Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

On a happier note, I just realized that with 11 wins this year, Nick Saban will pass Steve Spurrier on the all-time wins list.

He will pass Bo Schembechlar and Woody Hayes the year after.

[hack]

Oh, I know, hack. I know. Facts often have no place in public policy.

For once I'm on the right side of that particular point of frustration. This isn't my debate, but I'm almost tempted to join just to enjoy being the reductionist for a change. On your side, you folks may want to make a deal before you have much less leverage. The hunting lobby is going to be in a tight spot if things actually move on this.

[AlabamAlum]

For once I'm on the right side of that particular point of frustration. This isn't my debate, but I'm almost tempted to join just to enjoy being the reductionist for a change. On your side, you folks may want to make a deal before you have much less leverage. The hunting lobby is going to be in a tight spot if things actually move on this.

I don't think much will change anytime soon. We may ban (or reclassify) the ridiculous bump stock or raise the purchase age to 21 or some other silliness. Nothing more.

[Kapture1]

For once I'm on the right side of that particular point of frustration. This isn't my debate, but I'm almost tempted to join just to enjoy being the reductionist for a change. On your side, you folks may want to make a deal before you have much less leverage. The hunting lobby is going to be in a tight spot if things actually move on this.

nope. We're not going to ban guns.



And it's not making a deal to come up with solutions that would stop this from occurring in schools, which can be done almost immediately.

[hack]

Agreed. YOU aren't going to. The kids will, once enough of them can vote. I think the most likely outcome is more pain for some more years, followed by an overly-restrictive reform process that, rather than finding the sweet spot, shits on the entire concept of gun ownership.

[AlabamAlum]

Agreed. YOU aren't going to. The kids will, once enough of them can vote. I think the most likely outcome is more pain for some more years, followed by an overly-restrictive reform process that, rather than finding the sweet spot, shits on the entire concept of gun ownership.

I don't think acquiescence is the answer, though. Once they see that the compromise didn't stop a motivated whacko at some future date, more concessions would be sought.

[Kapture1]

Agreed. YOU aren't going to. The kids will, once enough of them can vote. I think the most likely outcome is more pain for some more years, followed by an overly-restrictive reform process that, rather than finding the sweet spot, shits on the entire concept of gun ownership.

sorry, but kids from one of the bluest counties in the country are advocates of gun control? you don't say?

[Kapture1]

I don't think acquiescence is the answer, though. Once they see that the compromise didn't stop a motivated whacko at some future date, more concessions would be sought.

it's never far enough or good enough or just enough for those who seek control. Or if it were, and say all the AR15's were destroyed today, when the next school shooting happens with handguns and a backpack full of mags, and because the left didn't want to harden schools only ban guns, then the call for the ban of handguns will happen.

[hack]

I personally don't see the point of compromise on this issue, and so do many people. Especially the growing numbers of people who have lost a child, friend or family member. Furthermore, Americans, relative to other bodies politic, don't see the point of compromise in any context.

It will indeed be interesting to see what happens when, despite passing gun laws more restrictive than common sense would indicate, another school gets shot up. It's going to be awfully difficult to actually make guns as unavailable as they are in places that don't have this problem. Especially if the economy continues to be a winner-take-all proposition. The policy mix right now is a petri dish that breeds gun violence. It's going to take decades if not generations to fix that. My preference is to start with getting money out of politics. You cannot make good policy in a corrupt environment. It is the only logical starting point. But as a campaign-finance-first person, I'm just glad to see a debate in which people are clear about how money influences politics, and if a bad guns debate is an entry point to the thing I think is most important, that's better than nothing.

[THE_WIZARD_]

sorry, but kids from one of the bluest counties in the country are advocates of gun control? you don't say?

Shocking...isn't it?

[Kapture1]

I personally don't see the point of compromise on this issue, and so do many people. Especially the growing numbers of people who have lost a child, friend or family member. Furthermore, Americans, relative to other bodies politic, don't see the point of compromise in any context.

It will indeed be interesting to see what happens when, despite passing gun laws more restrictive than common sense would indicate, another school gets shot up. It's going to be awfully difficult to actually make guns as unavailable as they are in places that don't have this problem. Especially if the economy continues to be a winner-take-all proposition. The policy mix right now is a petri dish that breeds gun violence. It's going to take decades if not generations to fix that. My preference is to start with getting money out of politics. You cannot make good policy in a corrupt environment. It is the only logical starting point. But as a campaign-finance-first person, I'm just glad to see a debate in which people are clear about how money influences politics, and if a bad guns debate is an entry point to the thing I think is most important, that's better than nothing.

Well, it is a certainty if we choose not to harden schools. Again, all the AR15's in the world could disappear overnight and there is a 100% guarantee there will be another school shooting, but one like VA Tech and handguns.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.........But as a campaign-finance-first person, I'm just glad to see a debate in which people are clear about how money influences politics, and if a bad guns debate is an entry point to the thing I think is most important, that's better than nothing.

Interesting take. After listening to credible comments from both sides of the gun control debate here and among friends in Fort Lauderdale who are openly discussing it, I'm understanding the gun control debate more fully.

I actually think that when pressed unrestrained 2nd Amendment enthusiasts have reasonable solutions to the gun violence problem, at least in the schools.

Kapture is correct in offering as viable immediate steps hardening schools and of course gun control advocates we'll emotionally respond we don't want out children in prisons. We'll if you don't want them to get shot then you damn well better consider this approach .... for now.

He's also correct in tightening background checks, figuring out better ways to deal with the mentally ill who might gain access to a firearm and fixing the FBI .... and I assume he means broadening investigative and arrest authority of both the FBI and local police when a credible threat of a shooting taking place is received by law enforcement.

