3 ms·

Great response, thank you. To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist

Great response, thank you. To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist gun rights. I’m keen to consider extrajudicial murder, extrajudicial armed robbery by police, the separation of church and state, or the Supreme courts usurpation by the federalist society - before I think it’s worth discussing the loosening of gun rights in this country that has more gun involved MCEs (military conflicts excluded) than every other country combined. As I’ve strayed a bit from the topic I’ll bring my point back by saying; sure there’s issues worth complaining about in almost every us regulatory process, but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender.

schoen 4y ago
I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works. I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning it, despite having been very clear on their goal. If they'd simply said that people shouldn't have this, full stop, right away, well, I imagine the D.C. Circuit would have been even more upset with them than it actually was. :-) I'm glad you found my reply helpful.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs. If your interest in regulatory hell take a look at the fdas campaign against vaping. Then compare it to the nhs to see what a semi functional system can accomplish.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    > we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence With it already being illegal for certain criminals to own firearms, what regulation short of a total ban would help? This is where the "add more laws" logic fails. The thinking is that adding more laws will keep criminals hands off of guns. Criminals by definition ignore laws. Guns can be made via a 3d printer now. Ammunition used to be made (reloaded) by campfires. It's impossible in these days to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. If you have a CNC machine you can make your own AR-15. Instead the solution is quite the opposite. More guns. You don't have to carry one yourself, just don't stop the rest of us. And by law if someone is carrying a concealed weapon near you and your life is in danger, they must protect it. We end up with peer to peer police. Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon. As far as school shootings, that solution is quite easy and technical. AI powered cameras in classrooms and hallways that alert if someone not in faculty or the student body steps on the grounds. Alert for gun shaped objects. Ballistic class on the interior and exterior windows with doors that partition the hallway when closed and locked to block in any assailants. The guns rights group has many solutions to the problems, but the gun control group doesn't want them. Gun control groups have created a situation where it's easier for criminals to get guns and use them than it is for law abiding citizens.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      I agree with everything except for: > Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon. This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        > This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights. There is a difference in practicing one's rights and endangering others. We require the same of our police officers. While I'm a fan of constitutional carry, I have no problem taking 8 hours of classroom courses and qualifying with my carry pistols.
tekknik 4y ago
> but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender What other enumerated rights shall we remove under the guise of saving lives? Should we remove access to vehicles? Alcohol? Shall we enact a speech control board that if you violate it you lose your enumerated rights? This would open the door for the same abuse gun owners receive for exercising their right. You're right, I'm a gun rights absolutist. I will not settle for the removal of this right nor the government making it difficult to exercise. They don't do this with any other right why this one? Can other rights not be just as dangerous? (See Democrats stating they needed to misinformation due to the damage caused to democracy).
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  The entire argument used by belligerent guns right absolutists (belligerency follows absolutist views like butter on bread) is based on a maliciously broad understanding of the second amendment. Note that no one talks about militias, just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period. But no, it’s too hard to buy a gun./s have you tried the dark web, other Americans have figured out how to carry straw purchases en masse. https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-gun-second-amendment-bruen/ https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-gun-second...
  - tekknik 4y ago
    > Note that no one talks about militias Wait a second, who doesn’t? In fact on this board they have been discussed more than a few time, including by myself. > just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period. This is a biased rant again. None of what you said sounds dangerous to me. The problem is now with what law abiding citizens buy and own, they will never use the “dozens of long guns” kill innocent people. Why are you conflating criminals and law abiding citizens? Can you also tell me, using your example, why any waiting period past the first one does anything? If someone already owns a gun, why are they being subjected to yet another waiting period? The entire point of a waiting period was to cool off and not do something stupid with your new purchase. But if the person already has a gun on hand then what is the point of it?

schoen 4y ago

I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works. I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning it, despite having been very clear on their goal. If they'd simply said that people shouldn't have this, full stop, right away, well, I imagine the D.C. Circuit would have been even more upset with them than it actually was. :-) I'm glad you found my reply helpful.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs. If your interest in regulatory hell take a look at the fdas campaign against vaping. Then compare it to the nhs to see what a semi functional system can accomplish.
- tekknik 4y ago
  > we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence With it already being illegal for certain criminals to own firearms, what regulation short of a total ban would help? This is where the "add more laws" logic fails. The thinking is that adding more laws will keep criminals hands off of guns. Criminals by definition ignore laws. Guns can be made via a 3d printer now. Ammunition used to be made (reloaded) by campfires. It's impossible in these days to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. If you have a CNC machine you can make your own AR-15. Instead the solution is quite the opposite. More guns. You don't have to carry one yourself, just don't stop the rest of us. And by law if someone is carrying a concealed weapon near you and your life is in danger, they must protect it. We end up with peer to peer police. Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon. As far as school shootings, that solution is quite easy and technical. AI powered cameras in classrooms and hallways that alert if someone not in faculty or the student body steps on the grounds. Alert for gun shaped objects. Ballistic class on the interior and exterior windows with doors that partition the hallway when closed and locked to block in any assailants. The guns rights group has many solutions to the problems, but the gun control group doesn't want them. Gun control groups have created a situation where it's easier for criminals to get guns and use them than it is for law abiding citizens.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    I agree with everything except for: > Nobody has a problem adding classroom work onto concealed carry permits to ensure carriers know the laws. Nobody has a problem with carriers also being required to qualify to ensure they can accurately shoot their weapon. This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      > This is untrue. Half the country has constitutional carry established. I carry every day and do not have a permit. I get myself to the range frequently enough to be proficient. I do not need the government to "allow" me to practice my rights. There is a difference in practicing one's rights and endangering others. We require the same of our police officers. While I'm a fan of constitutional carry, I have no problem taking 8 hours of classroom courses and qualifying with my carry pistols.

tekknik 4y ago

> but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender What other enumerated rights shall we remove under the guise of saving lives? Should we remove access to vehicles? Alcohol? Shall we enact a speech control board that if you violate it you lose your enumerated rights? This would open the door for the same abuse gun owners receive for exercising their right. You're right, I'm a gun rights absolutist. I will not settle for the removal of this right nor the government making it difficult to exercise. They don't do this with any other right why this one? Can other rights not be just as dangerous? (See Democrats stating they needed to misinformation due to the damage caused to democracy).

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
The entire argument used by belligerent guns right absolutists (belligerency follows absolutist views like butter on bread) is based on a maliciously broad understanding of the second amendment. Note that no one talks about militias, just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period. But no, it’s too hard to buy a gun./s have you tried the dark web, other Americans have figured out how to carry straw purchases en masse. https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-gun-second-amendment-bruen/ https://theintercept.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-gun-second...
- tekknik 4y ago
  > Note that no one talks about militias Wait a second, who doesn’t? In fact on this board they have been discussed more than a few time, including by myself. > just the right for every angry terrified fan of tucker carlsons propaganda (legally not News remember) to go to their local gun shop and buy dozens of semi automatic long guns with 10+ round clips and have a few pallets of ammo delivered to their house with merely a signature and maybe a waiting period. This is a biased rant again. None of what you said sounds dangerous to me. The problem is now with what law abiding citizens buy and own, they will never use the “dozens of long guns” kill innocent people. Why are you conflating criminals and law abiding citizens? Can you also tell me, using your example, why any waiting period past the first one does anything? If someone already owns a gun, why are they being subjected to yet another waiting period? The entire point of a waiting period was to cool off and not do something stupid with your new purchase. But if the person already has a gun on hand then what is the point of it?