Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a couple of issues with this statement.  One, no other country has the right to own a firearm embedded in their Constitution as a right.  Two, we're way past the point where a comparison to any country can be made regarding firearms ownership.  

I'll agree with both. Although, the first doesn't matter as much. We've tweaked and tuned the Constitution; just because other countries put less stock in the ability to arm doesn't diminish their ability to minimize the impact of firearm ownership.


[quote pid='698472' dateline='1553802284']
There are anywhere from 350-450 million firearms in private hands in this country.  Licensing won't change that as you have to admit you own one before you're even made to get a license.  Alternatively, you apply for said license and don't get it but you already own several firearms.  What happens then?  Confiscation, and not confiscation because you broke the law, confiscation because you couldn't acquire a license. Additionally, who gets to determine the licensing requirement?  Is it a Federal decisions or state by state?  I think you know why that's a huge sticking point.  Even if it is Federal, who gets to write it?  Fred's friends at The Trace or Michael Bloomberg?

[/quote]
I got a flat tire on the way to work. I didn't change it because of the likelihood that the spare, too, would go flat. Instead I just ground it down to the rim and was amazed my situation didn't improve.
Come on, there's some wiggle room there. Grandfather in current owners, have standards for future owners, etc. Jumping to the "they're going to confiscate your stuff!!!" option doesn't help trying to reduce the problem in the future. Licensing and training is a basic step forward... but somebody has to take that step.
As far as who determines, that's a valid concern. 

Quote:Here's an undeniable set of facts.  Violent crime has been declining almost without fail since the early 90's.  In that same time period the number of firearms of all types in private hands has exploded.  The vast majority of firearms related offenses are committed by individuals already involved with the criminal justice system.  Beaker's suggestion therefore makes the most sense, if you want to reduce gun related crime increase the punishment for being involved in it.  I

I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised here. I respect your opinion in terms of law enforcement a lot more than most, but there's not much credible evidence that long sentences deter crime. Any crime. 
If you're going to rob a bank with a firearm or without a firearm, the 20 years for having it firearm enhanced probably matters little to nothing when you're already facing decades behind bars if you get caught. If you're going to murder someone, doing life plus 20 years for using a firearm probably isn't any more of a deterrent than doing life for killing them with a bat.
Firearm enhancements and lengthy sentences for violent crimes are already in the books. 

Quote:t is also a fact that the majority of any type of crime is committed by a small fraction of the criminal population, hence the three strikes law.  Hard core recidivists being removed from the streets, permanently, almost certainly has contributed to our declining crime rate.


I'll close with this.  You're never going to get any kind of consensus for a plan like this because, while you have good intentions, many, if not most, people on the anti-gun side will merely see this as the next step to removing guns from the hands of private citizens.  People like Fred scoff at this, but real world events have shown this to be the case.  California already has confiscation laws on the books.  Look how many politicians have applauded New Zealand's knee jerk banning of a huge category of firearms, lamenting the fact they can't enact such blatantly unconstitutional laws here with such alacrity.  As Bel and I have discussed, look for the SCOTUS to enact the concept of "strict scrutiny" on gun laws as a result of the NYC law before them and this all becomes a moot point anyways.

For good and ill the second amendment exists until it is removed by a further amendment in the already established process.  Until that happens gun owners shouldn't give gun control advocates much, if anything, because, 1. they don't have to and 2. they'll never stop there anyways.

My concern is that if something logcial isn't done, the next step is confiscation.
We don't want to teach gun safety and we don't want to restrict bad elements from obtaining guns. We don't want to limit gun owners because it might impede their rights. So we're drawing the line between gun owners who don't want to budge an inch with those who disdain firearms for the perceived inherent violence.