So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[KBecks]

I'm realistic about the chances of meaningful action against guns from our Federal government.

But it doesn't seem like Democrats are able to win on this issue. When it comes up, they look unhinged and a bunch of far right voters show up and elect the other guy.

We have gun laws.  Those 100 bullet holders -- aren't those illegal already?  Perhaps this is a Texas thing that needs to be looked at.

The question isn't whether we have gun laws, it's whether those gun laws are meaningful and effective at balancing public safety and individual rights.  Given the ease at which one can acquire firearms and the lack of accountability for those weapons, I would argue we have not achieved that balance.  Comparing the US to other developed nations, as well as to available research seems to strengthen this case.

There may be some room for this, but not extreme change.  I think that responsible gun owners do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with them.  But it is about finding the balance, for sure.  As long as the focus is on curbing the senseless violence and not an attack on responsible ownership.

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

[dang1]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-asks-what-to-do-about-migrants-crossing-border-rallygoer-suggests-shoot-them?fbclid=IwAR1djDh3-eKKg9o-UHcXBZfyqgl2fS_-d4YvO_--m1rceXzY0oBBpEWK0CQ

Trump said of federal border security officials tasked with apprehending immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico. “Other countries do, but we can’t. I would never do that. But, how do you stop these people?”

“Shoot them,” a rally attendee shouted.

Trump paused and smiled as the crowd cheered and laughed. “That’s only in the Panhandle you can get away with that statement,” Trump then said while shaking his head. “Only in the Panhandle.”

[LennStar]

And to the bolded, why not? He's given significant concessions to North Korea in exchange for...?

Some extremely good PR for Kim, and a bit good PR foor himself in his voter group who don't follow up until the results.

I think that responsible gun owners do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with them.

I think that responsible drug users do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with drugs.

Of course guns kill mostly other people, while drugs kill mostly yourself, so that may be the deciding factor to forbid drugs and allow guns.

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

So I guess that wasn't in a state where you can legally shot someone that trespasses on your property if you feel threatened?

[partgypsy]

I thinks it's weird that Republicans say that the El Paso shooter was mentally ill, deranged, etc, we can't be responsible for what "crazy" people do, but in his manifesto he repeats (sometimes word for word) Trump and other Republican talking points. I mean, which one is it? Is he crazy? If so then I guess you can say Trump and fox news speakers are also mentally ill?

Politicians use the word "mentally ill" as a scapegoat, when this is clearly a hate crime. And you know what? Hate speech works. There was tons and tons of hate speech in Germany before a single Jewish person was killed. A small percent will act on that hate speech. A much larger percent will be desentisized, silently agree and look the other way when "the Others" are hurt.  A study has found that hate crimes are up 220% wherever Trump held a rally.

[Midwest]

I'm realistic about the chances of meaningful action against guns from our Federal government.

But it doesn't seem like Democrats are able to win on this issue. When it comes up, they look unhinged and a bunch of far right voters show up and elect the other guy.

We have gun laws.  Those 100 bullet holders -- aren't those illegal already?  Perhaps this is a Texas thing that needs to be looked at.

The question isn't whether we have gun laws, it's whether those gun laws are meaningful and effective at balancing public safety and individual rights.  Given the ease at which one can acquire firearms and the lack of accountability for those weapons, I would argue we have not achieved that balance.  Comparing the US to other developed nations, as well as to available research seems to strengthen this case.

There may be some room for this, but not extreme change.  I think that responsible gun owners do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with them.  But it is about finding the balance, for sure.  As long as the focus is on curbing the senseless violence and not an attack on responsible ownership.

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

Why not look at youth records when doing the background check?   The shooter in Ohio had an interesting past as did the Parkland shooter and several others. 

No impact on responsible people.

[GuitarStv]

How many thousand troops has Trump brought back so far that you're giving him credit for?

As you know, there are two sides to the negotiation, and I don't expect Trump to give up something for nothing. So, we'll have to wait and see.  I give him some credit for trying to move things forward in the direction of peace.

I think this was more of a "I'll believe it when I see it" statement. Maybe it will go through, but if Trump ripped up the deal at the last minute it wouldn't exactly be out of character.

And to the bolded, why not? He's given significant concessions to North Korea in exchange for...?

