M
Society Why do Regular Citizens Need Assault Weapons?
- Thread starter member 3289
- Start date
-
- Tags
- why
The stats suggest this...and it's very clear.
some People are nuts. The more available guns are to them or to people around them, the more shootings there will be.
People are blinded toward progress for many reasons. And most of these people are good people with good intentions. But it is what it is. nothing changes
Fuck America. It's pretty shitty in many ways. I still love people tho
I know what you're saying, but you're also implying that if we manage to erase firearms from existence that mass killings would not occur. Which is incorrect.
What happened yesterday was completely avoidable. The school and police chose to do nothing.
Why don't we look at helping the people who are nuts?
this is stupid ass joke on a few levels firstly the stereotype would be an AK-47 or even a 1911 in .38 super.
secondly if you were going for the L.A gangster angle a mac 10 or mac 11 is easier to get instead of a tec 9 ,tec 9 seems to be more on an inland empire thing like Lancaster.
Wouldn't it be nice to focus on mental illness so fewer of these lunatics are on our streets?
It seems OP doesn't want to define the issue.@Filthy wants to split hairs instead of answer the question it seems.
Let's be blunt - there's no way that you enact any kind of weapon-specific ban (especially the individual firearm of the United States Infantryman) without going to SCOTUS. And the current/foreseeable SCOTUS isn't going to legislate the end of the 2nd Amendment from the bench. Even if the SCOTUS went completely collectivist on the 2nd Amendment, you would have uprisings and civil unrest at a minimum.
So explain to me exactly what you want to do about the right of the people to keep and bear the common infantry weapon?
How about we agree to end the War on Drugs, close all overseas bases, cease agricultural subsidies, and use the money to address the mental health conditions at the root of violence against self and others?
If you're just going to throw around fantasy solutions to the world's problems, be logical. And go big.
So when can you get me one? I drove past Lancaster a few times I don't wanna have to pick it up from there
M
member 3289
Guest
This has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted.
Yeah it would... (and it was)... until:
How Congress and Trump stymied Obama's mental-health gun-control rule
The military doesn't use the guns the op is referring to. They have select fire weapons. We should too.
Incorrect. Reagan did most of the damage, and it has affected our country in many more ways than gun violence.
*reported for trolling*
what the fuck is wrong with the people who are pulling the trigger here? i think that is a much bigger problem.why are so many people so fucked up in their lives that they think killing everyone in their school or workplace is the answer.why are so many people reaching their breaking point? how many of them are on SSRIs? what is making these people snap in the first place? these are the real issues
I used to live in Ridgecrest. Passed by Lancaster every weekend on my drive back from ventura.....
.....
What is "incorrect" about the facts?
Facts:
- Obama instituted gun purchase limits for mental wackos.
& then:
- "One of Trump’s first actions in the White House was to quash former President Barack Obama’s recommendation for a new regulation that would prevent people with severe mental health illnesses from purchasing guns."
Our per capita offenders is much higher than other counties tho. Do u think our mental health is also disproportionately messed up?
I dont, which is why I think that the correlation to higher guns per capita is the primary factor
It's so sad. And it's happening more often than the news let's on
It wasn't the focus. Obama didn't focus on mental health. He focused on taking guns away from people. Even the law you mentioned doesn't focus on mental health. It focuses on taking guns away from people.
From mentally ill people......
It does nothing to improve mental illness.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
That seems a pretty gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.
The ACLU and pretty much every disabilities organization was against it.
The rule would have made it such that the Social Security Administration Flags the background check system for anybody that has set up another person to manage their social security money.
Essentially using that as a surrogate measure to label you as probably having a mental illness.
It included no due process and no evidence of correlation between having a recipient of your Social Security money and a legal requirements for getting a firearm.
One of the faults of the Obama Administration has been the use of the administrative State and the executive branch to get things like this done.
They're easily undone and don't typically have buy in politically since they were ham fisted via unelected bureaucrats.
If you want to Target mental illness and Firearms you have to first start with evidence of various correlation. Then from there you can build legally substantiated moves that won't be struck down with the court case anyways.
People made great sound bites out of no-fly no Buy. But the no fly list has no due process it would never pass Court muster. So it lost due to civil rights concerns but it would have lost anyways due to court challenges. Republican, GOPtard, etc. Senator John cornyn followed that concern with a compromise that people on the do not fly list would have a 72-hour hold on Firearms purchases and in at 72 hours law enforcement could show probable cause explaining why that person should not have a firearm. That compromise was roundly panned by the same Democrats that supported they sit in for the no fly list gun ban.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that gun safety is a single-sided issue. When compromises to move things away from the libertarian Wing are offered, Democrats don't bite either.
You speak of "fewer" people dying. Wouldn't the "no people dying" alternative I'm offering both be relevant and preferable?
the mental health aspect has to be disproportionately messed up too. things like a school shooting go beyond just being an act of crime. if it was a simple crime then the shooter has a problem with a kid .he goes there and shoots that kid.still fucked up and a murder but different than someone goes down there and tries to kill the whole school.there has to be a point where things go from being a crime driven by say passion or revenge to a mental illness .its hard to say .people are fucked up.Our per capita offenders is much higher than other counties tho. Do u think our mental health is also disproportionately messed up?
I dont, which is why I think that the correlation to higher guns per capita is the primary factor
It's so sad. And it's happening more often than the news let's on
if someone is deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others then they should never have access to firearms.its common sense.that being said you can pass all the laws in the world.the only ones who follow the laws are the law abiding citizens . there will always be the possibility of a person who is not elligible to legally buy a gun just going out and getting one on the black market.
if they banned ar-15s tomorrow then the street value of an ar-15 just sky rockets.it is definitely a trickey subject ,especially since you guys have it written right in to your constitution