So D-Barr suggested I highjacked my own thread, so let’s move it to one dedicated to the discussion. I guess the first question I have is how many here even feel this country has a serious gun problem?

I’d also be curious how many feel it is irresponsible for Mitch to not bring the House passed legislation to the floor for a vote. I don’t have the complete legislation, but I haven’t heard of anything in it that would cause the usual 2A argument.

I would also wonder why this administration killed all funding to research gun violence, is there something they don’t want the public to know?

Tied to the gun problem might be the question, why we don’t have laws to even recognize domestic terrorism?

Eventually it will go to John’s question, why should the sane gun owner be prevented from buying a semi automatic rifle. If that’s a line the senate will never cross, I’d like to see it illegal to have these large capacity magazines.

Eventually it will go to John’s question, why should the sane gun owner be prevented from buying a semi automatic rifle.

answer the quetion

Love how the focus turns to this administration,thus absolving previous administrations from being complicit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Feb. 28, 2017, 8:36 PM EST / Updated Feb. 28, 2017, 8:39 PM EST
By Ali Vitali
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.

The results in several countries of gun control

Over the next few years, gun-death totals were cut nearly in half. Firearm suicides dropped to 0.8 per 100,000 people in 2006 from 2.2 in 1995, while firearm homicides dropped to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006 from 0.37 in 1995.

The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.

X, which has strict laws for obtaining firearms, seldom has more than 10 shooting deaths a year in a population of 127 million people.

Compared with the US, Y has about one-third of the number of guns per 100 civilians — and about one-tenth of the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people.

Love how the focus turns to this administration,thus absolving previous administrations from being complicit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Love how many are so stuck living in the past, unless you have a time machine, we need to solve it in the present or the near future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

answer the quetion
Happy to, thought you would have read between the lines or had a recollection of my position from past discussions. I don’t see the need for assault style weapons, but I am also not stupid enough to believe this or even the next administration would ban them, my hope is much stricter regulations for purchase, closing loopholes and making these high capacity magazines illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Happy to, thought you would have read between the lines or had a recollection of my position from past discussions. I don’t see the need for assault style weapons, but I am also not stupid enough to believe this or even the next administration would ban them, my hope is much stricter regulations for purchase, closing loopholes and making these high capacity magazines illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's awfully generic and vague

Love how many are so stuck living in the past, unless you have a time machine, we need to solve it in the present or the near future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I agree
I also know he has been busy erasing past mistakes and I am confident things are going to improve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So D-Barr suggested I highjacked my own thread, so let’s move it to one dedicated to the discussion. I guess the first question I have is how many here even feel this country has a serious gun problem?

I’d also be curious how many feel it is irresponsible for Mitch to not bring the House passed legislation to the floor for a vote. I don’t have the complete legislation, but I haven’t heard of anything in it that would cause the usual 2A argument.

I would also wonder why this administration killed all funding to research gun violence, is there something they don’t want the public to know?

Tied to the gun problem might be the question, why we don’t have laws to even recognize domestic terrorism?

Eventually it will go to John’s question, why should the sane gun owner be prevented from buying a semi automatic rifle. If that’s a line the senate will never cross, I’d like to see it illegal to have these large capacity magazines.

Here is the issue: Overall Gun related deaths are down near 40% since the peak in the mid 90s (though rising again). The outliers of this are mass shootings and increased inner city violence in some places. Mental Health / Drugs and Gangs / Drugs.

The Right, Some moderate & Independents, and those that believe in the Constitution/2A believe the right to bear arms is absolute and that Self Defense is a Basic Right. Several courts from District to Supreme (Heller) have confirmed this.

The Left, Some moderate & Independents, (I would grant that far less on Left believe in the Constitution) and those that believe in legislating to a better society (rights be damned).

Dems believe that they can banish "Assault Weapons" and that this would do a lot of good. A lot of Dem legislators & Talking Heads that do not know how a firearm operates have done this massive dis/misinformation campaign and made a lot of good people out to be bad people. "You are in the NRA, you must be a racist". They put a lot of pressure on this and this basically target millions of good law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong. Wayne says nobody wants to take your guns but whether he is lying, naive, or foolish, I just don't know.

