New normal?

[Phishfan]

How is it not less here? You don't have to pay the $10.34 here or at their other local stores.

I just thought it would be more than 75 cents a bottle here.

[pondwater]

It's kind of strange that you're only focusing on the 1986 law as relates to crimes with fully-automatic weapons.  It is, of course, true that the 1986 law is not the prime mover in that regard; the more significant law was the 1934 National Firearms Act, which greatly restricted (but did not outright prohibit) public purchasing of fully-automatic weapons.  And as you have stated in this thread many times, there are a near-zero number of crimes committed with Class III NFA weapons... yet another example of a highly-effective gun control law.

So there are really two points here:

1) The 1934 law drastically reduced actual crimes committed with fully-automatic firearms
2) The 1986 law completely removed all new fully-automatic firearms from the public marketplace (and the black market) from that point forward

The primary arguments that gun advocates use against gun control laws is that they won't reduce crime and that even if they would, you can't enforce them because criminals don't obey the law and will still get illegal guns anyway.  America's experience with the regulation of fully-automatic firearms disproves both of those arguments.

I'm trying to understand your point. So are you saying that the 1934 and 1986 laws stopped the black market and crime relating to fully automatic weapons because it limited their availability?

[Tenshot13]

I'm confused, are we talking about guns or gatorade?

[Fau Teixeira]

guntorade ! it quenches your thirst while taking care of a bad guy with a gun!

.. and it's got electrolytes.

[SCFinfan]

Admittedly, I am torn on this issue. Generally, I do not think there is a need for things such as bump stocks and semi-automatic rifles which seem to deal so much death. However, there is the matter of the second amendment, and it does seem (at least since post 2008 when the court decided it this way) to give individuals close to a more-or-less absolute right to own at least handguns.

I guess my issues comes down to the following:

1. We need to protect life in America. I am for a consistent life ethic in all stages of life, and this would include increasing the prospect of living without fear of a violent gun death or possible gun attack. Common sense gun control laws seem to be the best way to accomplish the aforementioned goal.
2. However, millions of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. How do we deal with them? I am not so sure. Surely they would feel more or less betrayed if we took their guns, and understandably so - they haven't done anything wrong and they consider ownership a right (and it is, for better or worse, a right).
3. Gun control seems to work in similarly situated countries.
4. But that's no guarantee it would work here - after all, Mexico has moderately strict gun control, (comparatively to us) but, there are plenty of gun deaths there.
5. Likewise, a forced gun buyback would likely result in innumerable clashes between the police/authorities and gun owners, and, as with prohibition of alcoholic beverages, would probably simply create an enormous black market which would move guns to people who really wanted them anyway. I can't imagine that many of these people would be law-abiding otherwise.   

My belief, however, is that the gun situation in America presents a strategic opportunity unlike, IMO, any others. I would argue that conservatives and liberals should be called to the carpet in the following regard:

1. Liberals should be told to stop crying about dying children if they continue to deny the personhood of unborn children.
2. Conservatives should be told to stop whining about abortion if they can't seem to care about children who literally have their lives placed at risk by simply going to school.

Thus and so a bargain could be worked out: a scaling back of the abortion right in trade for a scaling back of the gun right. Both sides have something to lose, both sides have something to gain. However, the gain here would serve everyone's life: less children (presumably) aborted, and less children (presumably) shot dead in school. Not a bad gain for either side. Probably no one would walk away happy, but that, IMO, is how you know it is a good deal.

[Cathal]

1. Liberals should be told to stop crying about dying children if they continue to deny the personhood of unborn children.

Wow.... That is so asinine... You're really saying that people should stop getting pissed off that children are dying from guns in school almost every two weeks, just because they're for abortion? That is just so stupid.... I just can't...

[CF DolFan]

Wow.... That is so asinine... You're really saying that people should stop getting pissed off that children are dying from guns in school almost every two weeks, just because they're for abortion? That is just so stupid.... I just can't...

More kids die from many other ways so it just seems a little hypocritical that schools are the only place people are whining about. Kind of like only worrying about a few blacks being killed by cops and ignoring the fact a black man is 2000x more likely to be killed by another black man in their own neighborhood.

We are creating mental cases everyday in this country so regardless if every single gun was turned in they'd find a way to create havoc. Statistics show that an NRA member is more likely to be a law abiding citizen than the average citizen but they have become the target?  We protect politicians and celebrities with tight security and guns yet no one wants to protect our children with the same. Just doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that more people are worried about how they can use certain situations for gain than they are really about fixing society. 

[Phishfan]

The tie in of guns and abortion is the worst idea ever. That is a non starter . I say that as a person who supports the right to both.

[CF DolFan]

The tie in of guns and abortion is the worst idea ever. That is a non starter . I say that as a person who supports the right to both.

To you it doesn't matter. To people who believe that an abortion is killing an actual baby they are comparable. As such ... that's exactly why one side thinks it is a choice and the other thinks it is murder. If people on both sides saw the "fetus" as a baby then I'd think they would be against the "choice" and vice-versa. 

[Sunstroke]

To you it doesn't matter. To people who believe that an abortion is killing an actual baby they are comparable.

When you try to live your life by a 2,000 year old work of fiction, these sort of misunderstandings can happen...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

To you it doesn't matter. To people who believe that an abortion is killing an actual baby they are comparable. As such ... that's exactly why one side thinks it is a choice and the other thinks it is murder. If people on both sides saw the "fetus" as a baby then I'd think they would be against the "choice" and vice-versa. 

