In response to U.S. gun carnage, Canada to enact tough laws

[Pakuni]

Yes, cause the only people in the US who have EVER demonized legal gun ownership is just some anonymous idiot on social media 

That's not at all what I said. No need for dishonesty Wags.
And what difference does it make? Is your argument that it's stupid to oppose something that will save lives to spite an anonymous social media user, but it's completely reasonable to do it to spite a politician you don't like?
Either way, if you do that, you're an idiot.

[JWags85]

That's not at all what I said. No need for dishonesty Wags.
And what difference does it make? Is your argument that it's stupid to oppose something that will save lives to spite an anonymous social media user, but it's completely reasonable to do it to spite a politician you don't like?
Either way, if you do that, you're an idiot.

Its not dishonest.  Lenny said don't demonize responsible gun owners and you and Frenns chose to focus on people getting butthurt over social media posts, like that was the main driver.

Go back to my reasonable earlier post you ignored to choose a different post for an easy alley oop.  It doesn't have to be spite, it has to do with distrust.  Distrusting a politician, much less one with pretty stark contrasting views to yours, even if you agree on minor measures, doesn't make you an idiot by any stretch.

[MUBurrow]

Yes, cause the only people in the US who have EVER demonized legal gun ownership is just some anonymous idiot on social media 

But this is exactly how we got here, Wags. This notion that the right can't compromise because if they budge left on anything, there are more people who are still further left who will advocate for further left policies the next day.  Of course they will and they should, that's the nature of what we're doing here.   

[Pakuni]

Its not dishonest.  Lenny said don't demonize responsible gun owners and you and Frenns chose to focus on people getting butthurt over social media posts, like that was the main driver.

It's entirely dishonest, because you know that's not what we wrote and you know we didn't claim it was the main driver. Whatever. Do you.
But since you know, what is the main driver?

Go back to my reasonable earlier post you ignored to choose a different post for an easy alley oop.  It doesn't have to be spite, it has to do with distrust.  Distrusting a politician, much less one with pretty stark contrasting views to yours, even if you agree on minor measures, doesn't make you an idiot by any stretch.

Your "distrust" argument is a slippery slope that's no better than opposing it out of spite.
"If we allow background checks, then they're coming for my guns!" is not a reasonable position. It's not even remotely based in fact. Like, how do we legislatively get from one to the other? You can't!
So yeah, if your position is "I'm OK with red-flag laws, but if we allow that it'll open the door to a gun ban," then you are ignorant of how the law and legislative process works.

[JWags85]

But this is exactly how we got here, Wags. This notion that the right can't compromise because if they budge left on anything, there are more people who are still further left who will advocate for further left policies the next day.  Of course they will and they should, that's the nature of what we're doing here.

Sure, but I think the issue, amongst many different political issues, is a lack of moderate voices.  They get shouted down or blacklisted by those in their own party. 

Its very easy for someone with no skin in the game from a gun ownership/interest stake to say "well if we go too far to the left with gun control and end up like Canada or Australia, so be it, its for the greater good", but for someone who truly responsibly partakes in gun ownership, thats not an easy choice.

Compromise needs to happen, but thats why bipartisanship is so key (and so concerning how bullheaded the GOP is about it) cause voices need to come from a pro-gun perspective on this, not just the anti-gun perspective.

[JWags85]

It's entirely dishonest, because you know that's not what we wrote and you know we didn't claim it was the main driver. Whatever. Do you.
But since you know, what is the main driver?

Gun owners, much like the right in general, aren't a monolith, so treating them as such is silly.  And I don't know, its different for many people.  What I do know is I was the only person who posted that even posed that "demonization" could be something other than hurt feelings or a hissy fit over something they read online.

Your "distrust" argument is a slippery slope that's no better than opposing it out of spite.
"If we allow background checks, then they're coming for my guns!" is not a reasonable position. It's not even remotely based in fact. Like, how do we legislatively get from one to the other? You can't!
So yeah, if your position is "I'm OK with red-flag laws, but if we allow that it'll open the door to a gun ban," then you are ignorant of how the law and legislative process works.

Knew slippery slope was coming.  Its your constant refrain whenever people you disagree with want to look past a single activity to future events.  As much as it can be a fallacy, it is also an easy way to parry away any future hypothetical as silly and hysterical.  You literally just posted about in the LBJ thread loosely supporting Jesu's position that labor regulation could crumble under a president but citing some teen work hours.  Is that not a slippery slope?

I'm not ignorant of the process and they don't have to be either.  Nobody intelligent truly thinks that passing reasonable gun reform in the near term means they won't be allowed to have guns in 2023.  But if a gun reform platform converted a number of senate or congressional seats, its not unreasonable to think its a continued elevated and visible priority pushing further in that direction.  Do you truly think, if the Dems passed a number of sensible gun control measures, things like a handgun ban wouldn't be in their sights in the near future?

[Pakuni]

Knew slippery slope was coming.  Its your constant refrain whenever people you disagree with want to look past a single activity to future events.  As much as it can be a fallacy, it is also an easy way to parry away any future hypothetical as silly and hysterical.  You literally just posted about in the LBJ thread loosely supporting Jesu's position that labor regulation could crumble under a president but citing some teen work hours.  Is that not a slippery slope?

What are you talking about? I literally wrote that 1900s-style child labor isn't returning. Again, we can have a good-faith disagreement here without dishonesty.

Do you truly think, if the Dems passed a number of sensible gun control measures, things like a handgun ban wouldn't be in their sights in the near future?

Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ... No, I don't believe a handgun ban would be in their sights. And again, people who understand the law and legislative process already know this.
The gun lobby preys upon the uninformed with these exact kind of fear tactics to prevent any action, even on measures the large majority of gun owners support.