Then these same Dems complain that the Reps and Pro 2A won't work with them. Who would want to work with a Party that wants to take away your rights, against your core beliefs in the value of Self Protection, that don't know how a firearm operates, that really does not address the core problem or Mental Health?

Circle back to the top, the problem in Mass Shootings is usually mental health ( I linked this yesterday from a Renowned Never Trumper - bet most of you did not read it (https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/09/the-revenge-of-the-lost-boys/)) and how that allows outside influences to channel these "Lost Boys". The El Paso guy might have been set off by some 8Chan/Trump and the Ohio guy was apparently and Antifascist hard left awkward incel - both lost boys with different paths to get where they did. Both would have been top candidates for Red Flag laws. MOST of the Mass Shooters over the past 20 years been candidates for Red Flag laws.

We already have very stringent background laws and checks. I cannot purchase a firearm over the counter or privately without having a legal background check from NICS (National Instant criminal Background Check System).

You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
You cannot legally buy an AR15 ANYWHERE Without a Background Check.
Back to the next line same as the first line.

Some states have blocked what data can be submitted to NICS, particularly Mental Health records - items that would be a disqualification for passing an NICS check. Other state and Federal systems have screwed up data transfer which have failed to prevent some people with disqualifying items on their record from causing a NICS check fail. This has been pointed out in the past as allowing people that would have failed a NCIS Check to get firearms. The System Failed. The existing laws were sufficient, the application was not.

So where do we start? IMO we need Red Flag laws that can identify (with just cause) these Lanzas, Roofs, Johnsons, Cruz types that all were on someone's radar. We need to do it in a way that protects their individual rights (due process) and if deemed a risk, prevented from Firearm access and gotten help.

We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.
We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.
We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.
We don't penalize the Law Abiding Citizen.


How do we help the Urban Violence, where most of the tragedy to our our kids happens? No idea.

Circle back to the top, the problem in Mass Shootings is usually mental health ( I linked this yesterday from a Renowned Never Trumper - bet most of you did not read it (https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/09/the-revenge-of-the-lost-boys/)) and how that allows outside influences to channel these "Lost Boys". The El Paso guy might have been set off by some 8Chan/Trump and the Ohio guy was apparently and Antifascist hard left awkward incel - both lost boys with different paths to get where they did. Both would have been top candidates for Red Flag laws. MOST of the Mass Shooters over the past 20 years been candidates for Red Flag laws.


At no place in that oped does Tom Nichols say that mental health has anything to do with it. In fact, those words are not in that article. Lost Boys are an issue, but for some reason largely in this country.

WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association, in reaction to President Trump’s statements today regarding gun violence and mental illness:

“Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.

“The United States is a global outlier when it comes to horrific headlines like the ones that consumed us all weekend. Although the United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, we are home to 31% of all mass shooters globally, according to a CNN analysis. This difference is not explained by the rate of mental illness in the U.S.

Two different problems, mass shootings and gang violence.

For mass shootings, i’m completely fine with banning large capacity magazines, and i’m fine with restrictions on guns in homes where someone lives who is mentally ill. The second amendment is not absolute, the same guys who wrote it also founded the university of virginia and banned weapons on campus. So it clearly wasn’t intended to be absolute. these measures will not eliminate mass shootings, no lawnis perfect, but they might reduce the overall body count. we also need to make it easier to commit the mentally ill.

we also need to somehow reverse fatherlessness, a good start would be saying out loud that toxic
masculinity is a moronic liberal myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two different problems, mass shootings and gang violence.

