you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -50 points 3 years ago* (22 children)

More and more Democrats are also gun lovers so fuck all gun people, get rid of all the guns and you get rid of the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 55 points 3 years ago (17 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago*

    Actually if you're involuntarily committed you already lose your right to firearms (iirc there are steps to regain your rights, but they were not taken here). Red flag laws aren't just bad from a "gun" standpoint, they're bad because "innocent until proven guilty" gets thrown out the window and it becomes "guilty until you can prove you're not crazy," and proving the negative is always a more difficult position. It perverts our whole justice system, and while I have issues with other things doing the same thing (racism for example), adding more is imo not a good idea. I'd rather see them actually enforce the laws we already have which while more stringent than "my roomate seems unstable," also would have prevented this. I mean the guy was commited (making him a prohibited purchaser) and displayed violent ideation to a degree that warrants keeping him for a little while, so they let him out, don't take his current guns, and afaik fail to input his commital to NICs, that's three things that already could and should have been done in this specific case red flag laws withstanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (15 children)

    Gun restrictions aren't enough though, the problem is people in general having access to guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    If only we could restrict that somehow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    Thing is when people talk about restrictions they mean "These people shouldn't have guns, but these people should be allowed to have them." What I'm saying is they should be banned altogether.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    Yeah that is a pipe dream, in a country with more guns than people that is bordered on two sides by 2 foreign governments. It just seems unrealistic to say "Just ban all guns" that seems like a massive oversimplification of the problem. We don't have some magical button that just deletes all guns in the borders of the US. Restrictions seem to be a realistic option but one would hope the left gets a bit of a better understanding of firearms since at the moment they mostly make laws about things they have very little understanding of and typically ban things based on how they appear rather than how they operate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    US guns make their way to Canada and Mexico, not the other way around, because it's so hard to get them in these countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (9 children)

    Because its the easiest route at the moment yes but you don't think gun smuggling would be a profitable venture? Seriously part of the reason why the opiate epidemic is so bad is China selling off the supplies for it to the cartels in Mexico, this also isn't to offload the responsibility of this mess on Perdue Pharma. They got the ball rolling and are 100% responsible for starting this mess but you have to be blind not to see how an enemy foreign nation is exploiting the issue and only making it worse to further destabilize a geopolitical rival. Same exact thing applies to Russia and their Interference in the election, they didn't make or start the problem, just took advantage of a fire that has been burning for a while and poured more gasoline into it.

    Also again you don't really answer the question of how do you get rid of all those guns. There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US. They aren't going to magically disappear the minute you ban them. You can't just do a full ban, hell I would say half this country wouldn't allow it. So restrictions are the only realistic option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    Ban, obligatory buyback, criminal charges for those who don't comply. Just watch as the majority falls in line.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (6 children)

    Oh that ain't happening. Sorry but you have to get around the 2nd amendment firstly (That ain't going anywhere unless we rip up the constitution). You would require most law enforcement to be for it while ACAB typically cops are pro guns... I just don't see it happening in a nation where guns are a fundamental part of this country's history and ownership has been written into the fabric that bind this nation together. Restrictions are the only realistic option here. They work as we don't see an abundance of full auto firearms but a full ban would cause quite a bit of unrest.

    Edit: did a double post but deleted it since wasn't sure if the indentation was working correctly and trying to keep the conversation in a single threadline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    Amendments are... Well... Amendments, they can be amended. It's not happening in the current political climate, doesn't mean it would be impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    Firstly the first 10 are a bill of rights. While technically yes they can be amended it does set a very bad precedence that you are advocating for the repeal of one of those. Not even getting into how unlikely that is since there has only been one amendment that has ever been repealed (18th). You think its a good idea for a nation to get to pick and choose which "natural rights" you are allowed to have at the moment? So if they decide that the 4th or 5th amendments should just disappear, you aren't going to have an issue with that (Yes, the justice system and police really do love to test the boundaries on those 2 but at least having a line is a good thing)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    You think it's a good idea for a nation to have its constitution set in stone so the way of life hundreds of years ago sets the way forever? What if the first ten included that women can't own property or vote? Would that be ok because they're bill of rights? Would that also be a bad precedent? Is it so hard to accept that maybe they couldn't envision the issues that could eventually come with their decisions back in the 1780s? Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Except you are going with a hypothetical but I'll take the bait, seeing as it also goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence, although they did betray that spirit because they ignored the plight of the slaves, I think the removal of the clause of that women can’t own property or vote would be just but again the 2nd amendment has a huge part in our founding myth so its basically going to be impossible to remove. Also do you not think people in the Rural areas are safe from the wilderness? How the fuck are they going to ward off coyotes, foxes, razorbacks, bears, etc. You were suggesting a blanket ban of all firearms.

    " Would they have included the second if they had known it would lead to hundreds of shootings every year?"

    Also seeing as they literally just won a revolutionary war and failed to make an initial government to form a new one but the nation at that time was based on state militias. I think they would have still included that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Let's not pretend that the shootings happening now have anything to do with a militia.

    I live in a rural area, close to 30 years outside the city, both in the middle of the woods and in the middle of a field, never had to own a firearm. Heck, my uncle used to live in a northern village and didn't own one, there's trained services to take care of wildlife.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Were you a farmer or a rancher? Where your livelyhood is connected to the net worth of animals/food in your possession, you know something that a wild animal may want to take/kill? If the answer is no, then sure a gun isn't a requirement but its still a handy thing to have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    I’m in favor of mental health checks on an annual basis. Crazy people shouldn’t have access to guns. And you can bipartisan this all you want, the VAST majority of irresponsible gun owners are REPUBLICANS (or whatever center->right bullshit title they choose. LiBeRrRtaRrRiANz

  • source
  • parent