I'd support a process that, as talent suggests, nibbles around the edges of the 2nd as challenges to the application of the 1st did.

I also agree that left to the State's, gun control legislation is very likely to be over-restrictive with an increasing threat of the loss of civil liberties.

Unfortunately, the current debate remains emotionally charged with little attention to some of the details we've been discussing here. So, I get the concerns of those opposed, in general, to gun control.

[Ghengis Jon]

I don't see anything changing anytime soon. As I understand it, the original framers penned the "right to keep and bear arms" for 2 primary purposes. First, was that a well regulated militia can be rapidly called up in case of crisis against enemies foreign and domestic. The requirement for a professional, self sustaining, fully equipped standing army was not deemed as an absolute necessity (unlike the Navy). Militias aren't needed anymore (the National Guard theoretically fills that role). Secondly, it was a reaction to arms confiscation by the British. Much like the clause that prevents the quartering of troops.

Unless the SCOTUS deems severe restrictions to be Constitutional, nothing will stick for long until its appealed. The only alternative would be to change the 2nd Amendment. Good luck on that. That's one issue, I think, that could trigger some serious civil unrest. This restricts the options available.

So American citizens have an entrenched right to something to provide for, and protections against, situations that no longer exist. The amendment was not written with any sunset clause, or allowances for restrictions. Just as clearly, it does not prevent restrictions. So long as the populace agrees with the restrictions, and these restrictions are validated by the judicial branch, they can be instituted. Restrictions on fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers are a good example.

What do I think? Wow, this is hard. I take a pretty strong stance that one should never give up any freedom for a little security. I don't like our freedoms eroded for political correctness. The so-called Patriot Act is an exampled abomination that I'm surprised has seen only limited opposition. The whittling away of our freedoms and the freedom not to be surveilled is proof that the terrorists are slowly destroying our way of life. But that's a different discussion.

Move the purchase age to 21. If you're too dangerous to buy beer at 20, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy high powered weaponry at the same age.

Expand the waiting period. If you're at a gun store and need a gun RIGHT NOW, you probably shouldn't have one. Put it at 30 days. The whack cases that slip through the cracks will probably brag (or threaten) that only x days till I get my Kill-O-Matic. Perhaps someone will alert authorities like the granny who prevented a slaughter earlier this month. Today's generation is the social media generation where their whole lives are put on internet display. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc are fertile ground for identifying drooling idiots and potential maniacs. Monitoring that shit is not the job of gov't. Responsible citizens (a rare commodity) should, be well, responsible.

Ban the manufacture and importation of the assault style weapon (you define). There are an estimated 8 million assault style weapons in the US right now. Confiscation or even registration is an unworkable option. We've got enough to go around now. Private or second hand sales can take the demand.

Institute a buyback program. Gun stores are tied to federal databases for background checks. Why not one for model of weapon and price gained? The feds would pay, no questions asked, 25% more than market value. You take out of circulation weapons willingly given up. Repeal the taxcut for the top rate to pay for this.

Mental health is a thorny issue, particularly with HIPA and privacy laws. Forcible commitments are easily logged, but other mental defects stay within the medical community. Perhaps to gain treatment for designated disorders would require a signed release of select information to a firearm vetting database.

Perception of gov't has to change (cynicism aside). There are many people that believe that it's only a heavily armed citizenry that prevents the gov't from instituting a dictatorship if given the chance. Gov't has to be more transparent, less intrusive, and just generally smaller to gain some measure of trust. Without trust, no gov't program will work, much less achieve its stated goal.

In all of the gun conversations, ammo is rarely discussed. A co-worker, a no-guns-like-Australia type, points out that the US has 250 years worth of firearms in circulation yet only 3 years worth of ammo. Path of least resistance?


I'm anxious to see what options are put forth by our illustrious elected officials. Putin's cock holster wants to ban bump stocks. Whoop-dee-do. Feeding a starving dog a rubber bone. Bump-fires and bump-stocks have been around for decades. We've seen one crime committed by the device in 40 years. Banning them is simply a feel good measure. Since Chump announced his direction to Sessions, demand has skyrocketed for the devices to get them before they become unobtainable.

I've used a bump stock. I would never buy one. One, you sacrifice accuracy for speed. Secondly, bump stocks make it easy to shoot out a barrel. I own high end firearms and would never treat mine in that manner. I don't want to replace a $1200 H-Bar competition barrel so I can say I shot faster than I can pull the trigger. Besides, have your trigger pull worked down to 3-4 pound range and you can shoot at a rate of a couple hundred rounds per minute anyway.

[Kapture1]

I don't think the standard is "if the majority of the populous agrees with the restriction" in terms of legislating away rights. In fact that is why our government was set up as a republic and not a pure democracy.

sounds like you are for a ban without being for a ban. by banning the import and manufacturing, and a government buyback program (assuming not a mandatory buyback program) dries up the supply, and a over burdensome tax on ammo would most likely be ruled as an overly burdensome barrier.

I would imagine you might also like the idea of holding the manufacture and gun stores liable for misuse of the product, not to give you any ideas.

Anyways I paid a lot of money for my sold forged barrels and there is no way in hell I would run simulated full auto. it's a gimmick. Ammo is also too expensive.

I also don't like waiting periods. If a woman is getting stalked as an example, I am in favor of her being able to own a gun as quickly as possible.

[The Oracle]

Guys. GUYS!!!!! We have it all under control here. Have no fear.

[ame]https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/966738975221256192[/ame]