For mass shootings, i’m completely fine with banning large capacity magazines, and i’m fine with restrictions on guns in homes where someone lives who is mentally ill. The second amendment is not absolute, the same guys who wrote it also founded the university of virginia and banned weapons on campus. So it clearly wasn’t intended to be absolute. these measures will not eliminate mass shootings, no lawnis perfect, but they might reduce the overall body count. we also need to make it easier to commit the mentally ill.

we also need to somehow reverse fatherlessness, a good start would be saying out loud that toxic
masculinity is a moronic liberal myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you've always insisted that liberalism is a mental disorder....soooo...

i’m fine with restrictions on guns in homes where someone lives who is mentally ill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Define "Restrictions" and define "Mentally Ill"

Define "Restrictions" and define "Mentally Ill"

they like to be vague.....ask him about the University of Virginia...WAIT!! don't

Define "Restrictions" and define "Mentally Ill"

that’s the obvious question! i don’t think i can. i won’t lose any sleep trusting that to doctors, or to judges, or to whoever we entrust to grant restraining orders. we let fellow citizens decide if another citizen should go to prison, and in some cases, if that person should
be executed. if we’re comfortable with that responsibility, i can be comfortable with some
kind of hearing to determine if a home has a mental health issue significant enough to remove guns, or maybe only allow guns with fingerprint recognition so that he impaired person can’t hurt anyone else. if that makes me a gun grabbing commie totalitarian, i can live with that characterization if it prevents one single 4 -foot casket from going into the ground.

at some point we have to try something. obviously it won’t solve the problem. might save some
innocent lives, without necessarily trampling on basic rights. just my opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they like to be vague.....ask him about the University of Virginia...WAIT!! don't

yeah yeah yeah.

i brought my golden retriever, a certified pet therapy dog, to Newtown. I’m sure what i saw there, is affecting my judgment here scott. but i won’t lose any sleep if paranoid schizophrenics aren’t allowed access to firearms. we take the right to bear arms away from felons, from those who fail background checks, and from those who have restraining orders against them, right? is this so different from
that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah yeah yeah.

but i won’t lose any sleep if paranoid schizophrenics aren’t allowed access to firearms.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well that's a little more specificity...probably shouldn't have access to any sharp objects either

well that's a little more specificity...probably shouldn't have access to any sharp objects either

it’s hard scott, we should be a little better than this. i’m not saying i have any meaningful
answers. but every time this happens, the right circles their wagons around guns, the left can’t talk about anything other than guns. and nothing gets better.

Well, now they can blame Trump too, which is astounding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At no place in that oped does Tom Nichols say that mental health has anything to do with it. In fact, those words are not in that article. Lost Boys are an issue, but for some reason largely in this country.

WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association, in reaction to President Trump’s statements today regarding gun violence and mental illness:

“Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.

“The United States is a global outlier when it comes to horrific headlines like the ones that consumed us all weekend. Although the United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, we are home to 31% of all mass shooters globally, according to a CNN analysis. This difference is not explained by the rate of mental illness in the U.S.


Issue adjusting to the world, not growing up, visions of heroism as adults, sure is some symptoms of mental illness. Now look at Lanza, Roof, Johnson, Cruz, and they all have Mental Illnesses, right? Delusional personalities, threats of shooting places and people up, a history of violence - those are not indicative mental illnesses?

Issue adjusting to the world, not growing up, visions of heroism as adults, sure is some symptoms of mental illness. Now look at Lanza, Roof, Johnson, Cruz, and they all have Mental Illnesses, right? Delusional personalities, threats of shooting places and people up, a history of violence - those are not indicative mental illnesses?
I think the APA has valid reasons for not agreeing with your diagnosis.
However they did not say do nothing.
I didn't post the entire statement because I didn't want to drag this tread down the Trump rabbithole.
But I will.
Blaming mental illness for gun violence is simplistic, inaccurate — and prevents us from solving the problem

WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association, in reaction to President Trump’s statements today regarding gun violence and mental illness:

“Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.

“The United States is a global outlier when it comes to horrific headlines like the ones that consumed us all weekend. Although the United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, we are home to 31% of all mass shooters globally, according to a CNN analysis. This difference is not explained by the rate of mental illness in the U.S.

“The one stark difference? Access to guns.

“Americans own nearly half of the estimated 650 million civilian-owned guns in the world. Access to this final, fatal tool means more deaths that occur more quickly, whether in a mass shooting or in someone’s own home.

