Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Doesn't seem to be a trend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If it were a trend, would we crack down on the use of charcoal and lighter fluid?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We did, in fact, tighten up and regulate the sale of certain fertilizers and other ingredients after the Oklahoma City bombing.
We have also restricted the sale of glues and paints, certain medicines and chemicals involved in meth production, and the like.
So sure - regulating the sale of lighter fluid would be fairly easy, at need. I know I have never needed it to light charcoal - there are other ways, that don't flavor one's food quite so pungently.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you see where we are heading to, Iceaura?

 

You are wrong. Look it up yourself.

That doesn't follow.

Pay attention: Governments gone bad normally don't use their big armies and war gear for establishing internal oppression. That's not how they usually roll. That's not what anyone needs to defend themselves against, when they defend themselves against an existing government gone bad.

Keep the KKK as the example in mind, in the US - for two points: It can happen here; and that's how it works.

 

Ah, classic argument from absurdity, the one "defense" we can all be assured 2A Thumpers will dole out in spades...

Go ahead, throw hot coals on your neighbor - when he beats your ass for being a dipshit, you'll (hopefully?) be able to figure out why your statement is pants on head stupid.

It follows exactly.
1) We don't need to defend ourselves against the Military because if the Government goes rogue, it won't use the military (your own words) and hopefully the Military will take care of the issue for us, per their own oath.

2) We need to defend ourselves against the likes of the KKK and other hate groups - that's great, until you go to prison for "defending" yourself from them (WBC anyone?) - let the police handle it.

3) If we DID need to defend ourselves against the military, we are boned.

So, tell me, where does 2A actually play to our advantage here? Give me a realistic scenario where it is a net positive versus the number of innocent deaths we have every few weeks...

 

Well regulated sale of lighter fluid?

 

Well regulated life, even though the insane are always happy to disturb your security.

 

Yep, and if I can spike that machine I will. But that means fighting authoritarians of all stripes.

If you try to stop that trend by allowing mass murder weapons to be sold anonymously over the counter to anyone with the cash, you will find yourself in opposition to most of your fellow citizens. You will lose that fight.

Don't put basic freedoms on the line like that, is my advice. This isn't a 2nd Amendment battle.

 

Seems rather hostile in a otherwise polite conversation.

 

They don't even have to be insane - anger can be enough to push some people to extremes.

 

It doesn't follow at all.

Again: use the experience of the US (KKK) and Latin American countries, inform yourself as to how this stuff works in real life.

Hello? The police? Again: use the record of how the bad stuff happened to inform yourself.

Not necessarily. The military are not that good at this stuff (that's one reason despots don't use them very often). They are set up to fight wars.

It has been a central factor in forestalling the plans of bad people for 250 years.
And it has almost nothing to do with the deaths of innocents we suffer. Almost no net cost, there.

 

I think background checks are a worthy approach. No problem. I'm not willing to assume that Iceaura needs his liberties subjected to government control so I might sleep better at night.

 

True. My wife read an article the other day that stated 50% of mass shooters were found to be mentally ill. However, I would think the willingness to kill dozens of innocent people is a serious mental flaw.

 

This is an example of the kind of damage the strawman arguments do.
I have been the foremost poster on this forum, for years now, of common sense changes in the gun laws of the US and its States and what needs to happen to get them enacted. AFAIK I've been more explicit and detailed and insistent on that exact topic than anyone else posting here.
And I get that shit, from somebody who thinks dismissing the US Constitution and disarming its population poses no risk to anyone's freedoms because a rifle can't take out a tank, or something.

So does everybody else. Literally - more than 80% of the card-carrying members of the NRA are on board with that one.

So: why don't we have them?

 

I can't speak for every state, but in mine you can't sell your gun to another private party without a background check. You want it on a Federal level?

 

Following Heller:
Did McDonald v. Chicago
severely limit the latitude that the states and cities have in setting firearm regulations?

...............................................
and
Does anyone wanna take a stab in explaining exactly what “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” means?
(Palko)
(Benton)

 

C'mon, that's getting silly......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, a background check is sent to the FBI, to conduct the background check in the first place.
My wife is a Nurse and has had to provide background checks (including finger prints), which are sent to the FBI.

There shoud be no problem in establishing a Federal Register on that basis alone. They'll have the info provided by the States.

 

That might be part of the problem if I understand you correctly. Paranoid as it might sound, some people are highly suspicious of a "Federal Registry"--should that be of gun ownership. They see it as a possible first step in gun confiscation.