Do Cops Lives Matter?!

[Donkeyfish07]

Fair points, but then something still has to be done. We can't keep going with the status quo on guns or else you're just going to have more bloodshed.

Again not saying to get rid of all guns, though that indeed be the most ideal. We gotta think of something here though

When I was in middle school, I could have gotten my hands on a gun easier than I could alcohol. None of them acquired legally. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles. There was a lot of hunting done in the area, but it was also a huge sport and people shot just to shoot. It's a culutral past time in my hometown. There is a gigantic trade that is off the books because people already thought the paperwork was too big of a hassle back then. People at least run the serial numbers now and write up a bill of sale if they don't do the rest of it so that much progress has been made at least, but it hasn't stopped the volume beng moved. I'm interested in how people for tighter restrictions think it could actually be done.

We have had a war on drugs for over 50 years, we still can't put a dent in the supply or the demand. Even inside of prison walls. It's self apparent that you can not decrease the demand for guns in america, but how would you dent the supply? If it gets to be too much red tape and hassle, it will just move to being off the books and guns won't even be traceable. As long as there is demand there will also be supply. My question is, how would you propose reducing supply? I can't think of how it could functionally be done.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

When I was in middle school, I could have gotten my hands on a gun easier than I could alcohol. None of them acquired legally. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles. There was a lot of hunting done in the area, but it was also a huge sport and people shot just to shoot. It's a culutral past time in my hometown. There is a gigantic trade that is off the books because people already thought the paperwork was too big of a hassle back then. People at least run the serial numbers now and write up a bill of sale if they don't do the rest of it so that much progress has been made at least, but it hasn't stopped the volume beng moved. I'm interested in how people for tighter restrictions think it could actually be done.

We have had a war on drugs for over 50 years, we still can't put a dent in the supply or the demand. Even inside of prison walls. It's self apparent that you can not decrease the demand for guns in america, but how would you dent the supply? If it gets to be too much red tape and hassle, it will just move to being off the books and guns won't even be traceable. As long as there is demand there will also be supply. My question is, how would you propose reducing supply? I can't think of how it could functionally be done.

This a good question and thoughts indeed. Firstly I think we should recognize a lot of the gun supply comes from America itself. In fact a lot of the gun supply, legal or illegal, in other countries comes from America, to our shame. There's many ways you could reduce the supply. One could try pressuring manufacturers to make less of them, for instance by raising taxes on the guns, bullets, or the parts to make them.

A real simple solution, even a far-right conservative type solution, would be to do a crackdown and mass confiscation of guns possessed by gangs and cartels. Only problem I foresee with this is ironically self-proclaimed conservatives don't want to do this because they imagine it means the government is going to come in commie-like and take away all guns from all people. Yet it is not so, for one does not have to confiscate guns from the law abiding citizen, but since street gangs are by their very nature not law abiding, then there is more than enough justification to take gangsters' weapons. Me and my friend were actually talking about this yesterday in this same vein of thought. His carnal dad is like a lot of the woody gun owners on here, so he don't want the big government coming and oppressing his dad over something as trivial as guns. I find that more than fair enough. But he brought up a good point that the gangs are kinda like unto rebel armies. Since the gangsters and cartels are essentially killing citizens with guns, they have no right to bear arms. The gangsters are even killing the cops! Therefore the government in interest to protect the citizen for certes has a right to mass confiscate the guns of gangsters.

For tamping down the supply amongst the law-abiding citizen, this is trickier, for indeed, it is not right by force to take their guns away and not recompense them. So programs like buy back programs is a pretty standard idea that works for some. Another thought I've had when talking to another friend of mine, is give them alternatives to the gun. For instance promoting and giving incentive to do bow hunting as an alternative to hunting with a gun.

A big problem with the supply amongst law abiding citizens is they don't have just one or two rifles for hunting, or one or two pistols for home protection. The problem is in the past 7 years, they have stockpiled literal arsenals. I don't quite see why one needs 10-30 guns. That's not an exaggeration either. I have seen with my own eyes that it's quite common for people to have that many guns. They are entitled to have that many, sure, but is it really beneficial to have that many guns? When there's that many it's harder to keep track of even for themselves, and its easier for anyone to get into them either stealing them or kids accidentally playing with them. Like I said it's the hardest front of the campaign because the government can't do anything about it by their own law. People have to change their minds and hearts, which is hard in America. It would be beneficial though even for the person themself to reduce their arsenals from say 10 guns to 5. Any reduction is helpful, even every small step should be looked at as positive.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

For tamping down the supply amongst the law-abiding citizen, this is trickier, for indeed, it is not right by force to take their guns away and not recompense them. So programs like buy back programs is a pretty standard idea that works for some. Another thought I've had when talking to another friend of mine, is give them alternatives to the gun. For instance promoting and giving incentive to do bow hunting as an alternative to hunting with a gun.

