|
|
Post by Lorn on Dec 5, 2015 9:01:39 GMT -6
NRA is what it is -- a powerful entity that buys power from our government. Respect the player, hate the game... and the game is our system of government and voters. Not really. The NRA is an organization that uses its influence to make the government back off. That is the exact opposite of someone who buys power from the government. The NRA's power comes from the support of the people, not the government.1
Background checks are already mandatory for public gun sales. I don't know what you mean by "deadlier weapons," since that could mean a lot of things, but assuming you meant assault rifles, those are already heavily regulated, not to mention expensive. California had "universal background checks" and an "assault weapons ban" (though fuck if I know what an assault weapon is, since that term carries no meaning outside of politics)2 There isn't, in fact, evidence that supports these policies as effective. Gun control laws have no benefit other than expanding the power of the federal government and shitting on the second amendment. They don't save lives. Wow. Just, wow. Showing sympathy for those who have lost loved ones makes you an imbecile? That's new. As for "taking action," the liberals were jumping on the latest shooting to push their useless agenda while the bodies were literally still warm. They didn't even have any good ideas; all they did was bitch about how the NRA is somehow responsible for this because something something guns, and therefore nobody can have guns.
1: In a capitalistic society money is power. Money can fund ad campaigns that support a certain viewpoint. Money can make sure that said ad campaigns are in every media source (billboards, internet, television, and the radio). In a political race money has the potential to be the deciding factor. As an example, the NRA may pull funding for one candidate (that does not support their views to their satisfaction), and instead use that money to fund a politician that does support their views. Said money could go to producing favorable television spot adds for their candidate, while also producing adds that are highly unfavorable to the other. 2: Our background checks are intended to keep guns out of the hands of people that are at a high risk of doing harm. Up until December second there was no indication that either of them was a threat to society so they were unaffected by them. As for whether or not their weapons were assault rifles, by California law they are not since they had a legal modification installed that is supposed to make the weapon semi-automatic as well as making it harder to reload. This is known as the "bullet button", and again it is perfectly legal. However, this does not necessarily mean that the rifle isn't as deadly, nor does it mean that there are not ways around this issue. Again I shall be lazy and just quote from wikipedia as well as a few news sources on said issue:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_buttonsanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/12/04/bullet-button-semi-automatic-rifles-san-bernardino-massacre/www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0time.com/4136757/san-bernardino-shooting-gun-law-bullet-button/A mass shooting occurring in California does not mean that gun regulation is bound to fail, but it does show that there are numerous loopholes that anyone can use to get around in order to cause harm. Closing those loopholes (as with any law really) as well as addressing the supposed mental health crisis should be our top priorities. However, I think we should all know by now that nothing will ever be done about it. And where do they get this "influence?" Oh, right: $$$ You're really just arguing semantics here. They may not literally pay people off, but their influence (read: money) is all they need to get some politicians in their pocket. They spend millions of dollars in political campaign advertising, and how they determine whom to support is pretty simple. It is not enough to merely be pro-gun to have their support, as many folks who are pro-gun nonetheless support various restrictions and regulatory-policy. The NRA uses its "influence" to prop up policymakers not who are pro-gun, but who oppose said policies. And yet, not strict enough. California has a loophole allowing assault-rifles with discharge buttons. That's how the couple in San Bernardino got theirs. On top of that, it is pretty common knowledge among Californians that they can just travel down to Arizona to get whatever weapons they want. This state-by-state model has failed. Time to go with a uniform system, and one that significantly curtails what kind of weapons are on the market (no full-auto, lower magazine-sizes). Actually, there is, if not in the US (since the right policies are never enacted in the first place). Other countries have proven it: www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1Ironically, the lawmaker in Australia who pushed for gun-control is identified as a pro-gun conservative. In the partisan 'States, though, the NRA would rip on him for not being pro-gun/conservative enough. LOL... gun control's expansion of federal-government power is negligible at best. Weapons alone do not bridge the vast resources gap between citizenry and government, and if it did, we would have much bigger problems. As to the second-amendment, there are limits to those rights. You have freedom-of-speech, but that does not make things like slander or fighting-words legal. Gun control in no way nullifies the second-amendment; you can still have guns, within reason. Not what I said and you know it. The victims are past the point of caring what is done or said about them. Time to attend to the living and how to keep them safe: better control laws. I'm too lazy to sort out the quotes, so I'm just going to use numbers to identify which I'm responding to.
1. Their influence comes from the popular support of like-minded citizens. It might be expressed financially, but that is not the fundamental root of their power.1
2. The guns used weren't assault rifles. They were all semiautomatic, and had illegal modifications.2 Magazine size doesn't matter for a person carrying out a shooting; the time and effort it takes to carry additional magazines and reload the gun are negligible when you're dealing with unarmed targets.
3. The article you linked mentions the lower number of gun deaths. It doesn't say anything about other forms of violence, nor does it account for differences in culture. Furthermore, these statistics are cherry-picked for countries that appear to support the gun control narrative.2
4. Gun control would be a massive expansion of government power, as we would then be that much more reliant on the government to protect us. Just ask the Black Lives Matter movement how that works out. To your comments on the second amendment: the restrictions the gun grabbers advocate are hardly "reasonable." If you make it near impossible for individuals to exercise their second amendment rights, that counts as infringement.
5. While the direct victims might no longer care, the same cannot be said for their friends and family. They deserve some emotional support after this horrible tragedy. Furthermore, your so-called "better gun control" would not help keep anyone safe. Taking action is pointless if the action you take doesn't solve the problem. 3
1: See above. 2: That's statistics in general though. However, it is a bad work ethic to present studies that clearly use skewed (cherry picked) data in order to support any argument. 3: No action will be taken on the issue. Then again, we can't correctly judge the effectiveness of an action if nothing is ever done. |
|