Mostly to show his base that he really is a master negotiator.  After all, the crisis that he manufactured with North Korea was averted.  All he had to do was give up stuff to NK to achieve that.  Donald Trump has so far achieved little (if anything) of value through his 'negotiations', it's part of why he's a laughingstock among leaders around the world.

I wouldn't be surprised for Trump to pull troops out of Afghanistan in time for the next election.  I would be surprised if he did this without lasting negative impacts though.

[GuitarStv]

I'm realistic about the chances of meaningful action against guns from our Federal government.

But it doesn't seem like Democrats are able to win on this issue. When it comes up, they look unhinged and a bunch of far right voters show up and elect the other guy.

We have gun laws.  Those 100 bullet holders -- aren't those illegal already?  Perhaps this is a Texas thing that needs to be looked at.

The question isn't whether we have gun laws, it's whether those gun laws are meaningful and effective at balancing public safety and individual rights.  Given the ease at which one can acquire firearms and the lack of accountability for those weapons, I would argue we have not achieved that balance.  Comparing the US to other developed nations, as well as to available research seems to strengthen this case.

There may be some room for this, but not extreme change.  I think that responsible gun owners do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with them.  But it is about finding the balance, for sure.  As long as the focus is on curbing the senseless violence and not an attack on responsible ownership.

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

Why not look at youth records when doing the background check?   The shooter in Ohio had an interesting past as did the Parkland shooter and several others. 

No impact on responsible people.

Because a large number of Americans don't seem to want gun control of any kind, no matter how sensible.  It's better to bury regular shooting victims than possibly be slightly inconvenienced while buying or selling a firearm.  Bury your dead and enjoy your shopping.

[TrudgingAlong]

I’m tired of the myth of “responsible gun owner”. An awful lot of these shooters were “responsible” until the day they weren’t. The Vegas shooter is a pretty glaring example. I’ll vote for pretty much any gun law I can at this point, assuming I have the chance (was very happy to vote last year on a safe storage law). Really don’t care what it is.

[Midwest]

I'm realistic about the chances of meaningful action against guns from our Federal government.

But it doesn't seem like Democrats are able to win on this issue. When it comes up, they look unhinged and a bunch of far right voters show up and elect the other guy.

We have gun laws.  Those 100 bullet holders -- aren't those illegal already?  Perhaps this is a Texas thing that needs to be looked at.

The question isn't whether we have gun laws, it's whether those gun laws are meaningful and effective at balancing public safety and individual rights.  Given the ease at which one can acquire firearms and the lack of accountability for those weapons, I would argue we have not achieved that balance.  Comparing the US to other developed nations, as well as to available research seems to strengthen this case.

There may be some room for this, but not extreme change.  I think that responsible gun owners do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with them.  But it is about finding the balance, for sure.  As long as the focus is on curbing the senseless violence and not an attack on responsible ownership.

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

Why not look at youth records when doing the background check?   The shooter in Ohio had an interesting past as did the Parkland shooter and several others. 

No impact on responsible people.

Because a large number of Americans don't seem to want gun control of any kind, no matter how sensible.  It's better to bury regular shooting victims than possibly be slightly inconvenienced while buying or selling a firearm.  Bury your dead and enjoy your shopping.

We have all kinds of gun control/laws.  Unfortunately, the ones we have have been ineffective at stopping mass shooters.  Rather than passing another meaningless law, how about something that actually works.

If the objective is stopping mass shootings and many of shooters are young and troubled, looking at youth offenses would seem to be a step that might actually work. 

[TrudgingAlong]

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

So I guess that wasn't in a state where you can legally shot someone that trespasses on your property if you feel threatened?

Doubt it matters. Most of those laws don’t apply when it’s cops, no matter how outrageous the home invasion was. Totally legal to kill someone over a parking spot of you feel your life is in “danger”. 

[partgypsy]

I would be totally fine with these laws. How do gun owners feel about these laws? Are they totally unacceptable or are gun owners as a group, willing to concede something so that less blood is on the ground?  Of course no one wants more restrictions. But are gun owners willing to consider something comprehensive? If it is not at a nationwide level, the laws are pretty damn useless because the loopholes to get guns, a truck can be driven through them.   