“As we psychological scientists have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. And there is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will resort to gun violence. Based on the research, we know only that a history of violence is the single best predictor of who will commit future violence. And access to more guns, and deadlier guns, means more lives lost.

“Based on the psychological science, we know some of the steps we need to take. We need to limit civilians’ access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We need to institute universal background checks. And we should institute red flag laws that remove guns from people who are at high risk of committing violent acts.

“And although the president called on the nation to do a ‘better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs,’ that requires research to ensure we are making decisions based on data, not prejudices and fear.

“We agree with the president’s call to strengthen background checks. But this falls woefully short of what is needed. We must take a comprehensive public health approach and provide dedicated federal funding to agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, to better understand the causes, contributing factors and solutions to gun violence.

“The president clearly said that it is time to stop the hateful rhetoric that is infecting the public discourse. We ask that he use his powerful position to model that behavior. And we ask that the federal government support the research needed to better understand the causes of bigotry and hate, and their association to violence, so that we may devise evidence-based solutions.”

Thank goodness the liberals are not in charge and the Trump train will get us back on track.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny other countries have guns they have video games they have gangs they even have MH issues .. what they don't have is the Gun violence on the scale here in the USA

its all about availability and availability isn't an issue .. and thats the issues

And when I hear the excuse it's my constitutional right to own any Gun I want ...please your part of the problem

like many things in todays world not everyone should have the ability to own any firearms they want ..

even these simple ideas are unacceptable to the NRA and their supporters


a mandatory 48-hour waiting period to take possession of a purchased gun (including, apparently, for those who already own guns);

a ban on the private sale of firearms;

federal licensing and mandatory training to obtain a firearm;

a nationwide registry of every firearm, firearm owner, and firearm transaction in America;

I think the APA has valid reasons for not agreeing with your diagnosis.
However they did not say do nothing.
I didn't post the entire statement because I didn't want to drag this tread down the Trump rabbithole.
But I will.


You will penalize law abiding citizens. You can chose to trade away your right, I choose not to.

funny other countries have guns they have video games they have gangs they even have MH issues .. what they don't have is the Gun violence on the scale here in the USA

its all about availability and availability isn't an issue .. and thats the issues

And when I hear the excuse it's my constitutional right to own any Gun I want ...please your part of the problem

like many things in todays world not everyone should have the ability to own any firearms they want ..

even these simple ideas are unacceptable to the NRA and their supporters


a mandatory 48-hour waiting period to take possession of a purchased gun (including, apparently, for those who already own guns);

a ban on the private sale of firearms;

federal licensing and mandatory training to obtain a firearm;

a nationwide registry of every firearm, firearm owner, and firearm transaction in America;

I am not part of the problem. I have no intention of being part of the problem. GS asked for us to provide solutions and have dialogue, we provide solutions and you attack me? I'm part of the problem?

You pull this crap all the time, You KNOW that someone cannot legally buy any gun they want.

In RI (and other states) you have to put private sales thru the systems.

No Registry. Nope, not happening.

You will penalize law abiding citizens. You can chose to trade away your right, I choose not to.



I am not part of the problem. I have no intention of being part of the problem. GS asked for us to provide solutions and have dialogue, we provide solutions and you attack me? I'm part of the problem?

You pull this crap all the time, You KNOW that someone cannot legally buy any gun they want.

In RI (and other states) you have to put private sales thru the systems.

No Registry. Nope, not happening.

Not if you go to a gun show. No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1. You pull this crap all the time, You KNOW that someone cannot legally buy any gun they want.

2. In RI (and other states) you have to put private sales thru the systems.
(Numbered for ease...)

1. Fair enough, there are limits on some weapons, but the Dayton kid killed 9 people and injured a couple dozen more in 30 #^&#^&#^&#^&ing seconds before LEO engaged and took him down because of the weapon he had access to and the capacity it had. I heard reports he had a handgun and shotgun. He grabbed the one he had to cause the most carnage. Jim and I agree on this, that should be more limits on that side of things. It won't stop nut jobs but it will limit the damage in many of these type of cases.

