Mass shooting in el paso

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Like fupp you are going to get agreement to that.
You cannot say you can join the military at 17 but we dont trust you to own a weapon until 21.
how are you going to reduce the cyclic rate of firearms?
That will never ever fly in the states. Best of luck finding a congressman to carry that one and second it.

We allow people here to join the police or other groups that can have access to guns but not allow them at home.

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

Well first of all I do not see the 2nd Amendment ever been removed so no you would not be taking guns of people have it legally. I am on tightening up gun law with guns and ammo only allowed to be sold in registered places, licences for gun ownership. a national register. Law that guns must be stored properly and penalties if they are not. Restriction on carrying guns in certain places. A restriction on the purchase of certain guns unless you can show why you want them.

As for illegal guns it would mean more police on the streets more power against gangs and maybe it might help an amnesty on giving up illegal guns. A whole lot better then just your idea but you already knew that

Well you have that here and from what I am hearing that is open to abuse by the state. I am not keen on the state know what exact gun I hold. Who would pay for this National Gun Register? Who would police all these house visits. What would all that data be held for and how long?

I used to think that was "reasonable accommodation" by both sides. But from what I have seen as centralised governments one day they will want to collect them by one way or another. If you havent guess I am not a big fan of centralised government.

Varik

Age of voting and drinking in US changed a lot over the years.

Used to be 21 to vote and drink in much of the US until they passed 26th amendment to make voting 18, and then drinking age dropped too at state level for pretty much everywhere. Drinking age was set federally to 21 after that in the 80s.

tuxy

martingriff wrote: »

A restriction on the purchase of certain guns unless you can show why you want them.

But the second amendment states it's for the purpose of forming a well maintained militia so anyone could just quote that.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is right because all I get are stats from lobby groups on either side.

Sorry what

martingriff

tuxy wrote: »

But the second amendment states it's for the purpose of forming a well maintained militia so anyone could just quote that.

Quote it yes but can they prove it

Tony EH

tuxy wrote: »

But the second amendment states it's for the purpose of forming a well maintained militia so anyone could just quote that.

That's the bit gun nuts don't want to remember though.

"A well regulated militia..."

So, those regulations can be altered in any way that's wished, if the political will was there. But, as long as government is in the pockets of gun lobbies and big business, that will will be avoided.

Too much money involved to give a crap about children being shot up in schools.

It might change when these wannabe Rambo's start targeting the kids of Republican senators.

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

We allow people here to join the police or other groups that can have access to guns but not allow them at home.

That is about to change as well. Certain member of the defense forces and the police to have weapons in their homes. I think it is an open secret that we are moving towards a full armed police force.

tuxy

martingriff wrote: »

Quote it yes but can they prove it

It's not necessary it's part of the bill of rights that the government can't strip from law abiding citizens. Now if they were to make changes to the second amendment then they could.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well you have that here and from what I am hearing that is open to abuse by the state. I am not keen on the state know what exact gun I hold. Who would pay for this National Gun Register? Who would police all these house visits. What would all that data be held for and how long?

I used to think that was "reasonable accommodation" by both sides. But from what I have seen as centralised governments one day they will want to collect them by one way or another. If you havent guess I am not a big fan of centralised government.

They would hold you have a licence it could be licence A up to a certain range or B from x range to y range or both. So they will not know exactly what gun or if indeed you curently hold that gun but that you have the licence and training to hold that gun. As for the keeping of your gun secure you will have to prove to have the correct equipment to hold your gun securely. The onos is on you and if it is shown later you have not then severe penalties. The Gun register would only need to show you have this type of licence and that you are allowed to hold a gun. I mean what databases are used now to show you are allowed to own a gun.

I would guess most people living in America are not a fan of centralized government it is a given at this stage

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry what

When I search from statistics from reliable sources I only get statistics from interested lobby groups who skew the statistics in their favour, or interpretation with mixing it in with another statistic.

eg
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

I am trying to find out how many deaths are caused by illegally held firearms?
"This intent category is believed to be underreported and is likely being misclassified as homicide.3 The Washington Post’s database is widely cited and estimates that 986 civilians are fatally shot by police in an average year—nearly twice as many as recorded by the CDC."

these sites skew the results to get an agenda.

batgoat

So basically Skooter, you can't backup the claim you made.

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

They would hold you have a licence it could be licence A up to a certain range or B from x range to y range or both. So they will not know exactly what gun or if indeed you curently hold that gun but that you have the licence and training to hold that gun. As for the keeping of your gun secure you will have to prove to have the correct equipment to hold your gun securely. The onos is on you and if it is shown later you have not then severe penalties. The Gun register would only need to show you have this type of licence and that you are allowed to hold a gun. I mean what databases are used now to show you are allowed to own a gun.

I would guess most people living in America are not a fan of centralized government it is a given at this stage

....and why would it have to be centralised and who would have access to it and for what reason? But it wouldnt end up that way. It would end up with your hands being pryed off the gun.

martingriff

tuxy wrote: »

It's not necessary it's part of the bill of rights that the government can't strip from law abiding citizens. Now if they were to make changes to the second amendment then they could.

I know this would get challenged if it went to the Supreme Court but law abiding is so vague. I mean they would have to show they will use it in a law abiding way.

Yes I know above would never happen for 2 reasons 1 it be shot down in courts and 2 the politicans

skooterblue2

batgoat wrote: »

So basically Skooter, you can't backup the claim you made.

no I just havent found it yet but I am working on it.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

....and why would it have to be centralised and who would have access to it and for what reason? But it wouldnt end up that way. It would end up with your hands being pryed off the gun.

