large, complex problem and resolving them--to the extent they can ever be "resolved"--will require a large and multi-faceted effort. But ensuring measured and orderly immigration into our country is a big part of it.

Actually, the Berlin Wall was quite effective. And it didn't have the advantage of being located (in most places) in rugged, desolate areas many miles from settlements. Also, the East Germans didn't have the kind of technological capabilities we have to monitor along both sides of the wall.

China built a (great) wall to keep the Mongols out. The Romans built a wall to keep the Picts out. Israel put up a security fence and greatly reduced the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by people coming into its territory.

Walls can work.

Try arguing like an adult, not like a zoo monkey throwing feces at the visitors.

I only argue with people worth arguing with, you aren't worth it.

Q.E.D.

This is what's most laughable to me about most so-called Republicans these days.

They actually believe that their party is for "small" government, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Isn't a wall by definition fucking massive government?

I didn't say no government spending. And, in the grand scheme of things, a wall is actually not all that expensive and a small price to pay for more lawful and orderly immigration.

In today's Republican party, Nixon and Ford would be derided as RINOs, and even Reagan would be considered somewhat suspect. (Weak on those Messicans, don'tcha know.)

As for Eisenhower, y'all would shriek at the top of your lungs that he was a socialist.

It’s over $21 billion dollars to build alone and we’re not paying our veterans their GI bills or adequately funding the VA. It’s a fucking disgrace if we build a wall instead of using it where it’s actually needed.

So essentially you're into small government where it suits?

You're all in favour of public spending on law and order though, where it applies to other people?

I'm sure you must feel like an intellectual giant among them.

By that logic, so is Dinner, despite every indicator otherwise.

Go do your homework and let the adults talk.

They're banned now. Owners have 90 days to destroy them or turn them over to the authorities, but there will probably be lawsuits between now and then, so who knows?

concerning this specific gun related modification (bump stocks) I think the ban is reasonable/common sense with a caveat.
Did formally educated non-biased firearms experts & law enforcement experts weigh in with their research and findings? In other words if bump stocks are likely to be used in the future for mass shootings, and said bump stocks could potentially add to the lethality of the shootings, then the risks outweigh the benefits, so ban them. I don't envision the ban affecting anyone's ability to defend themselves or even stop them from enjoying shooting for shooting's sake.

That said the limit on magazine capacity (New Jersey for example) was all kinds of FUBAR. It has zero basis in common sense or practicality.
Bump stocks must have been (I would think) proven to be a factor in the body count of the Las Vegas shooting. If so, facts are facts.

Also factor in that bump stocks are small enough to conceal and employ versus a fully automatic belt fed weapon would not be easy to conceal and employ.
Bottom line: it's either ban the bump stock (affecting only a very small percentage of gun owners) or force the gun control folks to ban semi-automatic weapons (affecting a very large portion of gun owners!)

All things considered this seems to me like a good example of how reasonable, measured, fair gun control can and should work in a free society.
But yes, lawsuits will inevitably come flooding in because that's just US culture in general. We as a nation never just "accept" any rules or laws without somebody putting up a fight - we aren't Japan/Germany/Australia etc.

I don't know but I kind of doubt it. If they had, I don't think Trump would have had to ban them unilaterally.

Grace period expires on the 26th of this month for Trump's executive bump stock ban. If you get caught with one after that date, it's a felony and up to ten years getting butt raped in Federal prison.

But, yanno, it was the Kenyan who was the Antichrist according to the NRA and many gunlubbers here.

(Not you. You're one of the two here I can count on to make sense of the whole fucking thing.)

Yay, we pretended like we did something to stop gun violence by banning a device no one really seemed to be using anyway.

Whos the other one?

One dude used bump stocks to kill 59 and injure 850 people.

I still don't like that Trump did it by executive order. It should have been legislated, and I can't tell how this can possibly pass muster in court.

Best I can figure, the political calculus is this: if Trump had said he'd sign legislation, that would've opened up the whole negotiation on a gun control bill, which might've gotten other more pernicious things included. If his executive order passes muster, he prevents gun controllers from achieving any victory to use against him: they can't praise his bump stock ban without giving him credit. And if the courts strike down the ruling, he can still say he tried.

The death toll was going to be high even without a bump stock considering his position and the crowd below. however, if removing bump stocks work it would be much better to remove assault rifles. Still, there is a reality that these are a very small amount of weapons used in the US large death toll. The reality is even in mass shootings that year the bump stock was not responsible for a single percent of them.

So like I have said we have eliminated an accessory to a gun type that is not even close to the most common weapon used in gun violence. 1 bump stock was used as opposed to thousands of uses of guns without them. We have done nothing and patted ourselves on the back for it.

The US has the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world, you're just as willing to roll over for authority as anyone.

We're quite the authoritarian nation.

And the people who spend the most time wrapping themselves in freedom rhetoric tend to be the most obsessed with enforcing cultural conformity ...

Republicans had control of Congress; there was no negotiating necessary to get a bump stock ban bill passed. In such a case it only fails for lack of will to ban them, as there's no way Republicans would fail to vote for such a ban for lack of other things banned in it.

And naturally the Republicans have that will and respect the arguments of those who have suffered the consequences of gun violence, as exemplified by this bunch of twats the other day:

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/new-hampshire-republicans-wear-pearls