posted by BoatShoes
1. Yes it is if we want motivated criminals to turn to less efficient vehicles of crime. You are a conservative or something and have in the past expressed sympathy for work requirements for those who use food stamps. The reasoning of course is that this will lead to otherwise rational SNAP users to engage in more socially optimal behavior i.e. working as greater barriers are placed in the way of being able to consume what you need while being in leisure. The same supply-side logic applies to crime. Barriers that provide obstacles to motivated individuals to committing crime are Constitutional per the Heller decision and don't place undue burdens on the liberties of those who would choose to keep arms creates a better world under Conservative logic just like regulatory burdens would make a life on the dole less desirable do.
2. They will not be obsolete under a LICENSING AND REGULATION regime. Anybody can create a promissory note on a piece of paper and sell it in violation of the securities laws of our nation and commit fraud and yet they have been incredibly effective at reigning in the massive fraud that pre-dated the securities laws and creating securities markets that were and are the model and envy of the world. Just like you can successfully regulate a world where any yahoo can create unlicensed and unregistered promissory notes in their kitchen, you could regulate unlicensed and unregulated firearms printed in their kitchen. Your belief on this isn't conservatism or libertarianism - it's nihilism.
3. "Try going a pair" - LoL - I'm not worried about it either in my day to day life and it has nothing to do with "growing a pair" - how about try to have a discussion like an adult? I'm not worried about being defrauded by a cold-calling fraudster selling bullshit oil and gas wells to me either - but it happens every day to elderly people in this country and thankfully we have securities laws and regulations and enforcers of those laws who have been tremendously successful at fighting and reducing that kind of crime. Moreover, it is indeed a desirable end to continue working to prevent and rectify said crime and just because no regulator scheme can snuff out 100% of crime does not mean it is not highly successful or desirable.
4. Define "Punish"?? I'm not talking about banning any firearm. I'm talking about licensing and registration like we do for any number of types of free expression protected under the first amendment and few people have any qualms about this.
Is it a "punishment" that I as lawyer who has never used my legal speech to commit crime have to pass an intense character and fitness examination, adhere to a professional code of conduct, pay licensing fees, successfully pass a rigorous examination and on and on - just so I can exercise my 1st Amendment Right to Free Expression in the form of drafting a Last Will and Testament? Or is it a compelling and narrowly tailored burden on my first Amendment Rights in order to promote a compelling public interest in a competent and just legal system?
Are you running around complaining that all the multitude of financial advisors out there are "punished" with burdens on their first amendment rights in the form of licensing requirements and examinations of their behavior from securities regulators? It's not a "punishment" We're not saying those who keep arms should be "punished" for the conduct of others. We are saying that those who keep arms should be held to a standard of conduct like the standards countless citizens are held to when they exercise their First Amendment Rights and other Fundamental Liberties.
5. The National Firearms Act which heavily regulated and licensed fully automatic weapons at the Federal Level virtually eliminated mass shootings or gun violence of any kind committed with fully automatic weapons in the United States in the wake of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and thereafter in comparison to gun violence and mass shootings committed with semi-automatic firearms which are less federally regulated in the United States. Provide credible evidence that the National Firearms Act did not reduce gun violence committed with fully automatic weapons and I'll never post in a gun related thread again.
And mind you - the suicides comment is an important one in this context because - well gee - not many people committing suicide with Thompson Sub Machine Guns now are there?
For fucks suck dude we are on a forum. You don't need to go into lawyer/otrap mode every post. Going thru the fluff of your argument.
1. No it definitely is not. I would be much more concerned about an under aged or young "snowflake" getting his hands on a gun via an easily accessible 3D printer than him going thru daddy's cabinet. One option has multiple barriers, the other is one machine that will at some point be accessible to the average household.
2. Yes, this is so easy. Why didn't I think about that! Just like how drugs have been heavily regulated, just like pressure cooker have been regulated to prevent pressure cooker bombers, just like alcohol has been regulated to prevent under age drinking, just like guns have been regulated to prevent underage users, just like....... You can brush it aside as nihilism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact it is very easy to poke holes into your danger free utopia.
3. We already have laws in place that have easily been broken and laws that were previously in place proven to not work, yet you propose more laws and regulations. All this when we are living in the safest time this world has ever seen. As an adult I grew a pair. I stand by my recommendation.
4. Passing more laws to regulate or even ban weapons that the majority of gun owners already follow is the exact definition of a punishment. You're literally proposing to chip away at the 2nd amendment and somehow you don't think that is punishing every US citizen from his or her basic rights. Don't give me bullshit that you never proposed banning any guns. You just tried to delegitimize the purpose of the 2nd amendment by tying it to suicides and your next point is precisely about banning weapons LOL.
5. What does this have to do with modern day gun crime and what I had to say? It still doesn't change the fact the majority of gun crime has decreased, despite an increase in ownership. It also doesn't change the fact that certain weapons were banned for a period (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) and there was more gun crime during the ban than after. Despite the data continuously proving you wrong, you still want to fixate on type of guns and the type of murder (MASS MURDERS!) to move the goal posts in your favor. In 2018, it is not the gun anymore, sorry to break it to you. The majority of gun deaths come from gang related activity and suicides. You still can't tell me why Japan's suicide rate (not to mention other countries with strict gun laws and high suicide rates) is so high, despite banning guns. You still can't prove to me out of all of these laws in place and your proposed laws, why they haven't stopped gangs from obtaining them illegally and killing each other.
OMG NIHILISM though!
