San Bernardino

There is no way anyone proposing taking guns away already in circulation wil be taken seriously. Other than a generous buyback program. Must have missed that part but its pretty dumb

 

Went over my head too. But it's not a high bar I guess

 

And how do you define an idea that robs law abiding citizens of their rights, knowing it will reduce gun vilence by approximately 1%?



http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/Impact of Brady Act 2013.pdf

The Times' proposal isn't real. It's not practical. It's not legal. And, it would do little about the problem.

This is all about perception. It's about trying to change the conversation away from the President's failed foreign and domestic programs.

It's about setting up an unattainable goal, so they can demagogue their political opponents when the proposal is rejected and fails.

 

The proposal will be rejected out of hand.

That's different than an independent media questioning the Times editors about how they would propose to implement their plan, were it to be accepted by even a slim majority of Americans.

 

Well, you'll get no argument from me that neither Christianity nor Islam have any place in a modern society.

 

I'm sure you had trouble deciphering my point. You're not one of the brightest bulbs.

 

I'm not getting in a pissing match about the Times' motivation. I just think we need to more closely regulate firearms going forward, not the damage already done. Someone already has an assault weapon? OK. But if they plan to transfer it, it should be documented. Not sure what is so controversial about that.

 

You don't know if it's legal or not. I reject your premise.

 

It won't be accepted so what's the point? I remember reading it now, but it was a throwaway line. Nobody is giving up legally obtained weapons voluntarily

 

I understand your position. It doesn't even offend me.

But, seeing folks here compare Christianity of the 10th-13th centuries to modern day Islam is insane.

And, I'd even agree that I wouldn't want to live under the most "extreme" Christians, like the loons of the Westboro Church.

But, I say we should compare the "moderate" Christianity of today with the "moderate" Islam of today.

Who here wants to live under moderate Islam? Even moderate Islam is rife with anti-Semitism and misogyny. Farook was considered a moderate Muslim until the moment he opened fire on his co-workers. When the Defense Department looked to work with moderate Islamic clerics after 9/11, Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the clerics they reached out to.

Scratch the surface of most moderate Muslims, and you'll find someone who does not embrace American values.

 

They want gun owners to be forced to turn over guns they already own. How could that possibly be legal.

 

LOL. What's the point!

It was the first A1 editorial in the Times in 80 years. You might expect it to be a serious, well thought out, proposal.

Considering that they declared the time for talking and debating was over, you might assume that what they put in there did not include "throw away lines".