2. Every state?

3. You don't want a registry, how about universal background checks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go google AK style regulations state by state and there are tons of states with no regulations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

AK style


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

AK style?

I googled "ak style" and got some cool looking shotguns

So D-Barr suggested I highjacked my own thread, so let’s move it to one dedicated to the discussion. I guess the first question I have is how many here even feel this country has a serious gun problem?

s.

I have not even read anything else you wrote or anyone posted after the first question.
We have a people problem in this country Bob, that is all. Guns are not a problem, they are an asset and their ownership by citizens is necessary for all the freedoms you enjoy in this nation. It really is that simple. Gun grabbers are simply wrong. They only want power and if we continue to give up our liberties then we are done for.
I would advise you to put your efforts towards limiting mental defectives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(Numbered for ease...)

1. Fair enough, there are limits on some weapons, but the Dayton kid killed 9 people and injured a couple dozen more in 30 #^&#^&#^&#^&ing seconds before LEO engaged and took him down because of the weapon he had access to and the capacity it had. I heard reports he had a handgun and shotgun. He grabbed the one he had to cause the most carnage. Jim and I agree on this, that should be more limits on that side of things. It won't stop nut jobs but it will limit the damage in many of these type of cases.

2. Every state?

3. You don't want a registry, how about universal background checks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1 - Same issue, people with problems, not the magazines that do this. There was a case in California where a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff that her handgun with 10 round capacity put her at a disadvantage against criminals that disregarded CA law. For one week, larger capacity mags were legally sold, until the 9th court put a stay on the order pending further legal action.

Previous rulings against capacity (and rifles) have favored that these are used in self defense and that the owner should not be at a disadvantage against criminals.

Again, fight to keep these out of the hands of people with issues, not law abiding people. If you live in West Greenwich it can take 20 minutes for a cop to get there.

2. Every state requires a NICS check. Period. This is federal law.

3. I would be OK with better background checks (Universal is open for a lot of interpretation) provided we can agree in advance what they are and not available for Anti2A people to slip something in after. The problem is when ever pro 2A makes a deal, Anti2A moves the goal posts. Arguably the number one reason nothing gets done, and the Pro2A get the blame. Several shooters might have been prevented but States refused to give Mental Health records or the Military did not properly submit Dishonorable Discharges.

Go google AK style regulations state by state and there are tons of states with no regulations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


ALL Semi Automatic Rifles, particularly AR15 and "AK style" require a NICS check when purchasing. ALL.


AK style?

I googled "ak style" and got some cool looking shot guns

Not sure what that is

I have not even read anything else you wrote or anyone posted after the first question.
We have a people problem in this country Bob, that is all. Guns are not a problem, they are an asset and their ownership by citizens is necessary for all the freedoms you enjoy in this nation. It really is that simple. Gun grabbers are simply wrong. They only want power and if we continue to give up our liberties then we are done for.
I would advise you to put your efforts towards limiting mental defectives.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Bruce the guns don’t kill people, people kill people is very convenient, but doesn’t address the ease at which these either mentally or socially bankrupt individuals can obtain weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. We have an equal number now bring killed by domestic terror than radical Islamic terror.

To suggest the evil Dems are coming for your guns is nuts, go count how many of those evil Dems are avid hunters or handgun owners. The number of nut jobs isn’t going down and making it more difficult if not impossible for troubled people or someone with an online agenda from being able to purchase makes sense.

I have no issue with legal gun ownership, but I also don’t see a need for assault rifles, or at least magazines with the capacity to kill so many in do little time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what that is



that's what I said too...:huh: thought it was Alaskan fashion or something

The second amendment is not absolute, the same guys who wrote it also founded the university of virginia and banned weapons on campus. So it clearly wasn’t intended to be absolute.


