Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

[the_randomizer]

By that logic, most if not all soft drugs are legally protected by the constitution.

Seriously...I doubt it.


I don't have much opinions on bump stocks. At best, it's an incredibly small step in the right direction. GG, Americans. At this pace, it'll take 104'032 years to make your country safer.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that the US is far more dangerous than Colombia, North Korea and Somalia combined.

 

[The Catboy]

"Dems gonna take our guns!"

 

[Xzi]

Also that link you gave me mentions a study by John Lott. Which is the guy speaking in the video link I gave. And he’s well known in the gun research community for his book “More Guns Less Crime.”

So if your giving me a link about research that guy did and using his data to try to counter my points, then you have to accept that his peer reviewed data research shows we ranked 62 out of 86.

Here are the tables taken straight from the study:

You're probably referring to a different study that includes non-European nations as well. Kinda sad that we have to use unstable third-world countries as filler in order to make us look better. Regardless of where we rank it's clear we have a problem with relatively-frequent mass shootings in the US.

When broken down by state it looks even worse:

Like dear god we have several states with more murders from mass shootings than Albania or Slovakia.

 

[Joe88]

Thought michigan would have topped that list

 

[cots]

The Right to Bare Arms was included in the United States Constitution to make sure that the citizens of our great country could overthrow the Government if they became too oppressive. That was the original reason. It wasn't included so we could hunt deer. I have no problem with normal citizens owning any sort of gun that the government owns. I do not believe in gun control. I don't care if some random Liberal gets his or her feelings hurt for me simply repeating what our founding fathers said.

 

[Xzi]

The Right to Bare Arms was included in the United States Constitution to make sure that the citizens of our great country could overthrow the Government if they became too oppressive. That was the original reason. It wasn't included so we could hunt deer.

Precisely. It's far less about the right of the individual to own guns and far more about the right to organize a resistance or militia. The founding fathers never could've imagined the types of weapons we have today though. A militia with pistols isn't going to do shit against an endless army of weaponized flying drones. Perhaps a bigger issue is that the gun nut crowd are fine with authoritarianism as long as it comes from their political corner.

 

[cots]

Perhaps a bigger issue is that the gun nut crowd are fine with authoritarianism as long as it comes from their political corner.

Those people are a vocal minority (akin to radicals) that people like to use as an example to push their political agenda. Most law abiding gun owners take no part in that nonsense. Limiting our ability to defend ourselves against the Government in any way, shape or form is not acceptable.

 

[the_randomizer]

Thought michigan would have topped that list

It's ironic how DC and Chicago, with their precious gun bans, have an awful lot of gun-related crime. Gee, wonder how that happened.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It's ironic how DC and Chicago, with their precious gun bans, have an awful lot of gun-related crime. Gee, wonder how that happened.

They're surrounded by regions that don't restrict firearms in any way. It's not exactly effective to ban weapons in a location where a person could buy them legally 50 miles away and bring them in

 

[cots]

It's ironic how DC and Chicago, with their precious gun bans, have an awful lot of gun-related crime. Gee, wonder how that happened.

It proves that criminals don't care about the law which should had been evident when passing them.

 

[the_randomizer]

They're surrounded by regions that don't restrict firearms in any way. It's not exactly effective to ban weapons in a location where a person could buy them legally 50 miles away and bring them in

Exactly, gun bans are useless

 

[The Catboy]

Exactly, gun bans are useless

It proves that criminals don't care about the law which should had been evident when passing them.

But yet we keep traffic laws, murder laws, and other laws. Laws are not made to stop criminals, they made to define what is a criminal and or harmful act.

Those people are a vocal minority (akin to radicals) that people like to use as an example to push their political agenda. Most law abiding gun owners take no part in that nonsense. Limiting our ability to defend ourselves against the Government in any way, shape or form is not acceptable.

Lol, implying that you would actually stand a chance if the government decided they wanted you dead for whatever reason. If for some reason the government decided that they want someone dead, they aren't going to play fair and give them a fighting chance. They are going to poison their food, use a sniper, or a literal army of trained law enforcement. Unless you have the same kind of resources as the government, your gun isn't going to save you if they decide that you are going to die. Honestly, they wouldn't even have to attempt to ban guns if they wanted to kill people.

