Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

[KingVamp]

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

This thread is literally about Trump and his administration limiting gun rights, which he seems to be so much against.

 

[cots]

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

I respect the President of the United States no matter who they may be even if I didn't vote for them. It's the right thing to do.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I respect the President of the United States no matter who they may be even if I didn't vote for them. It's the right thing to do.

Sorry but nah, blindly trusting people in power is how you get an authoritarian government. There need to be people to challenge policy and keep the high-level government officials in check, especially in times where all three branches are controlled by one party like they are currently

 

[cots]

Sorry but nah, blindly trusting people in power is how you get an authoritarian government. There need to be people to challenge policy and keep the high-level government officials in check, especially in times where all three branches are controlled by one party like they are currently

Who said anything about trust?

 

[the_randomizer]

This thread is literally about Trump and his administration limiting gun rights, which he seems to be so much against.

I fail to see how banning bump stocks is a bad thing. Only gun-toting testosterone-guzzling macho men would get off to this kind of stuff.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Who said anything about trust?

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.

I understand the meaning you meant to convey with this statement, but it also implies that any dissent against Trump is inherently from people who have already disliked him, and is therefore invalid. Trump broke constitutional law day one in the form of violating the Emoluments Clause by retaining control of his business capital while in office, yet you clearly trust him enough for him to retain your respect.

On top of that, respect based solely on the rank of an individual implies trust in whatever individual holds that rank

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I fail to see how banning bump stocks is a bad thing. Only gun-toting testosterone-guzzling macho men would get off to this kind of stuff.

Yes

 

[the_randomizer]

Blind sycophancy to the office of POTUS, or any leader of a country, while failing to think for yourself and letting the government decide for you, is never ever a good thing.

 

[chrisrlink]

first legalizing weed now banning bump stocks? they better keep him in office a little longer til he enacts them then kick him out

 

[KingVamp]

I fail to see how banning bump stocks is a bad thing. Only gun-toting testosterone-guzzling macho men would get off to this kind of stuff.

If that was addressed directly at me, I never said it was?

I was talking about the person who was saying any restrictions on guns laws are not acceptable, yet respecting the person limiting gun rights.

 

[the_randomizer]

If that was addressed directly at me, I never said it was?

I was talking about the person who was saying any restrictions on guns laws are not acceptable, yet respecting the person limiting gun rights.

What? No, it was a generality towards meatheads and gun junkies.

 

[Ericthegreat]

I'll have to do more research, but apparently it's unconstitutional to make things illegal that were legal before. Anyway it doesn't make a difference, you can bump fire without a bump stock anyway:

I don't think you understand, that guy is destroying his shoulder lol.... Also holding a rifle like that is... weird. Should bump stocks be illegal? Yea I guess, but they're easy to make.

 

[SG854]

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

Every place that has banned guns has had an increase in Homicide rates. Even Island nations like Jamaica, England and Ireland.

England and Wales firearm homicide rate almost doubled from 1996 to 2002. to after their hand gun ban in 1997.

This is from the link @Xzi gave me and all the sources in that link. He gave me a gold mine of information.

And when it comes per capita casualty rate the European Union during the Obama Administration was 27% higher then the U.S. And European countries that has gun control laws like France, Netherlands and Belgium which is where @Taleweaver is from, has mass public shooting rates that are about as high as the U.S.

https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Every place that has banned guns has had an increase in Homicide rates. Even Island nations like Jamaica, England and Ireland.

England and Wales firearm homicide rate almost doubled from 1996 to 2002. to after their hand gun ban in 1997.

This is from the link @Xzi gave me and all the sources in that link. He gave me a gold mine of information.

And when it comes per capita casualty rate the European Union during the Obama Administration was 27% higher then the U.S. And European countries that has gun control laws like France, Netherlands and Belgium which is where @Taleweaver is from, has mass public shooting rates that are about as high as the U.S.

https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Calling this an increase is slightly disingenuous, considering that since 2003 there's been a downward trend that terminates to less than the rate at the time of the ban

And you'd also be ignoring this statistic, that shows that it was in fact effective at dramatically reducing firearm related homicides. The ban did what it was aiming to. Yes, there are other methods of killing, but all of them are more easily preventable. If anything I'd say that part of the reason the UK is doing so poorly in homicide prevention is that police officers have been kneecapped



Plus, part of the reason for regulating firearms more harshly is to prevent suicides and accidental injuries/deaths. Even if homicide rates stay the same, I'd consider restrictions/bans effective if they reduce those other forms of death

 

[PanTheFaun]

Ayy, that's actualy very reasonable. Automatic weapon has no recreational or self-defense purpose and attachment that can turn non- or semi- automatic weapon into automatic one should be logically in the same category.