A big problem with the supply amongst law abiding citizens is they don't have just one or two rifles for hunting, or one or two pistols for home protection. The problem is in the past 7 years, they have stockpiled literal arsenals. I don't quite see why one needs 10-30 guns. That's not an exaggeration either. I have seen with my own eyes that it's quite common for people to have that many guns. They are entitled to have that many, sure, but is it really beneficial to have that many guns? When there's that many it's harder to keep track of even for themselves, and its easier for anyone to get into them either stealing them or kids accidentally playing with them. Like I said it's the hardest front of the campaign because the government can't do anything about it by their own law. People have to change their minds and hearts, which is hard in America. It would be beneficial though even for the person themself to reduce their arsenals from say 10 guns to 5. Any reduction is helpful, even every small step should be looked at as positive.

I had a similar conversation the other day. The reason people stockpile so many is because all the "gun people" (i don't personally own any) are worried people are going to try to take them away. I personally think it would take a full out civil war to get the job done because as susceptible people are to propaganda in this country (even terms like male and female are being banned in some places, it's so bizarro world), gun culture runs deeper than any imaginable smear campaign could peneterate. Thats only an opinion of course but if multiple mass shootings with many of the victims being innocent women, children, students, and church goers can't swing majority opinion then what can?

The issue is that the government was set up this way from the beginning. From one of the people involved with creating the second ammendment "The beauty of it is, it won't be needed until they try to take it". You can't really reframe it historically so the issue is do you scrap the constitution or don't you? Too many people would consider it treason for it to happen peacefully.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I had a similar conversation the other day. The reason people stockpile so many is because all the "gun people" (i don't personally own any) are worried people are going to try to take them away. I personally think it would take a full out civil war to get the job done because as susceptible people are to propaganda in this country (even terms like male and female are being banned in some places, it's so bizarro world), gun culture runs deeper than any imaginable smear campaign could peneterate. Thats only an opinion of course but if multiple mass shootings with many of the victims being innocent women, children, students, and church goers can't swing majority opinion then what can?

The issue is that the government was set up this way from the beginning. From one of the people involved with creating the second ammendment "The beauty of it is, it won't be needed until they try to take it". You can't really reframe it historically so the issue is do you scrap the constitution or don't you? Too many people would consider it treason for it to happen peacefully.

I agree and these are good points. I have heard the pro-gun side, I know people with arsenals, and I have heard the anti-gun side too, even people that if you think I am anti-gun, these people would give me a run for my money!

It's what I was meaning earlier in the gun topic about that downward spiral. More guns and gun crimes feeds the narrative for the government to do gun control, people hate the government so they in reaction get more guns which leads to more gun violence and opportunity for gun violence, which then leads us back to the government wanting more gun control. Keeps going on and on, yet it is not a cycle, it is a spiral. Unless even some modest attempts are made, it has to crash at one point into either total full blown Wild West anarchy or into government tyranny, which is what no one wants.

It's an irony really. In order to maintain the gun for the law abiding, they have to get on board with some sort of gun control. If they don't, then either nothing gets done and the gun violence keeps growing, or elsewise the people that actually want the government to totally disarm everyone have an excuse to do such. It's kind of like Obamacare, because no one did anything about healthcare before, now we got something that pretty much no one likes when they could have easily just done some simple little reforms.

As for the Constitution, scrapping it is always a possibility, but one doesn't have to go to that extreme. There's all ready a precedent in the bill of rights that one can essentially repeal or nullify amendments which is itself totally constitutional. The Constitution is also only the law of the government, it's not the law of the people. So one doesn't even have to even go to that extreme either. The more meaningful solutions to gun control don't even necessarily have to involve the government at all, but that is what makes them harder, because it takes the will of the people.

To the converse of that the solutions that do involve the government, such as confiscating guns from criminals, well they don't have a right bear arms to begin with being criminals anyways. The gangsters are even like unto rebel armies, so it is almost imperative that the government disarms the gangsters whom are openly killing American citizens and government employees like the police.

 

[Dude653]

Of course cops lives matter but so does mine.....ijs

 

[Donkeyfish07]

I agree and these are good points. I have heard the pro-gun side, I know people with arsenals, and I have heard the anti-gun side too, even people that if you think I am anti-gun, these people would give me a run for my money!

