Gun control is coming

DIY-HP-LED said:

Here is the logical problem with those who love guns and support Trump. He wants to be a dictator with total arbitrary unchallenged power in the land of the free and home of the brave. If he were to succeed and obtain it, then he could do anything he wants, if he can step on your 1st amendment rights, he can eliminate your 2nd amendment rights, that's what the destruction of the US constitution means.

What happens if someone takes a shot at dictator Trump and maybe wings him? "Grab the guns" as he once said and the nightmare of the ATF and FBI collecting guns with robocop and robodog would become a reality pretty fast. Pathological means you harm yourself and others and anybody who is concerned about their 2nd amendment rights would be a fool to vote republican or Trump! So, I guess it comes down to a choice between your gun and your racism really.

Click to expand...

oh gawd not robodawg no please just no gawd no DAMMIT TAKEM call off cybermutt ow ow crunch ow

cannabineer said:

oh gawd not robodawg no please just no gawd no DAMMIT TAKEM call off cybermutt ow ow crunch ow

Click to expand...

Jus have'n a bit o fun with the good ole boys...

cannabineer said:

oh gawd not robodawg no please just no gawd no DAMMIT TAKEM call off cybermutt ow ow crunch ow

Click to expand...

Kinda imposing a Hobson's choice on them...

cannabineer said:

Big pharma is a beer fart compared to big fossil energy, big internet (look where Skum puts his money!) and and big money (insurers, investment banks etc.) Why you being so selective?

Also, would you consider a law barring public officeholders from investing in securities to be just or useful?

We have bigger problems. The Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society and the spectacularly misnamed Alliance Defending Freedom. These are the folks behind the appointment of small-government charlatans and wrecking-ball justices in the pockets of fascism-friendly billionaires.

Click to expand...

The reason I am discussing the criminal activity of big pharma is because the medications they sell are a massive contributing factor to gun violence and this is the subject of the thread.

Government officials can own shares in whatever they like. But a government official should not be allowed to vote on laws which affect the companies they have shares in. This creates a conflict of interest and may prevent the government official from performing his duty and acting in the best interest of the public.

Another bunch of fear driven suckers preyed upon by grifters who caused the murder of many for money and greed.
To buy a gun for self-defense they must first be afraid and have succumbed to it and then they are prey for grifters and others who would use them by using their fear against them, like a grifter uses a mark's greed against them to take their money, but fear works too.


Wayne LaPierre is alleged to have embezzled millions. It's changed the NRA forever | 7.30
A trial is underway in New York that could have significant political implications in the US.

The powerful National Rifle Association and its former longtime chief, Wayne LaPierre, are facing a civil lawsuit that alleges financial mismanagement and millions of dollars in fraud that funded lavish lifestyles for top executives.

As Norman Hermant reports, the case is a huge blow for the NRA and its status as a political powerhouse in Washington.

Kola_Kreator said:

The reason I am discussing the criminal activity of big pharma is because the medications they sell are a massive contributing factor to gun violence (?) and this is the subject of the thread.

Government officials can own shares in whatever they like. But a government official should not be allowed to vote on laws which affect the companies they have shares in. This creates a conflict of interest and may prevent the government official from performing his duty and acting in the best interest of the public.

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing here, just saying

DIY-HP-LED said:

What is unreasonable about sane gun control?

It is a legitimate public safety issue and the leading cause of death among children. Such laws are neither immoral or unethical and no different than licensing and insuring your car and obtaining a driver's license. That is the differece, the moral and ethical validity of the arguments.

Click to expand...

Guns don't shoot people. People do. Gun violence isn't as significant as people say, and when thinking about solutions to gun violence, passing laws doesn't work. We've got thousands of laws on the books already.

Here's one I like: Did you know that murder is illegal? That's right. Yet murders happen every day (and the majority of murders don't involve guns).

Here's an idea: Let's lump all the violence together, especially the really common ones (you know-that don't involve guns), and try to figure out why. Once we've done that, we can look at fixing it.

Number of murder victims in the United States in 2022, by weapon used

rasterman said:

Guns don't shoot people. People do. Gun violence isn't as significant as people say, and when thinking about solutions to gun violence, passing laws doesn't work. We've got thousands of laws on the books already.

Here's one I like: Did you know that murder is illegal? That's right. Yet murders happen every day (and the majority of murders don't involve guns).

Here's an idea: Let's lump all the violence together, especially the really common ones (you know-that don't involve guns), and try to figure out why. Once we've done that, we can look at fixing it.

Click to expand...

Maybe do a bit of research before you post absolute nonsense, wahahaha, ffs.

smh

rasterman said:

Guns don't shoot people. People do. Gun violence isn't as significant as people say, and when thinking about solutions to gun violence, passing laws doesn't work. We've got thousands of laws on the books already.

Here's one I like: Did you know that murder is illegal? That's right. Yet murders happen every day (and the majority of murders don't involve guns).

Here's an idea: Let's lump all the violence together, especially the really common ones (you know-that don't involve guns), and try to figure out why. Once we've done that, we can look at fixing it.

Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is based on a false premise.
For every life saved by a citizen using a gun, there are fifteen lost to violent or accidental shootings.
There are another fifteen firearm suicides.