It has no self-defense purpose? How about a tyrannical government hell bent on destroying your country and freedom while sending their own military after innocent citizens that are carrying the same thing they banned the citizens from having? These things have been shown to happen throughout history time and time again.

 

[The Catboy]

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.



I never assumed how such an incident would play out.

Expect gun regulation isn't a limitation of our Constitutional rights, in fact, it's literally how The Second Amendment starts
"A well regulated Militia,"
Additionally, we already have regulations in place, such as felons being barred from owning guns. you can't own a fully automatic weapon, and several other laws are already in place that apparently doesn't conflict with the Constitution. If your entire argument is, "These laws don't work because crime still happens," then all laws should be abolished because they don't work either. But that's not the point of laws, as I stressed before, laws are not put into place to stop crime, they are there to define what a crime is.

I never assumed how such an incident would play out.

You quoted the argument that the right to own guns was for the use of a militia and or resistance, I explained why that argument is pointless these days. When the Second Amendment was written, it was during a time when the government was much smaller and our military was basically just a couple of militias. It was made when the people actually had a fighting chance on the off chance that our government at that time got a little cocky and needed to put in their place. That's not how things work anymore and the notion that some militias have a fighting chance against our government is just wishful thinking.

 

[PanTheFaun]

Expect gun regulation isn't a limitation of our Constitutional rights, in fact, it's literally how The Second Amendment starts
"A well regulated Militia,"
Additionally, we already have regulations in place, such as felons being barred from owning guns. you can't own a fully automatic weapon, and several other laws are already in place that apparently doesn't conflict with the Constitution. If your entire argument is, "These laws don't work because crime still happens," then all laws should be abolished because they don't work either. But that's not the point of laws, as I stressed before, laws are not put into place to stop crime, they are there to define what a crime is.

You quote the argument that the right to own guns was for the use of a militia and or resistance, I explained why that argument is pointless these days. When the Second Amendment was written, it was during a time when the government was much smaller and our military was basically just a couple of militias. It was made when the people actually had a fighting chance on the off chance that our government at that time got a little cocky and needed to put in their place. That's not how things work anymore and the notion that some militias have a fighting chance against our government is just wishful thinking.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."- George Mason
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
“Free men have arms; slaves do not.” - William Blackstone


Pointless you say? You do realize when we Americans won our independence we did so with a huge disadvantage of men and weaponry, correct? Nothing is pointless or impossible. I am one man but I'll tell you right now that I would do my best to protect my family, freedom, and country whether that be that I'm outnumbered or out gunned.

 

[cots]

I understand the meaning you meant to convey with this statement, but it also implies that any dissent against Trump is inherently from people who have already disliked him, and is therefore invalid. Trump broke constitutional law day one in the form of violating the Emoluments Clause by retaining control of his business capital while in office, yet you clearly trust him enough for him to retain your respect.

No. Other factors come into play when I decide who is simply bashing Trump because it's the popular thing to do. Additionally, I do not invalidate their opinions - I just don't give them much thought.

I do not blindly trust people. I had and still have respect for Obama and every President before him. Trump could be guilty of of what you accuse him of, but I'm not a Judge so until he's actually tried and found guilty in a court of law for something he has done I am no position to claim otherwise. I am not personally involved in any of these affairs. I don't care that certain groups of people in their own "public opinion courts" ignore this process. Just because you respect someone due to being the right thing to do doesn't mean you trust them to any given extent.

I was talking about the person who was saying any restrictions on guns laws are not acceptable, yet respecting the person limiting gun rights.

It seems people have a hard time differentiating between respect and trust. I'll give an example. People involved in the Judicial System, while in the Court Room, are supposed to give the Judge and the Law respect. Does that mean they trust the process, the judge or the lawyers? No it doesn't, but it's what is expected of us as citizens. I don't trust President Trump as he's a politician and everyone lies (especially politicians). I respect the President of the United States and do not limit that based on any factors. I did not like or trust President Obama, but I respected his position. How you "feel" about the person doesn't justify your lack of respect for the position.

