I find it hilarious, yet
- Thread starter Greg T.
- Start date
born1
Member
That's my understanding too, that he was still on the list. There are some safe guards are already in place. When I bought my 38 a couple of years ago, I had to wait 7 days. Yes I have a record, but nothing that affects me from owning one.
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
So, did you cool down in that 7 days, or did you go ahead and shoot the bastard that pissed you off?
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
I don't think any mandatory wait time would have made a difference in this situation. If you want to regulate and say specific sign offs or checks must be completed first, that makes more sense.
Good Times Good Times
Active Member
You won't find a better discussion than this on the matter:
I agree. I guess I was thinking in terms of any pending investigations or watch lists which take more time.
I'm convinced that if a nut job wants to kill a bunch of people, guns just don't matter. They'll find a way regardless.
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
162 minutes? Cliff notes, please! I'm lazy.
Good Times Good Times
Active Member
Honestly ~9, check it out in full when you get an opportunity. I assure you it is time well spent. It honestly addresses a lot of the things we talk about on this site more in depth than we could ever really type out here. It's all in a very logical and a discussion (it doesn't devolve and get ugly) and is very fair.
born1
Member
He didn't even know what hit him. You should have seen the blood splatter and brain matter all over the wall.So, did you cool down in that 7 days, or did you go ahead and shoot the bastard that pissed you off?
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
OK, there's a lot here. It was a pretty good conversation, but Michael is a bit overly idealistic and optimistic in some areas.
1) He points out failures of prohibition (war on drugs, alcohol), the rise of the black market when drugs are outlawed, power vacuums created when powerful kingpins fall, but fails to consider these same scenarios could also happen with a ban on guns (he wants to not only ban guns, but make them stop building new ones). Would the black market NOT go into business of making/selling guns if Winchester is no longer allowed to legally manufacture them? Plus, this is global. Guns could still be built elsewhere, "bad guys" will just get them there. Plus, as Michael points out, no more manufacture = increased value of guns that exist. $20,000 guns would be very lucrative targets for criminals.
2) Our borders are obviously NOT secure. This further compounds both the gun and drug problem (that are often intertwined). So Americans are basically disarmed. The only weapons allowed (Joe Biden would be proud) are shotguns and single shot or bolt action hunting rifles. No hand guns, not even a semi-auto .22 squirrel gun. We know Mexican cartels are making things unsafe soith of and sometimes at our border. Americans can be and have been targeted for kidnapping - because they can get money for their release. We have to consider the possibility if Americans were essentially unarmed, these cartels could become more bold and start terrorizing American towns/cities in the same manner. And, instead of just a drug problem, now these cartels are in the business of selling hand guns with the drugs!
3) I agree to a point on the prison issue. But, what do we do with those who are unable to reform/refuse to get clean? Also, I'm of the personal opinion that we are overpopulated, so there is no need to keep truly dangerous people alive. Murderers, rapists, child predators... give them one appeal within 5 years of original conviction. If found guilty twice, they are immediately removed from the population. Drugs I'm kinda onboard with his education plan, but like Joe stated, there is some bad shit out there. Not sure I want to open the doors and give the impression those are fine to use with no repercussions. But I do agree with rehab instead of hard jail time, and not harassing the general public over petty shit (let's throw in traffic stops for seatbelt violations etc. too!)
4) To tie back in to the global picture... education in poor communities isn't enough. I agree they need opportunity. They need to be rewarded when they work hard trying to succeed/better themselves (get out was a term often used). But again, the border issue and outsourcing of jobs is a major roadblock. When white college grads are having trouble getting good jobs, what chance does an inner city kid with a HS diploma have? Or even a country bumpkin trailer park kid? Why reward our own people for trying with even a minimum wage job when the Mexicans/Chinese will do it for less?
5) I have to touch on his idea of giving up control to the community (police chief = CEO, citizens = board of directors). I think this is a bad idea. Reason being, he wants to eliminate corruption. But how long will it be before cartels rig these boards of citizens to be majority cartel members? Then we're worse off, as the cartels will have threatened/bullied the populace into putting them in power, and they can use that influence with the direct connection to police chief for their own gain. Which brings us to...
6) I think he has found the right culprit for a lot of these issues; Money in Politics. Not sure he (or America) will be able to change that without guns. Which is why the 2nd anendment was written. So Americans can protect themselves and our country from a tyrannical government.
I may think of more. Was up late watching that, and have a meeting to get to here in 15 minutes. So if anything is incoherent, I apologize. There was a lot to cover in there, and I'm sure I left some out.
Good Times Good Times
Active Member
1) No more guns manufactured, no more bullets for those guns…and just because you have a $20,000 gun doesn't mean most criminals can afford to keep it. Like having a $20,000 painting, only a limited group of people could afford that.
2) Federal and State would still have weapons to balance this issue. Only about 1/4 of Americans have guns. So, it’s still prime season to kidnap people because you have a 75% chance of success. More money comes from drugs than would from guns. Mostly because a large demographic of people want drugs more than guns. Your user base is pretty small for illegal guns.
3) Our job is not to lock up people because they are users. If they can’t stay clean then we should still handle it as a medical health issue and continue on the path of treatment in some ways. If you don’t do hard drugs now, you still won’t if it requires going to the doctor’s. We don’t rehabilitate any individuals and we don’t train them. So, if they are not able to get a job when they’re out, they can’t become a member of society.
