Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

13861 - 13880 of 13915 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
Do you expect that will eventually work? After 20 years or so of such a policy will we actually live in an America where violent criminals won't be able to easily get an automatic rifle?
If we're talking about automatic rifles, i. e. machine guns, then I doubt it. Criminals will sneak them across the US-Mexican border, as they do now. Remember, the M-16's issued to Mexican police often end up in drug cartel hands because of the low pay to the officers. The cartels offer them 300% to 400% pay raises, they take their issued rifles with them, and the cartels now have machine guns. Also remember that the US Dept. of State has been approving these machine-gun sales for decades. That right there is at a minimum a good chunk of the gun-controller claim about "90% of illegal guns in Mexico came from the USA". Whoops.

The other way is to smuggle in fully-automatic Kalashnikov rifles (AK-47, AK-74) from other countries.

Right now, we typically have about 100 murders every year committed with automatic rifles. If your suggestion becomes a reality would that number drop to closer to zero?
From 100 to zero? I doubt that reduction as well, given that automatic rifles are already very highly restricted for legal private ownership, per the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Someone mentioned that those who personally own automatic rifles tend to have a background in the military forces and/or law enforcement. Is this really the case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
In fact, they are.

I'm reminded of when Atty Gen. Jeff Sessions stated that "Good people don't smoke marijuana". He was making a blanket judgment on the character of millions of Americans based on the fact that they choose to possess and use a product that is technically illegal, even though it harms no one when used responsibly. He's an asshole and he's part of the problem.
I, for one, am glad to see ol' Jeff "Hang 'Em!" Sessions out of the Attorney-General's chair. That was about as scary as when Edwin Meese was in that same chair, and for similar reasons.

Growing up in California, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I met a lot of people, good people, who enjoyed pot. Today, it is even starting to be properly recognized to have certain medical benefits, when used in proper moderation. Passing moral judgment on them for their own enjoyment of pot is bullshit. Same with gun ownership.

The criminalization of pot use is a national disgrace. Otherwise decent and responsible citizens are prosecuted and punished by the legal system for no good reason. They're often stigmatized by others who fall for the bogus argument that breaking the law automatically makes one a bad person.

Something similar is true with high capacity assault rifles. There are millions of Americans who secretly and illegally own them and it says virtually nothing about their moral character. They strongly believe the law is unnecessary and unjust and they choose to not follow it.
I don't know anyone who illegally owns an assault rifle, i. e. a machine gun. In my RSO days, I have met a few who do own them, but they do so totally legally, and it cost them a lot of money and a year-long background check to do so, per the NFA of 1934. Had the paperwork, tax stamp, all that. They were remarkably sane, well-balanced people who exercised proper gun safety rules, so I pass no negative judgment on them for doing something legal and not hurting anyone.

Now, let's talk about actual lawbreakers. Harriet Tubman broke the law every which way including loose, and she used a gun to keep people in line while doing so. I would ask the gun-banners here, would you have done likewise with Harriet Tubman's gun? After all, she was a lawbreaker and committing her illegal acts while in possession of a gun, so would you give her extra time for that gun possession as well? Hint: I damn sure wouldn't. Matter of fact, I'd hand her an AR-15 or even better, an AK-47 (more resistant to dirt contamination) and tell her, "go on, Mrs. Tubman, keep that Railroad going!" Same applies to anyone who had to deal with the Ku Klux Klan terrorist hordes; arm those Black folks to the teeth!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,102 Posts
I'm speaking to those that claim laws will be broken no matter what. Are you one of those?

I just explained this. Some laws are broken all the time. Other laws are almost never broken It depends on the reasonableness of the law, the ability and desire of citizens to break it, the ability and desire of government to enforce it, and the ease with which it can be gotten away with.

My beef with the gun control zealots is they don't consider any of this when demanding that certain types of guns, ammo, and accessories be banned.

If this isn't clear enough, consider 2 different examples.

There are laws against defiling human corpses. It's almost unheard of for people to break this law because nobody in their right mind would want to do that. The police don't need to use resources enforcing this law because it practically enforces itself.

