People don't get killed by money stolen from banks

People don't get killed by money stolen from banks

 

That's wasn't the question.

That's wasn't the question.

I know, I was pointing out that it's an irrelevant question to what claufield and BS were saying. BS said we should hold gun dealers accountable for weapons that get stolen from them because those weapons can be used to kill people, not because someone may get killed in a gun store robbery.

 

edit: The equivalent scenario might be holding the bank managers personally liable for the missing funds?

 

edit2: I don't know if I even agree with BS's idea of holding the gun dealers personally criminally responsible, but it's still not analogous to people killed in the process of a robbery.

Edited December 21, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

That's wasn't the question.

It was an irrelevant question.

Whatever legislation eventually gets proposed, it needs to do something to address this:

 

Print your own gun!

 

 

Whatever legislation eventually gets proposed, it needs to do something to address this:

 

Print your own gun!

 

Now all of those lame alcohol prohibition comparisons can actually mean something now that people could create their own stuff at home.

I'm not convinced that Heller prevents meaningful regulation.

 

It doesn't, but I would be shocked if a ban on X type of gun would be constitutional. Limiting magazine sizes maybe. But something like banning handguns or banning assault weapons won't happen given the standard those laws have to abide by.

Stricter regulations on gun dealers. They have virtually nothing to lose when they screw up. A slap on the wrist is typical when guns all of a sudden are missing from their inventory.

 

So if you're a victim of a crime you have the burden of showing that you're actually a victim?

Nope. Stricter regulation is not necessary.

I'm such a naive human when it comes to guns. The fact that a gun like that (or any gun) could just be sitting around waiting to get snagged - I just don't see how it's possible. Then I think of gun shows.

Now all of those lame alcohol prohibition comparisons can actually mean something now that people could create their own stuff at home.

 

Thankfully we don't have any issues with trafficking in this country where things like drugs and illegals can easily get into the country...

I'm such a naive human when it comes to guns. The fact that a gun like that (or any gun) could just be sitting around waiting to get snagged - I just don't see how it's possible. Then I think of gun shows.

It would be really nice if we were allowed to do things like track where guns used in crimes came from to see if there was a trend with them being purchased (or disappearing) from specific stores.

 

Unfortunately, that is another thing that Congress has declared, in their infinite wisdom, we're better off not knowing, and thus prohibited the FBI from keeping those statistics.

Thankfully we don't have any issues with trafficking in this country where things like drugs and illegals can easily get into the country...

So, based on the standard with guns, we need to give up on immigration enforcement and just declare that the borders are open to anyone who wants to come in.

Thankfully we don't have any issues with trafficking in this country where things like drugs and illegals can easily get into the country...

The problem with gun smuggling is generally out of the US, not into it.

The problem with gun smuggling is generally out of the US, not into it.

 

And if we banned them here, you would change that completely.

So, based on the standard with guns, we need to give up on immigration enforcement and just declare that the borders are open to anyone who wants to come in.

 

That is the left wings policy on immigration and drugs right now.

That is the left wings policy on immigration and drugs right now.

Marijuana, maybe true.

 

Immigration, hardly, but then again we don't expect you to pay attention to reality. There are people out there who responded to last Friday by saying this changes nothing and our goal is still to remove all legal restrictions to gun ownership (paraphrased from the head of a group in TN). There's virtually no one out there who wants to remove all restrictions to immigration other than in the fantasy caricature that a right-wing mind constructs of his opponent.

That is the left wings policy on immigration and drugs right now.

 

Liberals are arguing for an open-borders and zero-drug-restrictions policy? Libertarians and leftist anarchists, maybe, but not your run-of-the-mill liberals and Democrats.

And if we banned them here, you would change that completely.

 

Where would Mexico's supply come from? Right now it comes from the US, because guns are largely illegal in that country.

Liberals are arguing for an open-borders and zero-drug-restrictions policy? Libertarians and leftist anarchists, maybe, but not your run-of-the-mill liberals and Democrats.

 

Sorta like how 90% of republicans are fine with gun restrictions, it's only that small minority that want no restrictions

Sorta like how 90% of republicans are fine with gun restrictions, it's only that small minority that want no restrictions

Except for the fact that the small minority is the group making every policy in this country.

 

It'd be like finding some guy who legitimately wants Mexico to reconquer the SouthWest U.S., and having that guy decide immigration policy.

Except for the fact that the small minority is the group making every policy in this country.

 

It'd be like finding some guy who legitimately wants Mexico to reconquer the SouthWest U.S., and having that guy decide immigration policy.

 

Yep, because currently on the books there are no restrictions on guns. None, whatsoever.

Yep, because currently on the books there are no restrictions on guns. None, whatsoever.

Outside of the 1930 era prohibition on buying fully automatic weapons, seriously, what's left that hasn't been dismantled?

 

Every state now has been forced to allow concealed carry. Military grade assault rifles are readily available for whatever type of massacre you'd like to commit. You have to get a permit in most places to carry a hidden gun on the street or into a business, and for some reason the government doesn't want you bringing guns into their buildings even though every other building has to put up with it. For crying out loud, we have more than a couple states now that allow them in schools and campuses, over the objection of basically everyone there. There hasn't been any new restriction on them since the AWB. The only 2 laws the President signed related to guns in his first term were bills allowing guns into National Parks (nuts) and onto Amtrak Trains (nuts).

 

Aside from me being able to go out and purchase an M-60 and walk into the supreme court chambers with it, what's left?

It doesn't, but I would be shocked if a ban on X type of gun would be constitutional. Limiting magazine sizes maybe. But something like banning handguns or banning assault weapons won't happen given the standard those laws have to abide by.

 

Yeah, definitely seems like something that needs clarification from the court. We'll probably have an answer in the next 2 years.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."