 

[cots]

But yet we keep traffic laws, murder laws, and other laws. Laws are not made to stop criminals, they made to define what is a criminal and or harmful act.

The last time I checked those laws do not stop criminals either. Most people respect the law. Limiting our Constitutional Rights with laws is not acceptable.

Lol, implying that you would actually stand a chance of the government decided they wanted you dead for whatever reason. If for some reason the government decided that they want someone dead, they aren't going to play fair and give them a fighting chance. They are going to poison their food, use a sniper, or a literal army of trained law enforcement. Unless you have the same kind of resources as the government, your gun isn't going to save you if they decide that you are going to die.

"It's far less about the right of the individual to own guns and far more about the right to organize a resistance or militia." - xzi

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Exactly, gun bans are useless

Not useless, just ineffective if done in isolation. Besides, there's no need for an outright ban per se (except perhaps in high-risk areas where they're already banned), regulation just needs to be increased to ensure proper education and competency before ownership, and then periodically afterwards

 

[The Catboy]

The last time I checked those laws do not stop criminals either.

Laws are not made to stop criminals, they made to define what is a criminal and or harmful act.

Did you just stop at the end of the first sentance and not even attempt to read the second one?

"It's far less about the right of the individual to own guns and far more about the right to organize a resistance or militia." - xzi

That doesn't change what I said, they aren't going to play fair regardless. If they wanted that kind of resistance dead, they aren't going to do a frontal assault. The governement doesn't have to nor will they play fair.
I feel like people who believe that guns are going to protect them from the government assume that everything is going to be some old school style gentlemen's war, when that simply won't be the case.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I feel like people who believe that guns are going to protect them from the government assume that everything is going to be some old school style gentlemen's war, when that simply won't be the case.

Plus, so long as we remain at least a democratic republic (if not move to full democracy at some point), the right to protest our government and elect our own leaders remains a far more powerful tool, anyway

 

[cots]

Did you just stop at the end of the first sentance and not even attempt to read the second one?

Sorry. I edited the original post, but here is the rest of what I said.

Most people respect the law. Limiting our Constitutional Rights with laws is not acceptable.

Also, the effects of the Law are now evident. It didn't work.

That doesn't change what I said, they aren't going to play fair regardless. If they wanted that kind of resistance dead, they aren't going to do a frontal assault. The governement doesn't have to nor will they play fair.
I feel like people who believe that guns are going to protect them from the government assume that everything is going to be some old school style gentlemen's war, when that simply won't be the case.

I never assumed how such an incident would play out.

 

[orangy57]

maybe this will show the right wing that Trump doesn't actually care about anybody, only himself
we all know how gun nuts love trump, and they herald him as this lover of america, when literally half of the stuff he does goes against america and his base. He's taking away social security for war veterans, increasing taxes for the poor and middle class, and all sorts of stuff that's the OPPOSITE OF AMERICAN

Although it think it makes total sense that they got rid of bump stocks, and i hope we eventually get rid of semi-automatic weapons altogether, it just shows that trump isn't making any friends here.

 

[cots]

Although it think it makes total sense that they got rid of bump stocks, and i hope we eventually get rid of semi-automatic weapons altogether, it just shows that trump isn't making any friends here.

Trump isn't perfect, but he is the President of the United States and deserves respect none the less. I don't care about some of his policies, but the economy is improving. However, this matter far transcends Trump. The anti-Trump bandwagon will criticize him no matter what he does so I do not take their point of view into much consideration as in there eyes there is nothing that he can do that will be approved. If the policies, actions, laws, etc ... limit our Constitutional Rights I will object and I do not limit my rejection based on Political Party or some Politically Correct bullshit.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Trump isn't perfect, but he is the President of the United States and deserves respect none the less.

How can you base an entire argument on the right to defend against a potentially tyrannical government and then follow up with this statement?