There are laws against the possession and use of heroin and black market opiates. Yet millions of Americans routinely buy and use these horribly dangerous drugs and this year more than 50,000 deaths will result.

Trafficking in these drugs is aggressively investigated by law enforcement and users are routinely prosecuted and convicted of serious felonies with prison sentences typically occurring.

Clearly, some people are highly motivated to break certain laws, for various reasons. If the threat of losing everything and going to prison isn't a deterrent and the risk of death also isn't a deterrent, it's hard accept the notion that all problems can be solved by simply passing a law that makes it illegal for anyone to be part of the problem. That's wishful thinking coming from people who live in a fantasy world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,949 Posts
Gun manufacturers are motivated by sales which translate to money. Make them pay when they allow their products to be sold to unauthorized distribution networks, even when they are "stolen." Make them pay more when their products sold illegally are involved in crimes. Money is the only effective moderator of the American culture. We should use it to do some good now and then.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,102 Posts
Gun manufacturers are motivated by sales which translate to money. Make them pay when they allow their products to be sold to unauthorized distribution networks, even when they are "stolen." Make them pay more when their products sold illegally are involved in crimes. Money is the only effective moderator of the American culture. We should use it to do some good now and then.

Jim

I've explained numerous times how black markets for illegal guns are willing and able to supply as many parts or even complete guns as the public wants. They will take the risk because the chance of getting caught is so small, regardless of how aggressively law enforcement wants to go after them.

You keep posting as if once the legitimate gun companies are shut down, then the problem will go away.
I just want to know if you you think I'm dead wrong about black markets continuing to supply cheap guns to a willing public. If so, why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
Gun manufacturers are motivated by sales which translate to money. Make them pay when they allow their products to be sold to unauthorized distribution networks, even when they are "stolen." Make them pay more when their products sold illegally are involved in crimes. Money is the only effective moderator of the American culture. We should use it to do some good now and then.

Jim
Let's put this another way, then.

Motor vehicle manufacturers are motivated by sales which translate to money. Make them pay when they allow their products to be sold to unauthorized distribution networks, even when they are "stolen." Make them pay more when their products sold illegally are involved in crimes. Money is the only effective moderator of the American culture. We should use it to do some good now and then.

Given that motor vehicles caused over 34,000 fatal crashes, over 37,000 fatalities, and over 2.4 million people injured--with rising trends for all three*--why should we not also do what you're suggesting with motor vehicle manufacturers?

* Source: US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812451)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,949 Posts
Let's put this another way, then.

Motor vehicle manufacturers are motivated by sales which translate to money. Make them pay when they allow their products to be sold to unauthorized distribution networks, even when they are "stolen." Make them pay more when their products sold illegally are involved in crimes. Money is the only effective moderator of the American culture. We should use it to do some good now and then.

Given that motor vehicles caused over 34,000 fatal crashes, over 37,000 fatalities, and over 2.4 million people injured--with rising trends for all three*--why should we not also do what you're suggesting with motor vehicle manufacturers?

* Source: US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812451)
When motor vehicle manufacturers start selling cars to people who shouldn't be allowed to buy them, let me know. As for whether or not they are held responsible when their products turn into killing machines because of a failure on their part to produce e machines suited for their purpose, thanks to Ralph Nader there is precedent for them being held financially responsible. Your analogy is flawed since the purpose of automobiles is not to kill people but to transport them with a human at the controls to a destination the human in charge directs the machine to and the machine owners/operators have to be insured so when humans fuck the job up, the innocent victims or their families have recourse. I am ok if all gun owners have insurance and buy ammo with some means to trace it to their insurance policy, like a detailed metallurgical fingerprint or the like, and the weapons have some means of recording where they are when the weapon is fired so the lawful owner of the weapon can be identified and held responsible for accidental or intentional deaths/injuries/maiming/etc.

In fact, I would be happy if the rules of road - get a license, register your gun(s), and purchase mandatory insurance applied.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
...this from the same people that claim requiring a photo. ID to vote puts an excessive burden on the poor trying to exercise their Constitutional right.
How will they afford your firearm registration process and insurance?
Or will they just go uninsured and the paying public pays double to make up for them, like we do for automobiles?
Will they be provided with free transportation to get registered and get their license?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,958 Posts
...this from the same people that claim requiring a photo. ID to vote puts an excessive burden on the poor trying to exercise their Constitutional right.
How will they afford your firearm registration process and insurance?
Or will they just go uninsured and the paying public pays double to make up for them, like we do for automobiles?
Will they be provided with free transportation to get registered and get their license?