1) Nationwide law that people go and pass a background check (criminal, mental) before being able to buy a gun. As part of that the FBI and state law enforcement need to create a useful database so this can be done. You don't want people who have say domestic violence orders active, as well as people with warrants, etc. 
2) That there is a record of gun owners and their guns. You can't really have 1) but then not have a way to show that a background check was done. 
3) outlaw semi-automatic rifles. I would even be OK keeping them legal, as long as were only used as a recreational weapon at a shooting range, and that they are stored there. That way it would be like someone wanting to drive a race car. You can have fun, go to the racetrack to drive it, but leave it there. No reason to bring it home with you.   

[MasterStache]

I’m tired of the myth of “responsible gun owner”. An awful lot of these shooters were “responsible” until the day they weren’t. The Vegas shooter is a pretty glaring example. I’ll vote for pretty much any gun law I can at this point, assuming I have the chance (was very happy to vote last year on a safe storage law). Really don’t care what it is.

Yeah everyone is a responsible gun owner. You know until they aren’t anymore.

[partgypsy]

I'm realistic about the chances of meaningful action against guns from our Federal government.

But it doesn't seem like Democrats are able to win on this issue. When it comes up, they look unhinged and a bunch of far right voters show up and elect the other guy.

We have gun laws.  Those 100 bullet holders -- aren't those illegal already?  Perhaps this is a Texas thing that needs to be looked at.

The question isn't whether we have gun laws, it's whether those gun laws are meaningful and effective at balancing public safety and individual rights.  Given the ease at which one can acquire firearms and the lack of accountability for those weapons, I would argue we have not achieved that balance.  Comparing the US to other developed nations, as well as to available research seems to strengthen this case.

There may be some room for this, but not extreme change.  I think that responsible gun owners do not want to surrender their rights, and at the same time, it's easy to see that some very stupid folks do horrible, stupid things with them.  But it is about finding the balance, for sure.  As long as the focus is on curbing the senseless violence and not an attack on responsible ownership.

In our state a stupid gun owner shot a police officer through a door.  That cop-killer was of course arrested and is now going through the justice system.  It doesn't bring back the fallen officer though.

Why not look at youth records when doing the background check?   The shooter in Ohio had an interesting past as did the Parkland shooter and several others. 

No impact on responsible people.

Because a large number of Americans don't seem to want gun control of any kind, no matter how sensible.  It's better to bury regular shooting victims than possibly be slightly inconvenienced while buying or selling a firearm.  Bury your dead and enjoy your shopping.

We have all kinds of gun control/laws.  Unfortunately, the ones we have have been ineffective at stopping mass shooters.  Rather than passing another meaningless law, how about something that actually works.

If the objective is stopping mass shootings and many of shooters are young and troubled, looking at youth offenses would seem to be a step that might actually work.

And, so you do have people with "youth offenses" or troubled or have posted hate speech. What is your next step? You can't arrest someone before they have done something. And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

[nereo]

We have all kinds of gun control/laws.  Unfortunately, the ones we have have been ineffective at stopping mass shooters.  Rather than passing another meaningless law, how about something that actually works.

If the objective is stopping mass shootings and many of shooters are young and troubled, looking at youth offenses would seem to be a step that might actually work.

Stopping mass shootings is one important goal.  Reducing gun violence overall is an even more important goal.  Roughly a thousand people have died in mass shootings in the last 50 years in the US.  For comparison, more than 30,000 people die every year from gun inflicted wounds (about 2/3rds of which are self-inflicted).  That means you are roughly 1,500x more likely to die from a gunshot wound that was not part of a mass shooting.

[Kris]

One American is responsible for the Dow dropping almost 1,000 points today. Thanks, Trump.

[nereo]

One American is responsible for the Dow dropping almost 1,000 points today. Thanks, Trump.

After spending 8 years criticizing the economy under Obama, I often feel like Trump is going out of his way to make sure he does no better

GOP:  We'll pass a massive tax cut to turbo-charge growth
Trump;  I'll start a trade war!
Fed: We'll lower interest rates to offset your trade war
Trump:  I'll make the trade war bigger!
Wall Street:  We need stability with foreign markets
Trump: I'll insult their leaders on Twitter!