A couple of problems with your statements. First, "weapons" (would that have included knives and swords?) were not banned. There was no infringement on the right to own arms. Nor, really, on the right to bear them as was meant by those who wrote the Constitution. They were banned solely on campus. Property owners have the right to ban most things, including arms, from being brought onto their property. It was never understood that the right to own and bear arms meant that the owner could use them to intimidate, threaten, or murder people. There were other laws and rights (including property rights, to life, etc.) that would curb how and where you could use and bear your weapons. It was understood that the right to own arms was for self defense (including, especially, defense against a tyrannical government) or for peaceful means to kill game for food or sport. Any absoluteness would be embodied in the PURPOSE for the right to own and bear arms. Your Virginia example does not infringe on the 2A in that respect.

Which leads to the second and greater problem with your statements. When you make an open-ended judgment on the lack of absoluteness of the 2A, you invite the total eradication of it. If you say that it is absolutely not absolute, you are not showing in what way it cannot be infringed, or even eliminated. If there is no absolute quality in the 2A, if it is subject to infringement by any supposedly rational or "reasonable" objection, it then lacks any unassailable power to exist.

To say that the 2A is not absolute is Progressive verbiage which is exactly intended as a step and rationale for eliminating it. This notion that there are no absolute rights is precisely a basic premise of Progressivism in which rights have no basis other than a grant from government.

A couple of problems with your statements. First, "weapons" (would that have included knives and swords?) were not banned. There was no infringement on the right to own arms. Nor, really, on the right to bear them as was meant by those who wrote the Constitution. They were banned solely on campus. Property owners have the right to ban most things, including arms, from being brought onto their property. It was never understood that the right to own and bear arms meant that the owner could use them to intimidate, threaten, or murder people. There were other laws and rights (including property rights, to life, etc.) that would curb how and where you could use and bear your weapons. It was understood that the right to own arms was for self defense (including, especially, defense against a tyrannical government) or for peaceful means to kill game for food or sport. Any absoluteness would be embodied in the PURPOSE for the right to own and bear arms. Your Virginia example does not infringe on the 2A in that respect.

Which leads to the second and greater problem with your statements. When you make an open-ended judgment on the lack of absoluteness of the 2A, you invite the total eradication of it. If you say that it is absolutely not absolute, you are not showing in what way it cannot be infringed, or even eliminated. If there is no absolute quality in the 2A, if it is subject to infringement by any supposedly rational or "reasonable" objection, it then lacks any unassailable power to exist.

To say that the 2A is not absolute is Progressive verbiage which is exactly intended as a step and rationale for eliminating it. This notion that there are no absolute rights is precisely a basic premise of Progressivism in which rights have no basis other than a grant from government.

this isn't that complicated right? banning guns from being brought on to a property is quite different from banning an individual's right of ownership....to make the leap using that example to then claim the right is therefore not absolute, is a bit confusing

Jim and I agree on this, that should be more limits on that side of things. It won't stop nut jobs but it will limit the damage in many of these type of cases.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup. this is an issue
on which my side tends to
soumd like we wear the tin foil
hats. too many people
on both sides clinging to
ideological purity. so nothing, and i
mean NOTHING, gets done. it’s a national disgrace that we’ve done zip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this isn't that complicated right? banning guns from being brought on to a property is quite different from banning an individual's right of ownership....to make the leap using that example to then claim the right is therefore not absolute, is a bit confusing

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you break the law, or are outside of the law in a way that is a threat to law abiding citizens, you forfeit many legal rights. Constitutional rights protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who are not a threat to the rights of others.

scott, we ban ownership for felons, for those who fail background checks, for those who have restraining orders against them. why is banning ownership for the mentally ill, significantly different? would you remove bans on ownership for felons, and those who fail background checks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

it’s not dumb.

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.

so you’re opposed to such actions unless they are “after the fact”? Maybe it’s just by dumbness again, but isn’t it far superior to address these things before the fact? isn’t that the goal we should
be striving for?

restraining orders can be given before the fact, when there’s a reasonable threat. Meaning, a person who hasn’t actually done anything illegal yet, is sufficiently likely to do something wrong in the future, that we seriously limit his liberties and his freedoms - we tell him where he can and cannot go.