4) This is a far more complex issue than Mexican/Chinese doing it for less. Can argue it’s a trade pact issue and other things that allow this. Also, I understand unions but sometimes the unions ask for more money that companies can afford and instead will move because they are paying too much and can’t make a profit. Let’s be real, companies are there to make profits and when you make it easy for them to do so, they will. College grads are usually under qualified for jobs they seek or are discouraged due to low wages. The market is saturated with liberal arts or general business degrees that high tech or blue collar jobs are not filled.
5) I know you are scared of some cartels. I don’t think this is necessarily perfect. Maybe with a rotating board it could work but this is not any different than village elders making decisions for the good of the people. This is not really any different than a board of directors telling the CEO to do something. The current politicians are corrupt and don’t have an understanding of the communities they serve.
6) I think we could create laws that would change contributions to politicians. If only those people were elected. I don’t think 25% of Americans with guns can or would fight to change the country from money in politics. Sorry, not going to happen.
Regardless, I though you'd find it to be an interesting discussion and thought provoking. I don't agree with all of Michael's points but I do think he's coming at it fairly and honestly (which is not what get get from politicians) and a lot of the points on this site are acknowledged.
I think a constitutional amendment with respect to money and politics is something a lot of people could get behind. Hell, there are a few things in there that need updated. Just look at the 3rd amendment and it gives you a pretty decent look at the time/context of the document.
2) Federal and State would still have weapons to balance this issue. Only about 1/4 of Americans have guns. So, it’s still prime season to kidnap people because you have a 75% chance of success. More money comes from drugs than would from guns. Mostly because a large demographic of people want drugs more than guns. Your user base is pretty small for illegal guns.
3) Our job is not to lock up people because they are users. If they can’t stay clean then we should still handle it as a medical health issue and continue on the path of treatment in some ways. If you don’t do hard drugs now, you still won’t if it requires going to the doctor’s. We don’t rehabilitate any individuals and we don’t train them. So, if they are not able to get a job when they’re out, they can’t become a member of society.
4) This is a far more complex issue than Mexican/Chinese doing it for less. Can argue it’s a trade pact issue and other things that allow this. Also, I understand unions but sometimes the unions ask for more money that companies can afford and instead will move because they are paying too much and can’t make a profit. Let’s be real, companies are there to make profits and when you make it easy for them to do so, they will. College grads are usually under qualified for jobs they seek or are discouraged due to low wages. The market is saturated with liberal arts or general business degrees that high tech or blue collar jobs are not filled.
5) I know you are scared of some cartels. I don’t think this is necessarily perfect. Maybe with a rotating board it could work but this is not any different than village elders making decisions for the good of the people. This is not really any different than a board of directors telling the CEO to do something. The current politicians are corrupt and don’t have an understanding of the communities they serve.
6) I think we could create laws that would change contributions to politicians. If only those people were elected. I don’t think 25% of Americans with guns can or would fight to change the country from money in politics. Sorry, not going to happen.
Regardless, I though you'd find it to be an interesting discussion and thought provoking. I don't agree with all of Michael's points but I do think he's coming at it fairly and honestly (which is not what get get from politicians) and a lot of the points on this site are acknowledged.
I think a constitutional amendment with respect to money and politics is something a lot of people could get behind. Hell, there are a few things in there that need updated. Just look at the 3rd amendment and it gives you a pretty decent look at the time/context of the document.
Last edited:
9andaWiggle
Addicted Member
Counter
1) Criminals aren't going to keep it. Well some, maybe, but with demand high they'll turn them for quick cash (likely not $20k, but more than the couple hundred I suspect they might get now).
2) One on one you might have 75% odds in your favor, but how many people are out completely alone? In a group of 4, odds are 1 is armed. More so in rural areas where people are more self reliant. Taking away all guns means there in nearly 0 chance of anyone, even in a packed mall, being able to defend themselves with a weapon. Much better odds for criminal success.
4) No chastising greedy CEO's for being controlled by wealthy sharegolders, yet the unions are greedy? Is it good to accept and give free pass to American companies/wealthy individuals that benefit most from America while not giving back/providing opportunity to the very country/people that made their success possible by saying "well, they exist solely to make money"? Do they? Or, should they?
5) Cartels were just one example. How about political parties? Corporations (after all, they're people too). Illegal immigrants?
6) Agree political contributions should be curbed and severely restricted. They'll spend billions to elect who they want, but not to, say, provide safe water to Flint, MI.
Part 2, nobody thought the colonies would kick Britain's ass and take America for themselves either.
1) Criminals aren't going to keep it. Well some, maybe, but with demand high they'll turn them for quick cash (likely not $20k, but more than the couple hundred I suspect they might get now).
2) One on one you might have 75% odds in your favor, but how many people are out completely alone? In a group of 4, odds are 1 is armed. More so in rural areas where people are more self reliant. Taking away all guns means there in nearly 0 chance of anyone, even in a packed mall, being able to defend themselves with a weapon. Much better odds for criminal success.
4) No chastising greedy CEO's for being controlled by wealthy sharegolders, yet the unions are greedy? Is it good to accept and give free pass to American companies/wealthy individuals that benefit most from America while not giving back/providing opportunity to the very country/people that made their success possible by saying "well, they exist solely to make money"? Do they? Or, should they?
5) Cartels were just one example. How about political parties? Corporations (after all, they're people too). Illegal immigrants?
6) Agree political contributions should be curbed and severely restricted. They'll spend billions to elect who they want, but not to, say, provide safe water to Flint, MI.
Part 2, nobody thought the colonies would kick Britain's ass and take America for themselves either.