Continuing the car metaphor, the poor will ride heavily armed buses that we will pay for. Freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
When motor vehicle manufacturers start selling cars to people who shouldn't be allowed to buy them, let me know.
OK, I'm letting you know.

  • the Charlottesville murder of that woman
  • anybody who ever has driven under the influence
  • anybody who's ever driven a "getaway vehicle"
  • anybody who's ever struck a person with a motor vehicle
These people can buy cars at will. Right now. Yes, they can.

As for whether or not they are held responsible when their products turn into killing machines because of a failure on their part to produce e machines suited for their purpose, thanks to Ralph Nader there is precedent for them being held financially responsible.
So, you're saying that yes, we should sue the auto manufacturers any time that a car gets misused to injure someone?

Your analogy is flawed since the purpose of automobiles is not to kill people but to transport them with a human at the controls to a destination the human in charge directs the machine to and the machine owners/operators have to be insured so when humans fuck the job up, the innocent victims or their families have recourse.
First, no, you don't have to be insured to drive on public roads, at least not here in Virginia, and the "recourse" is already on the books; it's called "prosecution for manslaughter" or like the Charlottesville killer, murder (he was convicted, fortunately, sentenced to life in prison). But there's something even worse here; the surviving families that you just mentioned.

The mothers and fathers of those 37,000 people killed and 2.4 million people injured by those motor vehicles aren't going to have their pain assuaged one bit by whether it was by a car, gun, knife, or "Act Of God". That drunk driver who made the decision to kill that high school kid by striking him with her car just killed someone; he is no less dead, his mother is no less destroyed by the loss of her son, and what you think of as the "purpose" of the car doesn't change that this drunk driver killed him with her car. Dead is dead.

I am ok if all gun owners have insurance and buy ammo with some means to trace it to their insurance policy, like a detailed metallurgical fingerprint or the like, and the weapons have some means of recording where they are when the weapon is fired so the lawful owner of the weapon can be identified and held responsible for accidental or intentional deaths/injuries/maiming/etc.

In fact, I would be happy if the rules of road - get a license, register your gun(s), and purchase mandatory insurance applied.

Jim
Were the Second Amendment not present in the Constitution, you may have something there. Driving on public roads is not an enumerated right, like voting; the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by contrast, most definitely is. We're back to the right of free speech analogy; dictators have repeatedly used speech to whip up the populace to oppress what the dictators considered, "undesirables". We would thus have to do the same things--insurance, traceability, where it's used, etc. with any form of publishing one's thoughts as well.

But there's another, more personally pressing reason, at least for me. We've had gun confiscations before, especially in the South. Remember the reason for the gun control laws in the first place; it was to find out which Black people owned guns, and which neighborhoods has the highest concentration of gun owners, so that their guns could be confiscated. Yes, this has happened here in the United States, and more than once; the cops went house-to-house, just like they did in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. The gun control laws "were never intended to be enforced against the White population."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,949 Posts
OK, I'm letting you know.

  • the Charlottesville murder of that woman
  • anybody who ever has driven under the influence
  • anybody who's ever driven a "getaway vehicle"
  • anybody who's ever struck a person with a motor vehicle
These people can buy cars at will. Right now. Yes, they can.



So, you're saying that yes, we should sue the auto manufacturers any time that a car gets misused to injure someone?



First, no, you don't have to be insured to drive on public roads, at least not here in Virginia, and the "recourse" is already on the books; it's called "prosecution for manslaughter" or like the Charlottesville killer, murder (he was convicted, fortunately, sentenced to life in prison). But there's something even worse here; the surviving families that you just mentioned.

The mothers and fathers of those 37,000 people killed and 2.4 million people injured by those motor vehicles aren't going to have their pain assuaged one bit by whether it was by a car, gun, knife, or "Act Of God". That drunk driver who made the decision to kill that high school kid by striking him with her car just killed someone; he is no less dead, his mother is no less destroyed by the loss of her son, and what you think of as the "purpose" of the car doesn't change that this drunk driver killed him with her car. Dead is dead.