It's what I was meaning earlier in the gun topic about that downward spiral. More guns and gun crimes feeds the narrative for the government to do gun control, people hate the government so they in reaction get more guns which leads to more gun violence and opportunity for gun violence, which then leads us back to the government wanting more gun control. Keeps going on and on, yet it is not a cycle, it is a spiral. Unless even some modest attempts are made, it has to crash at one point into either total full blown Wild West anarchy or into government tyranny, which is what no one wants.

It's an irony really. In order to maintain the gun for the law abiding, they have to get on board with some sort of gun control. If they don't, then either nothing gets done and the gun violence keeps growing, or elsewise the people that actually want the government to totally disarm everyone have an excuse to do such. It's kind of like Obamacare, because no one did anything about healthcare before, now we got something that pretty much no one likes when they could have easily just done some simple little reforms.

As for the Constitution, scrapping it is always a possibility, but one doesn't have to go to that extreme. There's all ready a precedent in the bill of rights that one can essentially repeal or nullify amendments which is itself totally constitutional. The Constitution is also only the law of the government, it's not the law of the people. So one doesn't even have to even go to that extreme either. The more meaningful solutions to gun control don't even necessarily have to involve the government at all, but that is what makes them harder, because it takes the will of the people.

To the converse of that the solutions that do involve the government, such as confiscating guns from criminals, well they don't have a right bear arms to begin with being criminals anyways. The gangsters are even like unto rebel armies, so it is almost imperative that the government disarms the gangsters whom are openly killing American citizens and government employees like the police.

I agree there. It certainly is an irony. A catch 22 situation. I personally think that as a Christian, its good to be nonviolent. I trust God to protect me but I also get the point of view that people want to feel like they can protect their family. I'm sure there are also people that take non violence seriously that own guns and shoot as a sport only (gun marksmanship has its own culture and recreational aspects as archery does). I'd love to see people voluntarily disarming too but those reasons and others we have taked about is why I couldn't agree with making it mandatory.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I agree there. It certainly is an irony. A catch 22 situation. I personally think that as a Christian, its good to be nonviolent. I trust God to protect me but I also get the point of view that people want to feel like they can protect their family. I'm sure there are also people that take non violence seriously that own guns and shoot as a sport only (gun marksmanship has its own culture and recreational aspects as archery does). I'd love to see people voluntarily disarming too but those reasons and others we have taked about is why I couldn't agree with making it mandatory.

I agree. Making it mandatory to disarm all people just ain't going to happen in America, even if they tried it. Even just trying to disarm the gangsters, which is totally lawful, is a task in itself. Still that shouldn't be an excuse to do nothing over the issue in light of the problem. Or it shouldn't be an excuse for people to not try to find some sort of common ground common sense gun control ideas. Both sides pro-gun and anti-gun have to come together to help stop or reduce the scourge of gun crime and accidents in America.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not for criminals and their organizations on a large land mass the size of the U.S. surging with disparate people groups. They always have access to firearms. They can smuggle them in from nations all over the world which produce firearms for export including China which is the third largest firearm exporter in the world. They can make them themselves, it's not difficult. Refined military grade rifles can be made using 3D printers and cruder ones from parts at the local hardware store. Criminal organizations take the next step in large nations with strict gun control such as Mexico and China, of course, and simply set up clandestine firearm factories where they make their own using templates freely available all over the world and the internet.

You can reduce the supply for moral law abiding citizens by passing strict gun control leaving moral law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals and their organizations but that's about all you're really going to accomplish... using the justice system to persecute moral law abiding citizens while ensuring they live their lives unable to defend themselves from the criminal element.

Honestly, with the "progressive" laws the way they are today in many states, I suppose that would be the cherry on the liberal cake as anyone defending themselves from criminals, street gangs, prison gangs operating on the outside, cartels, etc... already face imprisonment and bankruptcy proceedings in those states if the iota of a complicated technicality isn't followed or they have the bad luck to get a black jury and they are white having dispatched a black gangster pulling a home invasion, for example.

My question is, how would you propose reducing supply? I can't think of how it could functionally be done.

 

[Colt45Bullet]

Under the uniform and gunbelt of every Law Enforcement officer, there is a man, or a woman that has a soul, and family. Without Police, America would be doomed. Recently, and Radical Muslim ran over a Policeman 3 times. For no reason at all. Now you ask me, if he ran over a Policeman that did nothing to him at all, do you think he would stop to kill one of you, or your family? What if someone walked up to your kid, put a gun to their head, and shot them on the spot, for no reason? Wouldnt you want guns, and Law Enforcement officers to find who did it? Police are NOT going away. Remember, the Policeman isnt asking for your clapping and cheering. All he really wants is a little common courtesy, and, some respect. So yes. Police lives matter, because yours depends on them.