General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 150

So the biggest flaw in my references idea is peer pressure? Which could damage a very minimal work relationship or if I'm Mr. Nice guy, sign any document without understanding the potential consequences much like all the legal forms we all regularly sign and never read so we can use our electronics and end up suffering because I didn't read the fine print. Like I said before, it would be 3 references, which would hopefully cut down on collusion. If a work place acquaintance shot the place up, I'd still be interrogated especially if it was known I was one of the people he connected with, regardless if I was a reference or not.

As far as an individual not being part of a society, that is an issue and an outlier that I haven't figured out how it would work in the system.

 

If the purchaser is in question, and needs a referral, who gives a reference for those on the referral?

 

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. Maybe I am having trouble articulating it but I think this idea is deeply flawed.

 

Look what I posted above, and I think it pretty much sums up your point. "The reference needs a referral".

 

Yeah what if the three people giving you references are part of your white nationalist organization or something. What if they are part of your death cult.

 

Did you see the three things I listed that would probably do some good? Who am I to talk, but fuck it someone has to come up with something rational. If it doesn't work, well then, the government needs to prepare for a percentage of it's own citizens defending their second amendment.

 

Background checks check the past, and safety courses teach you how to be safe and operate your weapon, California only requires registration of assault type weapons.

The imaginary reference idea is about your current and future mental state with Orlando in mind and knowing what the wife knew and has admitted to knowing. He openly talked about doing this, so I'd like to imagine that he'd have a difficult time finding 3 references that would vouch for him buying an assault weapon compared to the nothing that happened because he passed background checks.

 

Wrong.

Obviously they check the past, there are no "futureground" checks.

Where did you get that fact? California is one of the strictest states when it comes to purchasing a GUN, that's everything from hand guns to long guns.

Here are the prohibiting factors when purchasing a gun, I know I posted before, but I haven't seen you here talking about this.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/prohibcatmisd.pdf?

Some general FAQ's

Frequently Asked Questions | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

 

Halle/Chomsky: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting) | Outrages and Interludes

 

But what qualifications would I have to assess the current and future mental state of anyone? His wife knew and didn't report him to anyone, why are we assuming she wouldn't have given him a reference if asked? Why are we assuming he doesn't know 2 more people that would vouche for him?

 

Yeah I think those are all very good policy positions, I don't know that any of them would have prevented Orlando.

 

My good friend who lives in Cali told me about the headache he had in buying a rifle earlier this year as it's a 10 day waiting period, which ended up being 25 days because he didn't know it was 10 days once the gun arrived and the wait period is 10 days after it's given a serial number. So my information comes from an actual gun owner who has gone through the process fairly recently.

 

Some new (May 2016) gun laws passed here in California.

Here are the gun control proposals approved by the state Senate

• Ammunition regulation: SB 1235 by Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) requires background checks to buy ammunition. It also creates a license to sell ammunition, and creates a new system for collecting information about those sales.

• Ban on large ammunition magazines: SB 1446 by Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) bans the ownership of any ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.

• Bullet buttons: SB 880 by Sen. Isadore Hall (D-Compton) expands the legal definition of an "assualt weapon" to include a group of rifles with ammunition clips that can be quickly swapped out by using a bullet to push a small release button.

• SB 894 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) requires reporting most lost or stolen guns within five days.

• "Ghost guns": SB 1407 by De León requires a person to get a serial number from state officials before making or assembling a gun.

• Gun violence research: SB 1006 by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) creates a new University of California center for researching gun-related violence.

 

It's a real hassle for sure.

Like 5 years ago, the only registration of the serial number was for handguns. But now, you have to do the background check and essentially registering yourself when you buy other guns as well. So there may not be a serial number registration for long guns, but your name and type of weapon goes down on a list, so it's essentially the same thing.

 

Chomsky has put forth this argument for years now. It isn't surprising, nor is it convincing.

 

I can agree to disagree, I enjoy the discussion non the less at hoping to find a middle ground by giving ideas and having them dissected and changed to find something that rationally works.

We don't know if the 3 references would of worked, but it wouldn't of made the situation any worse. Now let me expand the references to all guns and a veteran with severe ptsd wants a gun, he's a veteran so a gun shop owner might respect him more for that but if he has to get references and any of them know he has been battling with severe ptsd it could be a warning sign to get him help. What if an individual suffers from depression because of a tremendous loss or finds out they have a terminal disease, could they pull themselves together to convince a gun shop owner to sell, sure thing. But if they had to get 3 references, the chances of someone seeing the possible suicide risk might be able to get them the help they need.

There are always ways to beat the system and the idea of putting in small safety net that relies more on the society you identify with than the government controlling seems like a reasonable solution, but not perfect.

 

If you had a friend with severe ptsd who came to you asking for a gun purchase referral, and you decline on account of the fact that you feel like his mental state is not conducive to gun ownership, you are making a claim that you are unqualified to make, and opening the door for a conversation that you are equally unqualified to have.

If, on the other hand, this friend has been treated for ptsd and it is documented on their medical record, and a trained mental health professional can evaluate the friend and determine whether they are or aren't a danger to themselves or others, I feel like that can and should be used to determine whether or not the friend can purchase a firearm.

 

Where have the sit-ins been to protest the continued cuts to social welfare? Where have the congressional protests been to demand affordable housing or a public option for healthcare? Where have the sit-ins been to demand an end to police brutality and mass incarceration?

There haven’t been any sit-ins on these issues because this is not really about protest more than it is about political theater. The demonstrations are too late because the votes have already been taken and failed.

But by focusing their ire on the Republican Party’s refusal to ban gun sales to people on the government’s anti-terrorism list, the Democrats hope to paint the party as “weak on terrorism.”...

Most people want something done about the threat and actual experience of pervasive gun violence in the United States. But framing the issue as one of “national security” and as part of the “war on terror” does not address the underlying causes of violence in America.

It will lead to the further isolation and oppression of communities who have been repeatedly and unjustifiably victimized by the US security state at home and abroad."

The Cynical Sit-In | Jacobin

This article is on point.

 

Another one of the cops that murdered Freddie Gray was found not guilty. Where are the sit-ins?

Police driver acquitted of all charges in Freddie Gray death

 

Maybe I was alone in this but I was unaware that there were actually two gun control measured sponsored by Republicans and torpedoed by nearly all Democratic lawmakers.

 

That's because the media loves to portray Democrats as completely anti-gun.

 

well that and also weren't there a bunch of riders on the bills the republicans were trying to pass?

 

I didn't look into everything to be honest, I just wanted to comment on that. The gun control debate get's over saturated with people who have an agenda, or are completely ignorant to the topic as a whole. It's hard to have a good TWO sided conversation without it turning into blame, or "guns are bad!".

 

I'm not a qualified or certified mechanic, but I can fix my car. I'm not a qualified or certified chef but I still manage to cook food for myself and a multitude of other individuals, I'm most certainly not a certified medical professional but I can still treat injuries and even diagnosis and treat certain illnesses. I'm not a qualified or certified psychiatrist but if a friend is going through an extremely difficult time, I'm still capable of helping. I'm not a toxicology expert but I can definitely take the keys away from someone who has had too much to drink even with not knowing their alcoholic limits.

If I know a friend, someone I know, is struggling with all the telltale signs of ptsd and is eagerly trying to get a gun, I am a qualified individual to say no....until they can be seen by a professional who can make a more clinical decision.

 

The sit-in was a joke considering congress is on Fourth of July recess. No one is going to get anything done before vacation.

I did some math and congress only works roughly 133 days a year and at a base salary of $174,000 they are making $163 an hour if they work an 8 hour day. Good ol' tax dollars at work.