Expect gun regulation isn't a limitation of our Constitutional rights, in fact, it's literally how The Second Amendment starts
"A well regulated Militia," Additionally, we already have regulations in place, such as felons being barred from owning guns. you can't own a fully automatic weapon, and several other laws are already in place that apparently doesn't conflict with the Constitution. If your entire argument is, "These laws don't work because crime still happens," then all laws should be abolished because they don't work either. But that's not the point of laws, as I stressed before, laws are not put into place to stop crime, they are there to define what a crime is.

Who do you think regulates the Militia? Do you think it would be the same Government that they would be trying to stand up against? That's hilarious! Well-regulated meant proficient in use or practiced in the expertise of a given skill. It did not mean over-seen and managed by the government, nor does it mean so now, though it is often intentionally misinterpreted as such.

I am also aware of such unconstitutional regulations and the same logic applies to them as they do to anything that limits our rights - there are no exceptions.

On your second point that's it's useless to stand up for our rights because the people doing so would be outnumbered and outgunned (the latter being what an oppressive Government would want). Using that logic the LGBTQ community would have had no chance and should not have stood up for their rights (rights which are provided by the United States Constitution).

 

[SG854]

Calling this an increase is slightly disingenuous, considering that since 2003 there's been a downward trend that terminates to less than the rate at the time of the ban

And you'd also be ignoring this statistic, that shows that it was in fact effective at dramatically reducing firearm related homicides. The ban did what it was aiming to. Yes, there are other methods of killing, but all of them are more easily preventable. If anything I'd say that part of the reason the UK is doing so poorly in homicide prevention is that police officers have been kneecapped



Plus, part of the reason for regulating firearms more harshly is to prevent suicides and accidental injuries/deaths. Even if homicide rates stay the same, I'd consider restrictions/bans effective if they reduce those other forms of death

The article explains it. It became so bad that they had to increase police just to contain the violence. And the decrease is attributed to better policing not the ban. The ban just made the situation worse. And then it went down but still slightly higher then before the ban. Basically the ban did nothing to make it better.

Also if you look at Ireland and Jamaica murder rates didn’t go down after the ban, they increased and stayed up, they didn’t get better policing so murder rates stayed up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Calling this an increase is slightly disingenuous, considering that since 2003 there's been a downward trend that terminates to less than the rate at the time of the ban

And you'd also be ignoring this statistic, that shows that it was in fact effective at dramatically reducing firearm related homicides. The ban did what it was aiming to. Yes, there are other methods of killing, but all of them are more easily preventable. If anything I'd say that part of the reason the UK is doing so poorly in homicide prevention is that police officers have been kneecapped



Plus, part of the reason for regulating firearms more harshly is to prevent suicides and accidental injuries/deaths. Even if homicide rates stay the same, I'd consider restrictions/bans effective if they reduce those other forms of death

Japan and Korea hardly have gun violence but have way higher suicide rates. There’s also examples of other countries where suicide rates remained still the same even after the ban. If they don’t use guns they’ll use other means.

 

[cots]

The article explains it. It became so bad that they had to increase police just to contain the violence. And the decrease is attributed to better policing not the ban. The ban just made the situation worse. And then it went down but still slightly higher then before the ban. Basically the ban did nothing to make it better.

I already stated that the Laws didn't work. It's been long enough to since they passed that see the results and instead of admitting the fact that they (the people who passed the laws) were wrong and that the laws aren't working and therefor need to be removed they only want to pass more Laws.

It is also irrelevant if these laws worked or not. What people should be more concerned about is whether or not the laws limit our Constitution freedom.

 

[leon315]

Haha, americans. Would'nt know a good thing if it hit them in the face. You are so lucky to have probably the greatest president in your history. Someone who is not a bullshitting typical politician spouting meangingless and nothing politically correct garbage. He is as businessman who understands how things are run.

I have american friends and they dont shut up about bad mouthing trump. The ironic thing is these are people who suddenly dont like trump because he is supposedly against women and immigrants. When the same people spent the last 20 years destroying countries and killing countless children.

Oh well, americans. I wish Britain had Trump. We'd get things done.

if u still think the war shall be fight in conventional way, like missiles and bullets, dude, u are very wrong:

Trump the king of moron is fighting a war which he can NOT win. the Murica vs. East.

Lemme grab my popcorn!