Were the Second Amendment not present in the Constitution, you may have something there. Driving on public roads is not an enumerated right, like voting; the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by contrast, most definitely is. We're back to the right of free speech analogy; dictators have repeatedly used speech to whip up the populace to oppress what the dictators considered, "undesirables". We would thus have to do the same things--insurance, traceability, where it's used, etc. with any form of publishing one's thoughts as well.

But there's another, more personally pressing reason, at least for me. We've had gun confiscations before, especially in the South. Remember the reason for the gun control laws in the first place; it was to find out which Black people owned guns, and which neighborhoods has the highest concentration of gun owners, so that their guns could be confiscated. Yes, this has happened here in the United States, and more than once; the cops went house-to-house, just like they did in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. The gun control laws "were never intended to be enforced against the White population."

I am certain you feel you need a gun and are eternally grateful for the nonsense in the Constitution that is being interpreted as a basis for allowing you to buy any devices that use the release of chemical energy to accelerate metallic particles to life endangering speeds through a tubular barrel that can be aimed toward a target. You, and others of the same belief presently hold the upper hand in the interpretation of those words. I give you that.

I don't agree you and the others of like mind are reading them as intended, and I believe that you actually agree since you allow the restrictions of the sales of arms like machine guns, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc., which all fall under the concept of the "right to bear arms" and the rest of the words you misuse to retain access to owning devices invented to kill humans, and used to kill a variety of life forms, and yes, to litter the earth's surface with shreds of paper when aimed at paper targets, and contaminate the environment with lead, the favored metal used for the particles being accelerated.

I believe eventually this insistence on unlimited access to guns and ammo will lead to the pendulum swinging the other direction. I am patient. When it does I hope the words in the Constitution are changed to either provide reasonable protection for those of us who don't care to own guns - meaning licensing owners and hardware, ammo, and requiring liability insurance at the time of sale, and, like automobiles in the states I have lived in, require the insurance to be maintained as long as the owner of the gun retains ownership - or the words are just stricken and manufacturing is regulated such that manufacturing devices designed to kill (that can also be used to pollute the environment for sport) carries all those liabilities as well as the owners as described.

By the way, the Charlotte murderer ain't driving anymore. And, perhaps because automobiles didn't exist when the Constitution was written no right to own them was envisioned. I am sure there are other words in the document about pursuit of happiness though, and if that means you get to walk, or ride a horse to pursue happiness back then, well, by extension it means you can drive today. But because it is recognized that cars are operated by humans, and there should be common sense rules for establishing safe conditions to pursue happiness on state roadways, you have to be licensed, and you have to pay for access to the roads you pursue happiness on with your car.

This is a waste of your time and mine - I don't think the Constitution mentions modern weapons, and no one in their right mind today would include those words given the effectiveness the devices have reached for killing other humans in their homes, neighborhoods, places of business and pursuit of happiness. It is an argument that is wearing on the American people and, perhaps not in my lifetime, it will become intolerable and the words will be changed. The sooner the better in my view. I get it. Not so much in your view. It is OK. The more unreasonable the argument you make the sooner the worm will turn.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
I am certain you feel you need a gun and are eternally grateful for the nonsense in the Constitution that is being interpreted as a basis for allowing you to buy any devices that use the release of chemical energy to accelerate metallic particles to life endangering speeds through a tubular barrel that can be aimed toward a target. You, and others of the same belief presently hold the upper hand in the interpretation of those words. I give you that.

I don't agree you and the others of like mind are reading them as intended, and I believe that you actually agree since you allow the restrictions of the sales of arms like machine guns, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc., which all fall under the concept of the "right to bear arms" and the rest of the words you misuse to retain access to owning devices invented to kill humans, and used to kill a variety of life forms, and yes, to litter the earth's surface with shreds of paper when aimed at paper targets, and contaminate the environment with lead, the favored metal used for the particles being accelerated.

