The problem is, it wasn’t just that cop who was a coward at parkland, that entire agency shit the bed on many levels. He was just a convenient scape goat.
1 Like
Definitely good reason here, but cops are crucified a lot for not good reasons.
1 Like
Well we can agree on that in general. I believe most cops do an excellent job the vast majority of the time.
3 Likes
I’d honestly forgotten how bad the Parkland response was too. But, as you say, also justified there. I could have phrased what I said better. In the instances when officers have responded in any reasonable way, they have not been crucified. Even with Uvalde, the VERY first response from media in general was the belief that the officers had done most, if not everything, right, and this was unavoidable. It seemed like the media was going to lean towards giving the officers the benefit of the doubt in that first 12-24 hours, before everything blew up and it was clear the Uvalde response was actually a complete fuck up.
I don’t believe this is a stance that the majority of the people on the left hold. I think that a lot of people on the left don’t like guns in general, for sure, but it’s rarely argued by anyone (other than the extreme left), that all firearms should be prohibited. I think that’s what the right ASSUMES the endgame is, but I don’t believe it to be true. Gun law reform and ‘ban all guns’ are not the same thing. I also don’t believe in slippery slope arguments, as a general rule. I know that’s what the right/NRA suggests would happen with ANY gun reform… right? ‘First you do this, THEN YOU TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY WE KNOW YOUR AGENDA!!’ That just feels like fear mongering and misleading, to make their base more rabid.
I think a lot more people on the left support the 2nd amendment in general than you think. It’s just that the people who don’t happen to be very loud about it, and right wing media coverage focuses on that minority.
I think it’s very optimistic to think that once one gun law reform is implemented, that there wont be another, then another, then another…
As good an idea as Reg Flag gun laws sound, it takes very little to be abused into the govt coming for your guns because they dont like what opinions you hold.
Temporarily removing guns from a volatile situation = good thing.
Permanently removing guns from someone who holds an opinion you deem to be ‘crazy’ = bad thing.
It just puts too much faith into a big government that ultimately does everything wrong.
2 Likes
I have heard this countless times when the left is talking about gun laws, but now with abortion slippery slopes are all of sudden everywhere.
I also think the anti-gun folks are smart and know that you can’t just blatantly take away all guns. Make no mistake to many of them the end goal is disarmament. They are just trying (smartly) to do it by a thousand cuts / boiling the frog slowly.
3 Likes
There is also that pesky thing of the 14th amendment that prohibits the deprivation of property without due process that both sides seem to lose sight of when emotions run high.
Also, good luck finding all my guns and you better bring a dump truck, excavator and know where all my properties are =D.
This is exactly the problem.
2 Likes
Well, I wouldn’t say that’s the same thing. The slippery slope argument there, which I also would have disagreed with, would have been ‘if they ban late term abortions, eventually they’ll just ban abortions completely’. And I would have said that’s silly.
I think the thing that people on the left are concerned with regarding the abortion decision and what comes next is based on Thomas’s opinion that several other decisions now need to be looked at and potentially reversed. That’s not a slippery slope argument because it’s grounded in fact, it’s what a sitting judge actually said needs to happen now. So it’s far less speculative in nature.
I love how often the left is deemed to be the dumbest people on earth, and simultaneously brilliant and crafty.
I don’t know if you’re referring to politicians/law makers, or the left population in general here. But in either case, I think this is a fringe view on the left as a whole, and in terms of believing it’s realistic, it’s a VERY fringe idea. I have very few friends on the left who actually want full disarmament, and out of those, I don’t believe any of them think it would ever actually happen. Most of my friends, left and right, own guns. As far as politicians go, most are looking out for themselves more than anything, and I can’t imagine a scenario in which we could see the second amendment being abolished in less than a couple decades. We’re so far off from that now. So very few, if any, senators would want to put their eggs in that basket. It wouldn’t be worthwhile to them.
How many people do you actually know who hold this view? What makes you believe this is what the end goal is for ‘many’? And is many anywhere close to the majority on the left, or are you saying many as in, not an insignificant number but still a small minority?
Yes, the Supreme Court should not be making law - ever. So, if a decision is erroneous and should have been left to Congress or the state legislatures - it should be reversed.
Mainly politicians and law makers in the usual suspect states, but there plenty of others too. Just do a simple google search and read all the articles supporting banning guns entirely or imposing such strict measures that they are effectively banned.
I never underestimate an enemy - especially ones that are ideologically opposite of me where my rights are concerned. And yes, I see the left as my enemy completely and a lot of the right too.
I don’t see why this logic can’t also be applied to guns, which is enumerated specifically in the constitution - abortion is not.