Gun control and abortion are separate issues.  Just as the death penalty and abortion are separate issues.  Or veganism and abortion are separate issues.  I have a friend who is pro life, vegan, opposes the death penalty, and supports extremely strict gun control.  While I respect the common thread of her positions, they are separate issues as evident by little intersection of people who would agree with her on four.  In particular there is a very small intersection of people who oppose both death penalty and abortion.  One can be any permutation of the issues and still maintain a consistent logic, although I do find being pro-choice and vegan a bit odd, but most vegans I know are pro choice. 

[SCFinfan]

Wow.... That is so asinine... You're really saying that people should stop getting pissed off that children are dying from guns in school almost every two weeks, just because they're for abortion? That is just so stupid.... I just can't...

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's unfair to look at it from the other side's point of view. They think you're supporting child murder. Therefore, to them, your ability to persuade has therefore been permanently impaired, and your tears on the gun matter appear (to them) as crocodile tears. You may disagree. You may see them as hateful mongrels clutching their guns and their superstitions. That's your right. But if you wish for progress, I suppose I'm suggesting you have to bring something to the table to offer, and to treat each side as acting in good faith. I think a grand bargain can be made. If you don't, what do you propose to stop it? I haven't seen your side make much progress on the gun issue in 30+ years. Similarly, the right has made only mediocre progress on the abortion issue in 30+ years. I'm suggesting a compromise but, again, if you don't like it, ok. Call it asinine. I'm sure calling it that will stop people from dying, or whatever.

Gun control and abortion are separate issues.  Just as the death penalty and abortion are separate issues.  Or veganism and abortion are separate issues.  I have a friend who is pro life, vegan, opposes the death penalty, and supports extremely strict gun control.  While I respect the common thread of her positions, they are separate issues as evident by little intersection of people who would agree with her on four.  In particular there is a very small intersection of people who oppose both death penalty and abortion.  One can be any permutation of the issues and still maintain a consistent logic, although I do find being pro-choice and vegan a bit odd, but most vegans I know are pro choice. 

Yes, they are separate issues, but both issues mean something deep and intense to both sides. I'm suggesting a give-for-get proposal.

For example, when I work on a DUI matter wherein the person also has an implied consent matter attached to it and based out of the same facts, I often may lose the implied consent matter if, in exchange, I get a good (exceptionally beneficial) plea (or even at times a dismissal) on the DUI. It's give and take. I've negotiated 100s of these deals. Legally, and technically, the implied consent matter, under my state's law, is a totally separate matter judicially - one does not affect the other, i.e. you may be not guilty of DUI but you may have an adverse judgment nonetheless on the implied consent. When I work with prosecutors, we often do a "package deal". This allows us to move cases effectively, make progress, help people, and - a benefit not to be undersold - not hate each other because we are at constant war.

I thought this was moderately self-evident.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Yes, they are separate issues, but both issues mean something deep and intense to both sides. I'm suggesting a give-for-get proposal.

For example, when I work on a DUI matter wherein the person also has an implied consent matter attached to it and based out of the same facts, I often may lose the implied consent matter if, in exchange, I get a good (exceptionally beneficial) plea (or even at times a dismissal) on the DUI. It's give and take. I've negotiated 100s of these deals. Legally, and technically, the implied consent matter, under my state's law, is a totally separate matter judicially - one does not affect the other, i.e. you may be not guilty of DUI but you may have an adverse judgment nonetheless on the implied consent. When I work with prosecutors, we often do a "package deal". This allows us to move cases effectively, make progress, help people, and - a benefit not to be undersold - not hate each other because we are at constant war.

I thought this was moderately self-evident.

Not sure what you are suggesting?  That you will trade Heller for Roe v. Wade?  Besides being impossible and impractical it just confuses both issues. 

Plus a slight majority are pro choice the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control.

Over 90% of all Americans including a substantial majority of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gunsales including private sales and gun shows. 

The majority of gun owners supports banning bump stocks.

The majority of gun owners support banning high capacity magazines.

The problem is we have allowed a fringe minority to set gun policy the only equivalent I can think of is if Ingrid Newkirk was allowed to write the country's farm policies.

[Phishfan]

Hoodie has the key to why combining the two is no place to start. I own guns but recognize the need for practical regulations. I have never met a "pro-lifer" that can look past their own personal practice and consider another view. Otherwise, they are pro - choice by definition

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Hoodie has the key to why combining the two is no place to start. I own guns but recognize the need for practical regulations. I have never met a "pro-lifer" that can look past their own personal practice and consider another view. Otherwise, they are pro - choice by definition

Which is true for the vast majority of gun owners.  Very few gun owners support the extremist positions of the NRA, just like many vegetarians don't agree with PETA's extremists views.  Abortion is an evenly divided issue in this country while the majority are pro choice the prolifers are a very substantial minority.  With the bulk of Americans taking a moderate position with the majority of pro choice opposing abortions in the third trimester and most pro lifers making exceptions for the health of the women and often rape and incest.  Most pro choice advocates want to see abortions decrease by increasing access to contraceptives and making adoption easier.

Debating abortion and finding a middle ground actually makes some  sense.

Gun control is just off the charts nuts.  It as if PETA was setting farm policy or ELF had completely control of industry policy.  I am a lefty, I agree with a lot of what ELF stands for, but I am also a realist and understand if they had the power of the NRA it would be very bad for our economy.  While I sympathize with them on many issues I don't want them in charge.  But the NRA is just as extreme on guns as ELF is on the environment.  And that is why children are dying.