I believe eventually this insistence on unlimited access to guns and ammo will lead to the pendulum swinging the other direction. I am patient. When it does I hope the words in the Constitution are changed to either provide reasonable protection for those of us who don't care to own guns - meaning licensing owners and hardware, ammo, and requiring liability insurance at the time of sale, and, like automobiles in the states I have lived in, require the insurance to be maintained as long as the owner of the gun retains ownership - or the words are just stricken and manufacturing is regulated such that manufacturing devices designed to kill (that can also be used to pollute the environment for sport) carries all those liabilities as well as the owners as described.

By the way, the Charlotte murderer ain't driving anymore. And, perhaps because automobiles didn't exist when the Constitution was written no right to own them was envisioned. I am sure there are other words in the document about pursuit of happiness though, and if that means you get to walk, or ride a horse to pursue happiness back then, well, by extension it means you can drive today. But because it is recognized that cars are operated by humans, and there should be common sense rules for establishing safe conditions to pursue happiness on state roadways, you have to be licensed, and you have to pay for access to the roads you pursue happiness on with your car.

This is a waste of your time and mine - I don't think the Constitution mentions modern weapons, and no one in their right mind today would include those words given the effectiveness the devices have reached for killing other humans in their homes, neighborhoods, places of business and pursuit of happiness. It is an argument that is wearing on the American people and, perhaps not in my lifetime, it will become intolerable and the words will be changed. The sooner the better in my view. I get it. Not so much in your view. It is OK. The more unreasonable the argument you make the sooner the worm will turn.

Jim
Fortunately, I'm not making unreasonable arguments. :) But I would suggest that you are. Here's why. You have yet to address the racist roots of gun control. You have yet to address Black people defending themselves from White supremacist assailants bearing baseball bats and knives and such. And you have yet to address the Black people in Dallas defending their mosque from more White supremacists. Finally, you have yet to address the notion of Us, The People having essentially what government troops (including police departments) have, to keep "The Watchers" honest. Wanna actually convince Liberals like me--I don't mean specifically me, I mean those who think like I do--that your way is the right way and vote accordingly come election time? Then you've got to actually address those aforementioned concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,949 Posts
Fortunately, I'm not making unreasonable arguments. :) But I would suggest that you are. Here's why. You have yet to address the racist roots of gun control. You have yet to address Black people defending themselves from White supremacist assailants bearing baseball bats and knives and such. And you have yet to address the Black people in Dallas defending their mosque from more White supremacists. Finally, you have yet to address the notion of Us, The People having essentially what government troops (including police departments) have, to keep "The Watchers" honest. Wanna actually convince Liberals like me--I don't mean specifically me, I mean those who think like I do--that your way is the right way and vote accordingly come election time? Then you've got to actually address those aforementioned concerns.
I don't have to do anything. I am not seeking to convince you as our disagreement is pretty fundamental. I find your brand of liberalism at least as unappealing as you find mine. It is OK. At some point the public's perspective will change and following that the law will change.

I oppose the routine arming of police with weapons from the battlefield. But I don't think you get there from a place where everyone has battlefield weapons first.

I disagree that the intent of gun control is racially motivated. It may have been in the past. But arming black people with battlefield hardware is not going to bring any change to improve race relations or the relations between "the man" and the local population.

Cops are there to look out for the rich people's property. Fire departments are there to protect rich people's property. Stores are places where rich people trade goods for your money to get richer. Get rich and your chances improve that you too will be protected, even if it is inadvertent.

The country is a mess. Guns are part of what is causing the mess, not a solution.

But you are entitled to your opinion. It is still somewhat a free country, even if much smaller and far less noble than we were just three years ago.

Jim


Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,102 Posts
Cops are there to look out for the rich people's property. Fire departments are there to protect rich people's property. Stores are places where rich people trade goods for your money to get richer.
Wow. You make George Carlin look like an extreme optimist. That's not a compliment.

Your view of America has been poisoned by someone or something and it's seriously compromised your objectivity and rationality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,224 Posts
That guns don’t commit crimes and any government efforts to reduce gun crimes should be directed at, and strictly enforced on, criminals, not specific firearm models or law-abiding citizens.
 
13861 - 13880 of 13915 Posts
Top