[Midwest]

We have all kinds of gun control/laws.  Unfortunately, the ones we have have been ineffective at stopping mass shooters.  Rather than passing another meaningless law, how about something that actually works.

If the objective is stopping mass shootings and many of shooters are young and troubled, looking at youth offenses would seem to be a step that might actually work.

Stopping mass shootings is one important goal.  Reducing gun violence overall is an even more important goal.  Roughly a thousand people have died in mass shootings in the last 50 years in the US.  For comparison, more than 30,000 people die every year from gun inflicted wounds (about 2/3rds of which are self-inflicted).  That means you are roughly 1,500x more likely to die from a gunshot wound that was not part of a mass shooting.

I agree mass shootings make up a small but awful and very visible part of the pie.  I suspect my modest suggestion might actually work however versus some of the current suggestions (bans, confiscations, etc). 

[Dancin'Dog]

Mitch McConnell won't allow a vote on guns.  Putin wouldn't like it.

[Kris]

One American is responsible for the Dow dropping almost 1,000 points today. Thanks, Trump.

After spending 8 years criticizing the economy under Obama, I often feel like Trump is going out of his way to make sure he does no better

GOP:  We'll pass a massive tax cut to turbo-charge growth
Trump;  I'll start a trade war!
Fed: We'll lower interest rates to offset your trade war
Trump:  I'll make the trade war bigger!
Wall Street:  We need stability with foreign markets
Trump: I'll insult their leaders on Twitter!

Ha! Yeah, I said to my husband earlier that I feel like Trump is trying to disprove the common wisdom that presidents themselves don't really have much of an effect on the economy.

And hey, on that level, he's totally #winning!

[ketchup]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

[partgypsy]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

I don't mind if they are instituted/done at the state level, as long as law enforcement has them connected so they can all be searched. Yeah it's pretty amazing.

[GuitarStv]

We have all kinds of gun control/laws.  Unfortunately, the ones we have have been ineffective at stopping mass shooters.  Rather than passing another meaningless law, how about something that actually works.

If the objective is stopping mass shootings and many of shooters are young and troubled, looking at youth offenses would seem to be a step that might actually work.

Stopping mass shootings is one important goal.  Reducing gun violence overall is an even more important goal.  Roughly a thousand people have died in mass shootings in the last 50 years in the US.  For comparison, more than 30,000 people die every year from gun inflicted wounds (about 2/3rds of which are self-inflicted).  That means you are roughly 1,500x more likely to die from a gunshot wound that was not part of a mass shooting.

I agree mass shootings make up a small but awful and very visible part of the pie.  I suspect my modest suggestion might actually work however versus some of the current suggestions (bans, confiscations, etc).

Any suggestion (no matter how modest) that limits the ability of any individual to purchase a gun in any way is doomed to fail.

First will be the arguments that time/money /effort are better spent on <insert something that will not impact gun purchases>.  Then will be the discussion of how only law abiding gun owners will be harmed by your suggestion (regardless of the impact of the suggestion).  There will be comments that the US is unique in the world in that gun control cannot work because (insert random nonsensical reason).  Usually there will be comments about how the issue of a gun is completely different than any of the zillion things we accept regulation for greater safety on without blinking . . . cars, marriage, construction, running a bakery, etc.  Then it usually devolves into the 'but guns only help people and make the world safer' or similar - without guns the king of England will be all up in your face and rapists will visit your children every night while you cower in a puddle of your own urine.

In the end you will find that the majority of Americans are unwilling to even consider a change to anything regarding firearms.  They like the way things currently are (or are actively working to weaken and depower the token marginal regulations that do exist).

[JLee]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

I don't mind if they are instituted/done at the state level, as long as law enforcement has them connected so they can all be searched. Yeah it's pretty amazing.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

It's incredible how shitty the system is.

[partgypsy]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

I don't mind if they are instituted/done at the state level, as long as law enforcement has them connected so they can all be searched. Yeah it's pretty amazing.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

It's incredible how shitty the system is.

It's shitty on purpose

"Congress also put a rider barring the agency from “consolidation or centralization” of gun dealers’ records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011, then made the prohibition permanent, under law."
There is also a Federal ban on researching gun violence. Because ya know actually studying a problem is the first step in finding solutions for it and we wouldn't want that. Similar thing is now going on with climate change research.   