The idea that “guns don’t kill people” is false on the face of it. A comparison of violent and accidental deaths in countries that restrict firearm (especially handgun) ownership illustrates this.

Total homicides, US is 3:1 EU.


Gun deaths US is 22:1 EU.


So the presence of guns kills people without question.

You cannot honestly disagree that this is a healthcare crisis, a permanent epidemic of violent, needless loss of life.

Put in terms conservatives can understand, I would like to have the freedom to feel 20x safer living in my nation. What is needed is a removal of false barriers kept in place by e.g. the NRA’s selective political contributions and the obligations they create in legislators who should represent the people and not the money.

rasterman said:

Guns don't shoot people. People do. Gun violence isn't as significant as people say, and when thinking about solutions to gun violence, passing laws doesn't work. We've got thousands of laws on the books already.

Here's one I like: Did you know that murder is illegal? That's right. Yet murders happen every day (and the majority of murders don't involve guns).

Here's an idea: Let's lump all the violence together, especially the really common ones (you know-that don't involve guns), and try to figure out why. Once we've done that, we can look at fixing it.

Click to expand...

Free people agree to reasonable laws and moral and ethical arguments will win over time in a liberal democracy, look around the world at other countries. Canada is just as free as America and almost 40% of people own guns, but they are long guns, not pistols and not assault rifles (we have a definition). We have regulations and a ban on handguns now and most handgun murders happen with smuggled American handguns, We also have the same demographics and share a common culture with America in many aspects, we watch the same TV, more or less.

Polling in America is clear on the issue of guns and the feds can tax them annually and require registration for taxation purposes. They can regulate automatic weapons and artillery now and back in the Founder's Day private citizens could own grenades, rockets and cannon too, even swords were considered arms, and the constitution says arms, not guns. They can tax semiautomatic weapons out of existence with an annual tax and the SCOTUS would be powerless. So, the smart move is to regulate a bit now and avoid a worse fate later.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Here is the logical problem with those who love guns and support Trump. He wants to be a dictator with total arbitrary unchallenged power in the land of the free and home of the brave. If he were to succeed and obtain it, then he could do anything he wants, if he can step on your 1st amendment rights, he can eliminate your 2nd amendment rights, that's what the destruction of the US constitution means.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the only thing true in that paragraph is the man's name. In case you haven't really been paying attention, all of this things would be true if you replaced the name "Trump" with any one of a hundred prominent Democrats.

DIY-HP-LED said:

What happens if someone takes a shot at dictator Trump and maybe wings him?

Click to expand...

That question contains a false premise. Trump is not the dictator wannabe in this country. He's already proven it.

rasterman said:

Trump is not the dictator wannabe in this country. He's already proven it.

Click to expand...

Let's wait for the call of the courts on immunity, disqualification and criminal conviction. Looks like he is gonna get taken to the clears tomorrow in NY by Jean Carol. Then there is that NY tax case he lost and they are still running the adding machine for that settlement while his properties are under the control of a babysitter.

I'm sure Donald will appreciate your loyalty to the cause. What cause is that again?

rasterman said:

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the only thing true in that paragraph is the man's name. In case you haven't really been paying attention, all of this things would be true if you replaced the name "Trump" with any one of a hundred prominent Democrats.



That question contains a false premise. Trump is not the dictator wannabe in this country. He's already proven it.

Click to expand...

to the bolded, confirming link?

Hawaii top court upholds gun laws, criticizes US Supreme Court

rasterman said:

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but the only thing true in that paragraph is the man's name. In case you haven't really been paying attention, all of this things would be true if you replaced the name "Trump" with any one of a hundred prominent Democrats.



That question contains a false premise. Trump is not the dictator wannabe in this country. He's already proven it.

Click to expand...

Conducting an inept and failed conspiracy to overthrow an election that he lost fair and square is not proof that he didn't want to be dictator.

Gun Control is Coming to Oregon:
per Wikipedia:
On July 14, 2023, federal judge Karin Immergut upheld Measure 114 under the federal constitution, saying that "banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety."[11] However, on November 21, 2023, Judge Robert Raschio of the Oregon Circuit Court granted a permanent injunction based on a finding that the law was facially unconstitutional under Oregon's state constitution.[12]

One down, Measure 114 is compatible with the US Constitution. That decision is under appeal.
One to go: Measure 114 has been declared unconstitutional under the State of Oregon's Constitution. An appeal of that verdict is in progress:

The Oregon court of appeals has taken testimony and their ruling is pending. If they agree with Raschio, the measure is dead. If they throw out Raschio's ruling then the measure goes to the Oregon State Supreme Court. An appeal after that would take the measure eventually to the US Supreme Court.

It's a reasonable law and does not deprive anyone who could legally own a gun under the existing laws from owning a gun for self defense or other legal uses. But, some people think that people with no training should be able to buy guns with high capacity magazines at gun shows without a background check, the NRA does. This is all about saving lives but some people don't care about that.

There is nothing unconstitutional about this measure. It's based upon measures in other states that have passed that test. It will eventually be ratified. The only important question that remains is how many kids must die before this measure can finally be enacted to stop some of this madness?

Really, this time at the Super Bowl Parade......WTF......


At least 1 person dead and 14 injured in shooting following Chiefs celebration rally, fire department says