No it wouldn't there you go with the doomsday everyone is evil but me and I need the gun to stop them. IT would need to be centralised so that you cant just hop to another state to try and get around the law. Who would be able to see. The actual database be Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or the FBI. Anyone checking you up for a background search would get a yes or no.

banie01

skooterblue2 wrote: »

no I just havent found it yet but I am working on it.

The best data to hand, that relied upon by John Faso and others in the hill is based on a prison survey of convicted felons and even that is 15yrs old and gives a 40-60% variance of illegally obtained weapons used in commission of guncrime, so let's say 50%.

You made statements you cannot back up empirically and IMO they should be withdrawn.

If the numbers showing that illegally guns were the main driver in guncrime actually existed the Gun Lobby would ensure they were plastered across every available channel.

tuxy

martingriff wrote: »

I know this would get challenged if it went to the Supreme Court but law abiding is so vague. I mean they would have to show they will use it in a law abiding way.

Yes I know above would never happen for 2 reasons 1 it be shot down in courts and 2 the politicans

I wouldn't be too pessimistic, it may be possible.
Even the terms arms is vague, grenades and rocket launchers are arms so you would think the right to own them would be protected under the same amendment.
I don't believe they are even illegal but legislation was put in place to make them impossible for most to obtain.
With the right interpretation of the constitution there could be changes.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

When I search from statistics from reliable sources I only get statistics from interested lobby groups who skew the statistics in their favour, or interpretation with mixing it in with another statistic.

eg
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

I am trying to find out how many deaths are caused by illegally held firearms?
"This intent category is believed to be underreported and is likely being misclassified as homicide.3 The Washington Post’s database is widely cited and estimates that 986 civilians are fatally shot by police in an average year—nearly twice as many as recorded by the CDC."

these sites skew the results to get an agenda.

You quoted the wrong message then as my message about scaremongering was Ireland was getting like Gaza

martingriff

tuxy wrote: »

I wouldn't be too pessimistic, it may be possible.
Even the terms arms is vague, grenades and rocket launchers are arms so you would think the right to own them would be protected under the same amendment.
I don't believe they are even illegal but legislation was put in place to make them impossible for most to obtain.
With the right interpretation of the constitution there could be changes.

Again it depends on who is in power and who the judges are

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

No it wouldn't there you go with the doomsday everyone is evil but me and I need the gun to stop them. IT would need to be centralised so that you cant just hop to another state to try and get around the law. Who would be able to see. The actual database be Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or the FBI. Anyone checking you up for a background search would get a yes or no.

Isnt that what happened in Australia? They collected guns of a certain calibre? Did it make the country safer? No it didnt. They called it a buy back but really it was a collection.

martingriff

tuxy wrote: »

I wouldn't be too pessimistic, it may be possible.
Even the terms arms is vague, grenades and rocket launchers are arms so you would think the right to own them would be protected under the same amendment.
I don't believe they are even illegal but legislation was put in place to make them impossible for most to obtain.
With the right interpretation of the constitution there could be changes.

You see this is the problem with the US constitution it is vague and was made so at the time to not upset anyone there has been cases to the Supreme Court in relation to explicit and implicit intent of it

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

Again it depends on who is in power and who the judges are

Trump has filled 130 judges positions that Obama couldnt fill and two justices of the supreme court..... are you comfortable with that?

Gatling

skooterblue2 wrote: »

They collected guns of a certain calibre? Did it make the country safer? No it didnt

Did it prevent more massacres

Yes .

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Isnt that what happened in Australia? They collected guns of a certain calibre? Did it make the country safer? No it didnt. They called it a buy back but really it was a collection.

Your going to have to show me state there in relation to Australia before and after there change of laws which was due to the worst Mass shooting they had

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

You quoted the wrong message then as my message about scaremongering was Ireland was getting like Gaza

Dont worry we will get there soon enough, just be patient. See what is going on in Rotherham and Sweden. Gardens of Tranquility would you believe.

banie01

Gatling wrote: »

Did it prevent more massacres

Yes .

He's just trolling now IMO.
Even Manic wouldn't try and run with that point!

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Trump has filled 130 judges positions that Obama couldnt fill and two justices of the supreme court..... are you comfortable with that?

Not sure what to mean by that. Does it mean any positional change on gun controls will happen no it doesn't Actually due to that the only way to have any change would be amendments to the 2nd Amendments and thats not happening

martingriff

banie01 wrote: »

He's just trolling now IMO.
Even Manic wouldn't try and run with that point!

He does seem to go and argue points that are opposite to other statements he makes at times

Dog Man Star

This is not difficult to figure out.
Ban all military guns designed to kill people. Buy back those already out there, and destroy them. Refine licence requirements for holding hunting rifles, job done.

Dissolve the NRA.

Loads of angry rednecks, but no more people shot dead buying a school uniform for their child.

End of.

Once the Dems take the Senate and the Presidency in 2020, it will be done. Cut the military budget by 2/3rds and redirect funds to healthcare and third level education. Re-enter the Iran agreement and the Paris accord and re-engage European allies and NATO.

End Trump tarrifs, increase sanctions on Russia for election interference and North Korea for missile testing.

Close coalmines and invest in sustainable energy.

Close Fox News by massively increasing tax on advertisers on non-news channels. End the electoral college by vote.