[RetiredAt63]

There have been threads on Off Topic before just about gun control in the US.   They all end up with one group suggesting various measures and the determined gun- owner group shooting them all down.  Before it gets going in this thread I suggest people go read them, they are eye-opening in a very sad way.

[bacchi]

One American is responsible for the Dow dropping almost 1,000 points today. Thanks, Trump.

After spending 8 years criticizing the economy under Obama, I often feel like Trump is going out of his way to make sure he does no better

GOP:  We'll pass a massive tax cut to turbo-charge growth
Trump;  I'll start a trade war!
Fed: We'll lower interest rates to offset your trade war
Trump:  I'll make the trade war bigger!
Wall Street:  We need stability with foreign markets
Trump: I'll insult their leaders on Twitter!

Ha! Yeah, I said to my husband earlier that I feel like Trump is trying to disprove the common wisdom that presidents themselves don't really have much of an effect on the economy.

And hey, on that level, he's totally #winning!

It definitely puts the Senate Republicans in a bind -- take back the power of tariffs from the President in order to save the economy and risk the Trump-tweet or keep cowering and risk 2020.

[Kris]

We have all kinds of gun control/laws.  Unfortunately, the ones we have have been ineffective at stopping mass shooters.  Rather than passing another meaningless law, how about something that actually works.

If the objective is stopping mass shootings and many of shooters are young and troubled, looking at youth offenses would seem to be a step that might actually work.

Stopping mass shootings is one important goal.  Reducing gun violence overall is an even more important goal.  Roughly a thousand people have died in mass shootings in the last 50 years in the US.  For comparison, more than 30,000 people die every year from gun inflicted wounds (about 2/3rds of which are self-inflicted).  That means you are roughly 1,500x more likely to die from a gunshot wound that was not part of a mass shooting.

I agree mass shootings make up a small but awful and very visible part of the pie.  I suspect my modest suggestion might actually work however versus some of the current suggestions (bans, confiscations, etc).

Any suggestion (no matter how modest) that limits the ability of any individual to purchase a gun in any way is doomed to fail.

First will be the arguments that time/money /effort are better spent on <insert something that will not impact gun purchases>.  Then will be the discussion of how only law abiding gun owners will be harmed by your suggestion (regardless of the impact of the suggestion).  There will be comments that the US is unique in the world in that gun control cannot work because (insert random nonsensical reason).  Usually there will be comments about how the issue of a gun is completely different than any of the zillion things we accept regulation for greater safety on without blinking . . . cars, marriage, construction, running a bakery, etc.  Then it usually devolves into the 'but guns only help people and make the world safer' or similar - without guns the king of England will be all up in your face and rapists will visit your children every night while you cower in a puddle of your own urine.

In the end you will find that the majority of Americans a vocal and militant minority of Americans and an incredibly powerful gun lobby are unwilling to even consider a change to anything regarding firearms.  They like the way things currently are (or are actively working to weaken and depower the token marginal regulations that do exist).

FTFY.

[nereo]

As a candidate, Trump promised to label China a 'Currency Manipulator' (a largely symbolic designation) on his first day in office.
Yesterday, he finally did it - on day 926* of his administration.

*It surprised me to learn we are on day 927 of the DJT administration.

[partgypsy]

There was a funny meme (which of course I can't find that went: "Trump: "I wrote Art of the Deal" China: "I wrote Art of War"

[ketchup]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

I don't mind if they are instituted/done at the state level, as long as law enforcement has them connected so they can all be searched. Yeah it's pretty amazing.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

It's incredible how shitty the system is.

It's shitty on purpose

"Congress also put a rider barring the agency from “consolidation or centralization” of gun dealers’ records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011, then made the prohibition permanent, under law."
There is also a Federal ban on researching gun violence. Because ya know actually studying a problem is the first step in finding solutions for it and we wouldn't want that. Similar thing is now going on with climate change research.

The NSA can record every phone call, text message, and email we send, but god forbid we let the government consolidate or centralize gun owner info.  Fuck.

And banning research, great.  It makes even less sense to ban research on gun violence than it does to ban it on climate change research (in terms of how blatant the problem is - obviously both should be researched the largest extent possible).  Let's just wildly propose ideas with no research to back them up.  I'm all for solutions but step one would be seeing which solutions work (apart from "common sense" regulation).

[talltexan]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

I don't mind if they are instituted/done at the state level, as long as law enforcement has them connected so they can all be searched. Yeah it's pretty amazing.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

It's incredible how shitty the system is.

It's shitty on purpose

"Congress also put a rider barring the agency from “consolidation or centralization” of gun dealers’ records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011, then made the prohibition permanent, under law."
There is also a Federal ban on researching gun violence. Because ya know actually studying a problem is the first step in finding solutions for it and we wouldn't want that. Similar thing is now going on with climate change research.

The NSA can record every phone call, text message, and email we send, but god forbid we let the government consolidate or centralize gun owner info.  Fuck.

And banning research, great.  It makes even less sense to ban research on gun violence than it does to ban it on climate change research (in terms of how blatant the problem is - obviously both should be researched the largest extent possible).  Let's just wildly propose ideas with no research to back them up.  I'm all for solutions but step one would be seeing which solutions work (apart from "common sense" regulation).

Pretty sure the type of surveillance you're describing requires a warrant from a judge, which means NSA must document probable cause.

[nereo]

I'm sick and tired of this argument that 'assault-style' rifles and high capacity magazines are somehow necessary for hunting (thereby making them 'useful tools' instead of killing machines).
If you need more than 3 bullets at a stretch to take down game you are bad hunter and a liability and have no business being armed in the woods. Ditto for very large caliber weapons (i.e. 50 caliber) - all that does is blow giant holes in perfectly good game meat.

IMO there's only two 'real' reasons people want these weapons
1) they're fun to shoot ("yeehaw!")
2) you are preparing for armed-combat/insurrection/zombie-apocolypse/preppers

It seems the vast majority who want these weapons are really doing it for reason #1, which seems a really stupid reason for allowing them - after all we ban all sorts of fun but dangerous things. I am sensitive to #2 (''...a well armed militia...") but most of htose folks have already gone off the deep-end and probably aren't the sort we want to have these sorts of weapons in the first place.

...let the flaming commence...

[arebelspy]

And we do not have a national gun law or registry to say, put someone on a "no gun" list.

This honestly still blows my mind.  As an ignorant non-gun-owner I just naively assumed this was a thing until I was like 22.  You need a government-issued license to drive a car or get married, and real estate transactions are public record.  Something like firearms somehow being "lesser" than those in terms of traceability is astounding.

I don't mind if they are instituted/done at the state level, as long as law enforcement has them connected so they can all be searched. Yeah it's pretty amazing.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

It's incredible how shitty the system is.

It's shitty on purpose

"Congress also put a rider barring the agency from “consolidation or centralization” of gun dealers’ records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011, then made the prohibition permanent, under law."
There is also a Federal ban on researching gun violence. Because ya know actually studying a problem is the first step in finding solutions for it and we wouldn't want that. Similar thing is now going on with climate change research.

The NSA can record every phone call, text message, and email we send, but god forbid we let the government consolidate or centralize gun owner info.  Fuck.

And banning research, great.  It makes even less sense to ban research on gun violence than it does to ban it on climate change research (in terms of how blatant the problem is - obviously both should be researched the largest extent possible).  Let's just wildly propose ideas with no research to back them up.  I'm all for solutions but step one would be seeing which solutions work (apart from "common sense" regulation).

Pretty sure the type of surveillance you're describing requires a warrant from a judge, which means NSA must document probable cause.

Guess you missed the whole Snowden thing.

[JLee]

I'm sick and tired of this argument that 'assault-style' rifles and high capacity magazines are somehow necessary for hunting (thereby making them 'useful tools' instead of killing machines).
If you need more than 3 bullets at a stretch to take down game you are bad hunter and a liability and have no business being armed in the woods. Ditto for very large caliber weapons (i.e. 50 caliber) - all that does is blow giant holes in perfectly good game meat.

IMO there's only two 'real' reasons people want these weapons
1) they're fun to shoot ("yeehaw!")
2) you are preparing for armed-combat/insurrection/zombie-apocolypse/preppers

It seems the vast majority who want these weapons are really doing it for reason #1, which seems a really stupid reason for allowing them - after all we ban all sorts of fun but dangerous things. I am sensitive to #2 (''...a well armed militia...") but most of htose folks have already gone off the deep-end and probably aren't the sort we want to have these sorts of weapons in the first place.

...let the flaming commence...

I have an AR15 and many high capacity magazines for reason #1.  I bought them many years ago and they're stored with a family member's collection because they're not legal where I currently live.

I will absolutely admit that it is unnecessary and if a ban were to be enacted I would completely understand.  Years ago my position was different, but today I consider it a moral imperative to change my perspective.

[GuitarStv]

Guess you missed the whole Snowden thing.

To be fair, most people did.  Obama's handling of Snowden was one of the biggest missteps of his presidency.  Snowden showed everyone that illegal data gathering was routine practice for the NSA and that they were lying about this practice to congress.  For that he became an exiled "traitor", and the US government performed a very successful misinformation campaign against him.

[Glenstache]

I'm sick and tired of this argument that 'assault-style' rifles and high capacity magazines are somehow necessary for hunting (thereby making them 'useful tools' instead of killing machines).
If you need more than 3 bullets at a stretch to take down game you are bad hunter and a liability and have no business being armed in the woods. Ditto for very large caliber weapons (i.e. 50 caliber) - all that does is blow giant holes in perfectly good game meat.

IMO there's only two 'real' reasons people want these weapons
1) they're fun to shoot ("yeehaw!")
2) you are preparing for armed-combat/insurrection/zombie-apocolypse/preppers

It seems the vast majority who want these weapons are really doing it for reason #1, which seems a really stupid reason for allowing them - after all we ban all sorts of fun but dangerous things. I am sensitive to #2 (''...a well armed militia...") but most of htose folks have already gone off the deep-end and probably aren't the sort we want to have these sorts of weapons in the first place.

...let the flaming commence...

I have an AR15 and many high capacity magazines for reason #1.  I bought them many years ago and they're stored with a family member's collection because they're not legal where I currently live.

I will absolutely admit that it is unnecessary and if a ban were to be enacted I would completely understand.  Years ago my position was different, but today I consider it a moral imperative to change my perspective.

Regardless of the topic, a willingness to change you mind speaks well of you. Out of curiosity, what was the path or stimulus to change your mind?

[nereo]

Guess you missed the whole Snowden thing.

To be fair, most people did.  Obama's handling of Snowden was one of the biggest missteps of his presidency.  Snowden showed everyone that illegal data gathering was routine practice for the NSA and that they were lying about this practice to congress.  For that he became an exiled "traitor", and the US government performed a very successful misinformation campaign against him.

Further, Snowden handled it in absolutely the best way possible.  Believing the US Government was systematically breaking multiple laws on surveillance of their own citizens, he documented and contacted the press, but took great pains to ensure that the information he released would not endanger individuals.  He did not attempt to enrich himself with this information nor did he try use it as a political cudgel, as Assange did.

His entire motivation can be summed up as: the US Government is breaking the law, it's morally wrong, and it needs to be disclosed to the public.

[arebelspy]

Yep. Snowden is a hero and a patriot and should be brought home and given a medal.

His very careful vetted disclosure through trusted journalists was absolutely the right way to disclose. He did a service to every citizen of this country.

The fact that he's in exile is shameful.

[JLee]

I'm sick and tired of this argument that 'assault-style' rifles and high capacity magazines are somehow necessary for hunting (thereby making them 'useful tools' instead of killing machines).
If you need more than 3 bullets at a stretch to take down game you are bad hunter and a liability and have no business being armed in the woods. Ditto for very large caliber weapons (i.e. 50 caliber) - all that does is blow giant holes in perfectly good game meat.

IMO there's only two 'real' reasons people want these weapons
1) they're fun to shoot ("yeehaw!")
2) you are preparing for armed-combat/insurrection/zombie-apocolypse/preppers

It seems the vast majority who want these weapons are really doing it for reason #1, which seems a really stupid reason for allowing them - after all we ban all sorts of fun but dangerous things. I am sensitive to #2 (''...a well armed militia...") but most of htose folks have already gone off the deep-end and probably aren't the sort we want to have these sorts of weapons in the first place.

...let the flaming commence...

I have an AR15 and many high capacity magazines for reason #1.  I bought them many years ago and they're stored with a family member's collection because they're not legal where I currently live.

I will absolutely admit that it is unnecessary and if a ban were to be enacted I would completely understand.  Years ago my position was different, but today I consider it a moral imperative to change my perspective.

Regardless of the topic, a willingness to change you mind speaks well of you. Out of curiosity, what was the path or stimulus to change your mind?

I don't think there was any specific catalyst -- much as how I eventually departed religion and right-wing politics in my 20's, my opinions and values have shifted to the other end of the spectrum over time, slow adjustment of logic sinking in, and more exposure to other countries.  Dating a Canadian did wonders for my world view and challenged my standing beliefs of how things should be done. Ultimately I've decided that the right of innocent people to not get shot outweighs my right to have fun at a shooting range, because clearly the general gun population and lobby is not willing to make any compromises to result in meaningful progress.

I am probably a fascinating character study for someone, having gone from extremely religious / conservative / no-sex-before-marriage upbringing through much of my 20's to atheist, liberal, and ethically non-monogamous today.

[ysette9]

I find that trip across the spectrum very interesting as well. I never got into the gun thing (I’ve been shooting exactly once) but I was raised in a fringe-ish right religion and made the trip across the political?/belief? spectrum as a teenager.

[eljefe-speaks]

+1

I grew up in a small town. The county went overwhelmingly for Trump. As my father ages, he is careening from the right to the extreme, frightening right. My mom is also into extreme right-wing politics now after having been mostly center up through her 60's. I think it is because my dad not only has it locked on Fox News 24/7, but he also routinely watches the un-vetted, extreme right-wing youtube channels. For the most part, this has driven a stake through our family and I do not care to speak with my parents regularly. They are incapable of not trolling the conversation.

I am a lefty. I think what did it for me was moving to the city and going to a large, urban college. Then I read A People's History of the United States and that really solidified it.

/foam

[Omy]

I registered as a Republican at age 18 knowing nothing about politics...just what I was exposed to as a kid in a moderately conservative household. College and friends in my 20s made me realize my beliefs were actually left of center. Fortunately, my family has moved to the left with me.

[talltexan]

I registered as a Republican when I turned 18 in the time when the Clinton WH scandals were fresh and stinky. If I only knew what lay ahead, I probably would have done something different.

But--frankly--I've found social benefits to being able to say I'm a Republican as I've moved throughout Ohio and North Carolina. The people at the DMV wouldn't do jack for me until I told them I wanted that GOP voter registration, then suddenly they're helping me with whatever I want...

[Omy]

I get scowls as a registered Democrat when I go to vote. One of the challenges of living in a red county in a blue state. Maybe I should change to independent...

[GuitarStv]

Why would you register one way or another?  I thought that your vote was supposed to be secret.

Here in Canada you just go to the booth, mark off the person you want to win, and head home.  Nobody knows who you're going to vote for unless you tell them.  You don't have to register who you'll vote for.  Everything is anonymous.

[LennStar]

Why would you register one way or another?  I thought that your vote was supposed to be secret.

Here in Canada you just go to the booth, mark off the person you want to win, and head home.  Nobody knows who you're going to vote for unless you tell them.  You don't have to register who you'll vote for.  Everything is anonymous.

That's so Socialism!!

Sorry, I just could not resist that opportunity... (since real "socialist" countries are known for either having just one list or a practically not secret voting and so on)

Yeah, that registering is one of those things I can never understand, how often I might try.

[Omy]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

[RetiredAt63]

Another Canadian. We only join a party if we really want to get involved in the nomination
process. I would guess the huge majority have not joined a political party. Of course the way a politician becomes Prime Minister is totally different than how one becomes President.

[nereo]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

It depends on the state, and whether that state has ‘open’ primaries or not. 

[accolay]

Why not look at youth records when doing the background check?   The shooter in Ohio had an interesting past as did the Parkland shooter and several others. 

No impact on responsible people.

Ahhh... because it's all a giant conspiracy by those communist socialist lefty liberals to take away all the guns, and by default, your freedom!

No fucking joke.