2 Likes
because what we’re talking about with abortion is something that has already happened, whereas with guns, nothing has. What gun rights have you lost in your lifetime? It’s none, right? Whereas, anyone who was born after 1973 has had guaranteed abortion rights until now. So, not the same thing.
@Bauber woke up and chose violence today lol.
If I’m being honest, I wouldn’t describe either the leftist politicians OR voters as brilliant. I think the majority of the left have full hearts but lack a grounding in reality. I also think they lack the ability to perform Root Cause Analyses, considering much of the left’s “humanitarian concerns” were brought upon themselves by legislation with good intent. This being said, I find much of the left’s voter pool to be completely unaware and stupidly overtrusting of politicians (im aware the same criticism can be thrown at much of the right; see ‘trumptards’).
3 Likes
Erroneously.
GFA, NFA, Assault Weapons Ban… The ATF making and interpreting not only laws, but their own guidelines… Slides and receivers / SBR’s…
It doesn’t have to be in my lifetime.
2 Likes
That is pretty much every day where my rights are concerned. I just want to be left alone to do as I please as long as I am not hurting anyone else.
But in the same turn, I don’t want to be paying for other people’s mistakes or politicians bullshit.
2 Likes
This is a great example that reflects my point of view about the slippery slope argument, which is to say, the ban didn’t lead to ANYTHING else, and was not renewed after just 10 years.
Thanks for bringing that up 
It actually did.
It lead to reclassifications of AR’s - especially in CA. High capacity mag bans. It lead to a point system for SBR’s that makes absolutely ZERO sense for anything relating to safety. It has created this mysticism around the scariness of black rifles and suppressors.
It has people thinking “assault rifles” can actually be bought by the general public. Ghost guns is another great term that was birthed from the AR ban.
Do you even know much about guns or what has happened in the community with the ATF since the AR ban and lift?
1 Like
we’re defining ‘slippery slope’ differently from each other if you consider this to be part of a slippery slope. So, let’s define our terms first, so we’re at least talking about the same thing.
I’m using the term specifically in regards to legislative action, and in this case, I was referring specifically to federal legislation. I am up for including state legislation in the conversation, but not public sentiment. Public sentiment shifts over time in both directions. But to that point, the general public sentiment obviously shifted in favor of lifting restrictions after 10 years of the assault weapons ban. Which again, is the opposite of a slippery slope.
I would venture to say I know less than you, but more than you think I know. And please correct me if/when I get any basic facts wrong.
As far as I’m aware, the federal legislation that limited high capacity mags was part of the assault weapons ban, not part of subsequent legislation, and that there is no longer any limit on high capacity mags on a federal level, only in certain states. And to my knowledge, the supreme court has never issued a decision that would prevent states from implementing such a limit. The two recent court cases that come to mind regarding civilian gun ownership/use are District of Columbia v Heller, and McDonald v City of Chicago, both of which yielded favorable rulings for individual rights in this regard. They prohibited states from implementing certain types of firearm limitations, but there has not been a ruling that states can’t limit mag capacity. Perhaps a future decision with this court may do just that, but to this point, it hasn’t happened.
I don’t see the states bans on high capacity mags as being a slippery slope that resulted from the assault weapons ban, rather a continuation of the policy following the non-renewal of said ban. It’s the same thing.
Regarding the ATF/points system: I’m not sure how you determined that this was a direct offshoot/slippery slope result of the assault weapons ban. It seems like it’s just a thing that happened after the ban, rather than a result of it. They happened 20 years apart, and the ATF has done/continues to do a lot of stupid things, seemingly arbitrarily. I agree that the point system is bizarre, but I think it’s more directly a response to recent mass shootings than it is a policy that has resulted from the assault weapons ban. The ATF existed long before the assault weapons ban, and as I said, they have a history, before and after, of being a poor organization that abuses power.
So, we agree that the ATF is fucked up. We don’t agree on why they’re doing fucked up things, but that’s ok. Still common ground haha.
Regarding reclassification of AR’s, specifically in CA: you’ll have to help me on this one. How much of this has been a continuation of the assault weapons ban in California and elsewhere, and how much of it is new legislation that was not contained in the original federal ban? I know some things about this, but not enough regarding individual states laws… I’m in Texas, gun laws are pretty friendly here.
1 Like
Which is great, but it doesn’t always happen this way. Public sentiment should not dictate the limits of inalienable rights. That is an entirely different discussion, I agree.
You are correct there. The most recent ruling is in a 7-4 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a state ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition reversing a federal judge’s decision that said the statute violated gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.
CA, NJ, and MA have these laws as well as Washington State and Oregon have implemented similar. Luckily with the recent decision from the Supreme Court - I have a feeling these are about to get lasered and rightfully so.
