Majority in poll say Florida students 'effective advocates for gun control' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53196061]* Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. [/QUOTE] What's wrong with the gun control act of 1968? Of all the laws I would think it make the most sense, considering it was written after JFK got assassinated and very shortly after RFK and MLK also got killed.

It's mostly about establishing a clean slate too work with. Current legislation, as well as statures and court findings that came from them, have been double-speak for awhile now. When you get on the state level its even worse. The most observable case of this is the National Firearms Act of 1934. They basically stated that they made automatics, shortbarreled weapons, and suppressors illegal for civilian ownership because they had no military application. Even by 1934, the US Military was using all of the above in some capacity or another. These days, said argument with the findings of US v. Miller, would probably have the entire legislation deemed bullcrap. On the state level, you have legislation which openly prohibits individuals younger then 21 from purchasing and owning firearms, which flies in the face of the Militia Acts, which pretty much state you are unorganized militia by the age of 17. Without some spring cleaning, we are basically in the legal equivalent of a Hoarders House.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53197083]It's mostly about establishing a clean slate too work with. Current legislation, as well as statures and court findings that came from them, have been double-speak for awhile now. When you get on the state level its even worse. The most observable case of this is the National Firearms Act of 1934. They basically stated that they made automatics, shortbarreled weapons, and suppressors illegal for civilian ownership because they had no military application. Even by 1934, the US Military was using all of the above in some capacity or another. These days, said argument with the findings of US v. Miller, would probably have the entire legislation deemed bullcrap. On the state level, you have legislation which openly prohibits individuals younger then 21 from purchasing and owning firearms, which flies in the face of the Militia Acts, which pretty much state you are unorganized militia by the age of 17. Without some spring cleaning, we are basically in the legal equivalent of a Hoarders House.[/QUOTE] It just sounds like you're suggesting we throw out everything on principle without considering that hey, maybe some gun control does good.

It may seem like that, but I'm fine with some things. I just believe that security theater is not what we should be doing. The current systems of gun control across this country are extremely discriminatory towards those of poorer backgrounds, and in some cases even based on racial and religious backgrounds, and most of that is either done via security theater[feel good] gun control, or done in cases like what happened in California in the 60's and 70's, with the intent of disarming groups like the Black Panthers. We need to clean slate, and too go about a new Militia Act, which creates systems that are actually updated for the 21st century. If this isn't done, alongside actually dealing with the issues that lead to violence, we are just kicking the ball further down the road.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53193476]Oh no, poor poor you, what would you do without guns?!?! Seriously, come on, get off the melodrama and get some perspective on what's really important[/QUOTE] What's important is finding out the real reason for violence instead of thinking punishing 100,000,000+ honest, law abiding citizens for the criminal actions of just a few thousand is somehow the magical panacea for this stuff. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53195436] Well what the fresh fuck do you want, then? Fully automatics? Is that what it will take for you to stop being so paranoid about this issue every god-damned time this happens? How much more do you want US to give up for YOUR right to easily own a gun, let alone a fully automatic, if it means that you and every other gun owner, manufacturer, lobbyist, retailer, whoever finally does SOMETHING to curb the threat of gun crime? Because I already gave up a friend in high school for YOUR right to be able to EASILY buy a gun, so I am SO terribly sorry if he wasn't enough because I'm not willing to give up anymore just so you can afford the luxury of hiding in the woods when people start shitting on any rights but the right to own a gun.[/QUOTE] I don't speak for Joe, but as an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner myself, what I want is for people to stop going with knee jerk 'Let's punish 100,000,000 people for the psychotic actions of a couple thousand' ban attempts. I'm all for making sure we take the necessary steps to prevent those with criminal backgrounds(Fun fact: most gun crime is committed by felons that are already banned from posessing firearms of any sort!), those with instabilities, et-al from getting a hold of these things, but that's never what comes up. What comes up is bans. 'Oh, we wanna ban 30rd magazines.' 'We wanna ban bump stocks'. 'We wanna ban barrels under a given length'. 'Ban this, ban that, blablablataketaketake', how about no?

[QUOTE=TestECull;53201086]What's important is finding out the real reason for violence instead of thinking punishing 100,000,000+ honest, law abiding citizens for the criminal actions of just a few thousand is somehow the magical panacea for this stuff. I don't speak for Joe, but as an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner myself, what I want is for people to stop going with knee jerk 'Let's punish 100,000,000 people for the psychotic actions of a couple thousand' ban attempts. I'm all for making sure we take the necessary steps to prevent those with criminal backgrounds(Fun fact: most gun crime is committed by felons that are already banned from posessing firearms of any sort!), those with instabilities, et-al from getting a hold of these things, but that's never what comes up. What comes up is bans. 'Oh, we wanna ban 30rd magazines.' 'We wanna ban bump stocks'. 'We wanna ban barrels under a given length'. 'Ban this, ban that, blablablataketaketake', how about no?[/QUOTE] What is the [B]punishment[/B] you're defining here? You make gun owners sound like spoiled brats and don't make a case for your point. For as many problems gun owners have with the incoming legislation ( which, I agree, is usually knee-jerk and doesn't do as much as it is argued to ) I have yet to see any groups outside of the laughable NRA actually come forward with a "From A Gun Owners Perspective" method of helping reduce the root causes of gun violence in our country.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53197207]It may seem like that, but I'm fine with some things. I just believe that security theater is not what we should be doing. The current systems of gun control across this country are extremely discriminatory towards those of poorer backgrounds, and in some cases even based on racial and religious backgrounds, and most of that is either done via security theater[feel good] gun control, or done in cases like what happened in California in the 60's and 70's, with the intent of disarming groups like the Black Panthers. We need to clean slate, and too go about a new Militia Act, which creates systems that are actually updated for the 21st century. If this isn't done, alongside actually dealing with the issues that lead to violence, we are just kicking the ball further down the road.[/QUOTE] I'm curious to what you think how a new Militia Act should be enacted?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53201174]I'm curious to what you think how a new Militia Act should be enacted?[/QUOTE] That'd be pretty interesting to see, especially when you consider the unorganized militia as defined by the 1903 act (pretty much all adult male citizens within a broad age range) has been rendered entirely irrelevant to national defense policy, due to the 20th century transition to emphasizing a large standing, professional army with moment's-notice expeditionary capabilities. The old army/militia system was meant to defend our borders on the cheap, the assumption being that having two giant moats on either side and a kickass navy to patrol them would stop the biggest threats. Our involvement in the world-wars and 40+ years of full-spectrum struggle with the Soviet Union changed that outlook completely. I'm not sure what we'd even do with a militia nowadays.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;53202139]The old army/militia system was meant to defend our borders on the cheap, the assumption being that having two giant moats on either side and a kickass navy to patrol them would stop the biggest threats.[/QUOTE] I'm going to need a source on this claim.