[lawdog77]

Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ...

Things ruled unconstitutional being overturned by a new Supreme Court? Could that happen?

[muwarrior69]

It’s driving me to the polls, along with Roe.

If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.

[Uncle Rico]

If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.

January 6th treason, too.

[MU82]

[/color]

Your point is well taken, but the high cost of gas, groceries and just about everything else with no plan in sight to get the country on the right track is what will drive people to the polls this fall, not gun control.

Then I guess all lives don't really matter.

[brewcity77]

Then I guess all lives don't really matter.

Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.

[muwarrior69]

Full disclosure I've only read about 2/3 of the pages on this thread so not sure if this has been mentioned or not... 
the only way we can get some common sense laws passed is if what happened in Australia happens here.  In Australia, the laws were actually shockingly spearheaded by a conservative president/prime minister and conservative government in 1995/1996.  The evidence is ample that the laws worked.  Just look at the data of mass shootings before and after the laws were enacted.  We need some conservatives to have the balls to do the right thing despite all of the gun lobbying money.  It worked in Australia and can work here if enough break party lines to do the right thing.

It worked in Australia because they have no right to bare arms. In the US the government just can't pass legislation to ban the sale of guns as that would violate the Constitution.

[MU82]

Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.

Yeah, I forgot about it being OK for "small government" to reach into women's wombs without their consent.

[Pakuni]

It worked in Australia because they have no right to bare arms. In the US the government just can't pass legislation to ban the sale of guns as that would violate the Constitution.

Well, except the U.S. government did pass legislation to ban the sale of some guns and it withstood all legal challenges.
The right to bear arms has never been considered absolute. That's why your neighbor can't own a rocket launcher or a tank.

[MU82]

Well, except the U.S. government did pass legislation to ban the sale of some guns and it withstood all legal challenges.
The right to bear arms has never been considered absolute. That's why your neighbor can't own a rocket launcher or a tank.

Yep. The entire 2nd Amendment has 27 words, and 2 of them are well regulated. In fact, except for the article "a," well regulated are the amendment's very first two words.

Let's regulate this imperfect and vague amendment, and let's regulate it well!

[Merit Matters]

Only until delivery. As soon as the cord is cut, they're on their own.

There’s these things called “parents”….these days, however, usually singular with a missing father….

[Merit Matters]

If gun control and Roe are your priorities that is your right, but I suspect voters like you will be in the minority this fall.

This seems correct based on everyone I have talked to. We will see.

[Lennys Tap]

Yeah, I forgot about it being OK for "small government" to reach into women's wombs without their consent.

Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.

[jesmu84]

Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.

1. What does being an advocate for small or large government have to do with a healthcare decision between a woman and her doctor?

2. If life begins at conception, I look forward to the US census reflecting this as well as any government benefits/tax changes.

[MU82]

Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.

Ah, that explains why you're voting for politicians who are in favor of paid parental leave, paid child care, pre-K school for all, improved conditions and pay for teachers, at least one mental-healthcare professional in every school, and the strong gun-responsibility laws that you've already echoed McConaughey in supporting.

Thanks in advance for vowing to vote out all those who would deny those important measures.

Just because you agree with religious zealots instead of scientists about what constitutes "life," and just because you seem to favor government telling women what to do with their reproductive systems, it's great that you won't support all the politicians who abandon those human lives after they enter the world.

Thanks again!

[muwarrior69]

What are you talking about? I literally wrote that 1900s-style child labor isn't returning. Again, we can have a good-faith disagreement here without dishonesty.

Given that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago (see: District of Columbia v. Heller) ... No, I don't believe a handgun ban would be in their sights. And again, people who understand the law and legislative process already know this.
The gun lobby preys upon the uninformed with these exact kind of fear tactics to prevent any action, even on measures the large majority of gun owners support.

...but the law proposed in Congress if passed would essentially ban many guns. If you make it illegal to have a gun with a magazine of more than ten rounds you made it illegal to purchase that gun. The law also wants to raise the age to 21 to purchase a rifle. Even the 9th circuit just ruled that a minimum age of 21 to purchase a rifle (AR-15) is unconstitutional. So what is in that proposed law is not fear mongering but of legitimate concerns.

I'll concede the courts decisions on many of these laws are inconsistent and vary from state to state and circuit court district to circuit court district.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional

[Hards Alumni]

Actually small government advocates would prefer no one reach into a women’s womb, especially if the purpose is to extinguish a life.

You woke up this morning and decided this on your own.  Your opinion has nothing to do with 'small government advocates'.

Small government means what it means.  Minimal government overreach.  And reproductive rights have never once been on the agenda until the moral majority decided to use it as a wedge issue starting in the late 70s with Jerry Falwell.

Lines perfectly up with when your brain rot probably started.

[Hards Alumni]

...but the law proposed in Congress if passed would essentially ban many guns. If you make it illegal to have a gun with a magazine of more than ten rounds you made it illegal to purchase that gun. The law also wants to raise the age to 21 to purchase a rifle. Even the 9th circuit just ruled that a minimum age of 21 to purchase a rifle (AR-15) is unconstitutional. So what is in that proposed law is not fear mongering but of legitimate concerns.

I'll concede the courts decisions on many of these laws are inconsistent and vary from state to state and circuit court district to circuit court district.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-11/federal-court-rules-california-ban-on-gun-sales-to-people-under-21-unconstitutional

No, you've just regulated the size of the magazine for that particular firearm, not banned the weapon.

[muwarrior69]

No, you've just regulated the size of the magazine for that particular firearm, not banned the weapon.

...but a 10 round magazine won't fit that firearm. It is my understanding that the magazine capacity for each firearm is fixed and are not interchangeable. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected.