******Official politics thread ******

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like how ex-cons get arrested with handguns for robbery or carjacking and the first thing that happens is the gun violation gets pled away and the guy is out on the loose because "we have to be more sensitive" and can't send them to jail. You pretty much have to kill someone to go to jail in my state. Its usually only a matter of time until some innocent person lies dead and the guy is finally sent away.

There's actually a small rift in the state GOP because 1/2 are all for drug rehab programs and early release, while the other half are fighting for longer sentences and revoking probation immediately on further arrests.

Check the donors for the GOP and DNC registered law makers for your state?

[JurisDictum]

Well the bigger question is: "If owning guns was a more rare thing that took a more extensive licensing process -- would there be less shootings?"

This particular shooting is an obvious case of bureaucratic failure -- highlighting the fact that bureaucracies will usually fuck up regularly and its a bit of leaky bucket jobs program. But that doesn't mean the law is never followed. Or that we can get more serious about its enforcement.

I'm suggesting that going further than any Democrats have proposed might actually be effective. Maybe you should have to be one of those "gun owning guys/girls." Maybe you should need to go through an extensive gun licensing process in the U.S. Only people that put that amount of effort into it are going to be using them properly in emergencies anyway.

And maybe that would lower the instances of mass shooting while still granting normal people with a bit of time, money, and willpower the ability to own guns legally.

Obviously the gun corporations would hate this idea because it would limit sales. Maybe hicks in Texas wouldn't all feel like they need one just to fit in anymore...etc.

[mickmoranis]

Barring outright banning semi auto guns and making 6 round magazines the max a gun can hold and spending trillions on a buy back program. You would not have changed a single mass shooting that has taken place in the last 10 years.

Even if you had heavy licensing you'd still have people collecting mass amounts of guns and using them, the same way the guy did las Vegas, super rich dude who could have afforded ALL of the licensing required.

Second of all, there are laws that work like the licensing you suggest would work preventing the dishonerably discharged, mentally ill, convicted, people like the guy from this sunday 5 or 6 times over from being able to legally buy a gun, and the laws. Did. not. work.

So, you'd have failures in the system like sunday, you'd have people who can afford it like the guy in las vegas, you'd have children of families that own guns like columbine, you'd have legal citizens like the guy in aurora, sandy hook, walmart, florida, and most importantly you'd have ALL those gun deaths that gang activity is a result of (which makes up a whopping 3/4ths of mass shootings in this country) operating despite "common sense" or even "unconstitutional" gun control.

Plain and simple, short of an outright ban and a government collection program to collect all the legal/illegal guns in this country, no questions asked. You cannot change mass shootings in this country.

OK that is a lie, you COULD reduce them by 3/4ths... IF YOU WOULD STOP blaming police for there being a demonstrably larger amount of minorities committing violent crimes. And you wouldn't even have to tread on anyone's constitutional rights to clean up the streets. You'd just have to support the police.

You could also dump taxes into these areas and see how that works, I recommend blue states do this, you're so dead set on increasing taxes to make up for the weaker people of your society, WELL DO IT there are PLENTY of blue states that could prove that the system would work.

FUNNY HOW THEY DONT EH? cus nobody really wants to do what the left says they want to do. That and most lefty politicians only SAY they want to do things, so they get you excited to vote for them. Then they just take kickbacks and bribes and operate like anyone else in the government. Meaning they dont do anything of any value.

[Pokesan]

lots of racism today

[Triiz]

If gun laws don't work, why has there not been a single mass shooting in decades with a fully automatic weapon used? Why are fully automatic weapons only extremely rarely used by gang members? Surely mass shooters and gang bangers have access to these weapons since gun laws don't work at all, why aren't they using them?

Also, if you truly believe "shall not be infringed" means that there are no reasonable restrictions to gun access, then you should be arguing for the mentally ill to have access to guns, not have them taken away. Same for felons. There isn't a god damn thing in the Constitution that says "shall not be infringed...unless you are mentally ill or previously convicted of a felony".

Either there are reasonable restrictions and the mentally ill and convicted murderers shouldn't have guns, or there aren't reasonable restrictions. It can't be both. Hilariously, the Trump administration is fighting two PA criminals in court that claim they are being denied their Second Amendment Right and the Trump administration said restoring their gun rights would be a "threat to public safety" lol

[mickmoranis]

Triiz are you able to read or do not understand the conversation?

Because there is an OUTRIGHT BAN on fully automatic weapons.

Beyond that, there is NO WAY to reduce mass shootings.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Triiz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Either there are reasonable restrictions and the mentally ill and convicted murderers shouldn't have guns, or there aren't reasonable restrictions.

whats hilarious about you libtards is, there has been 1 person who was arrested and detained and is registered as being mentally ill, that has performed a mass shooting, and on top of that he was dishonorably discharged and is a convicted criminal. those are ALL of the restrictions common sense control argues for, and those ALL are in effect and should have prevented him from buying a gun, but for some reason, THEY DIDN'T...

He should NOT have had a gun. But these laws, do. not. work.

Now, ALL of the previous shooters in the last 10 years, ALL would ahve checked out OK in ALL of what you suggest. So common sense gun contorl would not have had an affect at all in stopping them.

HOWEVER again.. you could stop 3/4ths of them if you increase police presence and funding in areas with gang activity, but NO you think that isnt "fair"

[Triiz]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Triiz are you able to read or do not understand the conversation?

Because there is an OUTRIGHT BAN on fully automatic weapons.

Beyond that, there is NO WAY to reduce mass shootings.

In a shocking revelation, apparently you don't actually know shit about guns. Any automatic weapon manufactured before 1986 can still be bought and sold with enough paper work. The government didn't go around confiscating automatics after Reagan signed the 1986 law, why aren't they used in mass shootings? Criminals don't follow gun laws, ya know?

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

HOWEVER again.. you could stop 3/4ths of them if you increase police presence and funding in areas with gang activity, but NO you think that isnt "fair"

lol that you think the majority of policing isn't already directed at high crime neighborhoods, what kinda fuckin bubble do you live in?

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He should NOT have had a gun.

Where does it say that in the Second Amendment? You think the government should get to pick and chose who has rights and who doesn't? Is that what you would call a "reasonable restriction"? So you don't believe the Second Amendment is absolute? Reminds me of how Conservatives think you give up your Fourth Amendment rights if you live in a shitty neighborhood, but any changes to gun laws are an insult to everything the Constitution stands for.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Triiz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In a shocking revelation, apparently you don't actually know shit about guns. Any automatic weapon manufactured before 1986 can still be bought and sold with enough paper work. The government didn't go around confiscating automatics after Reagan signed the 1986 law, why aren't they used in mass shootings? Criminals don't follow gun laws, ya know?

1. you can buy an AR for 500
2. It gonna cost about 10 grand or more to own one of them older models due to the paperwork required, its actually quite a time consuming process.

Originally Posted by Triiz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol that you think the majority of policing isn't already directed at high crime neighborhoods, what kinda fuckin bubble do you live in?

we need to increase police spending by 2x at least if we want to make an impact, but liberals want more accountability bureaucracy and less police funding impeding these officers from doing their job, in what has proven in the last 10 years to be a fair and lawful manor, unlike what the internet viral videos made you think.

Originally Posted by Triiz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where does it say that in the Second Amendment? You think the government should get to pick and chose who has rights and who doesn't? Is that what you would call a "reasonable restriction"? So you don't believe the Second Amendment is absolute? Reminds me of how Conservatives think you give up your Fourth Amendment rights if you live in a shitty neighborhood, but any changes to gun laws are an insult to everything the Constitution stands for.

Texas Tex. Gov’t Code §411.172 A person is ineligible for a license to carry a concealed weapon if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that: (A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or (B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by section (1), above:
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.

[Pokesan]

Texans signing Josh Johnson!

that's kaeps backup btw

lol