The new point system was to address pistol braces to my knowledge it has nothing to do with recent shootings that I have heard. Pistol braces that the ATF signed off on years ago… Not one pistol brace has been used in a mass shooting that I am aware of. If you are going to go mass shooting you will just slide a stock on your now SBR and go about your way. What is another felony of sliding a stock on to a gun that changes nothing when you are headed to murder people?
I don’t even think the ATF knows why they are doing a lot of what they do. I have met numerous ATF agents and I even know a few. Half of them I have met are fucking clueless and know less about guns than your average anti-gun person. Which has baffled me, but then again those passing laws on them know absolutely nothing about them either.
This is true, but things like the AR ban and public sentiment make them bolder - as does a senile president that has a history of wanting to restrict gun rights.
Your average AR is still illegal in CA. They have what they call CA compliant rifles. They are limited in magazine capacity and have to have a keylock to eject the magazine. They also look dumb as shit.
On June 4, 2021, a federal judge overturned California’s ban on assault weapons on the grounds that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. But assault weapons remain illegal in California while the state appeals the ruling.
For having a noncompliant AR in CA - you face 8 years in prison.
This statute says it is a crime for a person to:
manufacture,
sell,
give away,
lend,
distribute,
import, or
transport
.50 cal rifles of any type are also illegal there.
So in my opinion things like the GFA and GCA have led to more laws and fuckery where guns are concerned and an empowered ATF. Really comes from Congress / legislatures not doing their jobs just like with abortion.
When it comes to guns and my right to defend myself and family, you will have to excuse me I get pretty worked up. Not many things push my buttons, but politicians telling me how I can and can’t defend myself while they are surrounded by armed guards with sub machine guns… lights me up.
1 Like
Yes, I know that. Again, I don’t think the ATF does things that actually make sense, but to me, IF you’re going to say it’s a result of something that happened previously, I’d more likely believe that it’s related to mass shootings/public outcry regarding that, rather than a now-defunct law that was implemented 30 years ago. I do realize it doesn’t actually address anything mass shooting related, but they could certainly be using those events as a justification, absurd as it is.
I have as well. I was a witness in a murder trial 15 years ago, and the murderer was an ex convict (previously murdered people)… real great dude, lol. Anyway, the ATF was involved because he had guns, and he wasn’t supposed to because of his previous conviction. I’d seen a lot of his guns, so that was part of my testimony. The ATF agents I worked with were actually pretty cool guys, but I realize that the small sample size doesn’t represent the population as a whole.
I mean, I’m not sure how ‘bold’ the point system is… and as far as I’m aware, this is really the only big thing they’ve done since Biden took office. If that’s all they do during his term, then I don’t really think Biden did much to embolden them. But, that’s something that will have to play out.
I also don’t think the things they’ve done prior to the assault weapons ban, and after, are very different. They had some pretty major, high profile fuck ups prior to '94.
Which is a continuation of the Federal ban, correct? Maybe I didn’t phrase my question well. I was trying to determine if NEW restrictions had been implemented in CA (or elsewhere) that were not initially included in the federal ban. It doesn’t sound like there are.
My original question was specifically about our lifetimes, but it’s probably best that we introduce older legislation into the discussion at this point.
I’d like to start off by asking this: is there any gun legislation, currently in effect, that you agree with?
The initial ban was in 1989 in CA and banned around 50 specific models. In 2021, they increased the scope and severity of the ban and added registration requirements for any gun bought before September 1st, 2020 for certain firearms among other things like a further restriction on ARs.
CA shootings were the powder keg that pushed and ignited the 1994 Federal AR Ban.
I agree with background checks to make sure you are not prohibited from owning a weapon as a felon, domestic abuser, etc. My issue is the NICS system is outdated garbage.
Otherwise all the other laws that restrict access to certain types, etc. are faulty and worthless. I have fully automatic weapons, destructive devices, grenade launchers, etc. Only because I can afford to have them legally. All the current laws do is make it where the wealthy and government can have whatever they want while everyone else just gets to have what they deem is okay.
I have my own 09 FFL and Class 3. I have been interviewed by the ATF numerous times. I did ATF compliance as an attorney for a large gun retailer that everyone knows for a few years. I would like to say I would be open to common sense gun legislation, but I have not seen anything common sense from the government on guns my entire life federally.
Punishments for offenders with firearms needs to be more severe and actually applied. The vast majority of gun crimes and deaths are not from mass shootings with scary weapons. Every weekend in Memphis, Chicago, St Louis, Atlanta, New York City, etc. is a mass shooting in terms of gun violence.
Lack of mental health care and education are two glaring factors outside of just in general lack of respect for life and culture that are problems. I would be okay with requiring educational classes like most states do for hunting to obtain a weapon. I had to for my enhanced carry permit and I had to shoot and score similar to police training (probably more).
2 Likes