I’ll ask again, why are red flag laws so different from this principle? seems very similar to me. Are you opposed to granting restraining orders until after an assault has been committed against the person applying for the order? would
you tell her she had to wait until after the fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Registry. Nope, not happening.


how is a registry going to penalize law abiding citizens

it always circles back to the myth there coming to take our Guns..

thinking people should not own AK 47 AR 15 ,FAMAS SCAR or any variant cosmetically changed to avoid the vague laws ..


is not wanting to take anyone's guns or remove your right to own a gun .. is a lie sold by the NRA ...only the gun lobby sees this issue as absolute... even the 1a has limits but 2a OMG

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something


This is the hard part that needs to be figured out.

Passing the background check is hard for many. You cannot pass a background check if you have felonies, have certain mental health you cannot legally purchase a firearm if you do drugs - even smoke pot (sorry E), have a problem with Alcohol. You cannot purchase a firearm (legally) if you are using anti-depressants or suicidal.

I know people that have mental health issues that should not be anywhere near a firearm, and others that would be fine. A hard part is going to be where you draw the line.

Another hard part is that some people doing the evaluation may allow their bias in, over evaluating someone as a danger or under evaluating (likely less common).

Anything that needs to be done needs to have certain sunset rights where renewal is required.

Red Flag laws have a problem in some locations that local Police do not want to be responsible for cataloging, and storing someone's firearms for an undetermined time while due process is happening. And Due Process MUST happen if you are curtailing Constitutional somneone's rights.

how is a registry going to penalize law abiding citizens

it always circles back to the myth there coming to take our Guns..

thinking people should not own AK 47 AR 15 ,FAMAS SCAR or any variant cosmetically changed to avoid the vague laws ..


is not wanting to take anyone's guns or remove your right to own a gun .. is a lie sold by the NRA ...only the gun lobby sees this issue as absolute... even the 1a has limits but 2a OMG

Wayne. Dem politicians have been hinting at it, the left's and anti-2A groups are doing everything they can to erode those rights. Candidates at local and federal level state they want to confiscate, cough mandatory but back, cough. And you keep stating this over and over.

The 2A and 1A both have limits and they should have the least limit we as a people can get away with. The slippery slope happens when people get to pick and chose what is in limits and what is out of limits. When Phil McBeuaracrat has the power and decides he does not like Wayne's Speech and chooses to limit or silence your speech - that is a problem.

Every state requires a NICS check. Period. This is federal law.

has this loophole been closed in the federal Law .. if not its only in 21 states

Federal law requires background checks for commercial gun sales, but not for private-party sales


Sale Exemption
unlicensed, private sellers are not required to conduct background checks. This means that, unless state law requires a background check for these sales, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other ineligible people can legally buy guns—even though they would fail a background check if purchasing from an FFL. Fortunately, 21 states have closed the federal loophole

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it is a legal judgment against them for something they did...it's "after the fact"...if someone has a restraining order against them because they threatened or injured someone they should not be playing with guns


stop trying to twist things to make your argument

This is the hard part that needs to be figured out.

.

which is why we need more than...ban AK style stuff, big magazines and people with mental illness(which is probably 90% of the population on some level)

it is a legal judgment against them for something they did...it's "after the fact"...if someone has a restraining order against them because they threatened or injured someone they should not be playing with guns


stop trying to twist things to make your argument

you can get a restraining order, at least in CT, against someone who hasn’t done anything yet ( certainly nothing illegal) but who is deemed to be likely to do something in the future. mental
illness can be a big reason.

if you say you’re ok with keeping guns away from
the seriously mentally ill ( which means not only denying them guns, but possibly others in the same house), maybe were not that far off.

i’m not even saying let’s do it, but we can have the conversation about the benefits and costs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the argument that mental health is the root cause of mass shootings — doesn’t appear to be borne out by studies,
https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2013/03/13/why-the-nra-keeps-talking-about-mental-illness-rather-than-guns

why the NRA keeps talking about mental illness, rather than guns
Explaining away exceptional horrors like the Newtown school massacre

this is from Mar 13th 2013 and they are beating the same drum today ??

you can get a restraining order, at least in CT, against someone who hasn’t done anything yet ( certainly nothing illegal) but who is deemed to be likely to do something in the future. mental
illness can be a big reason.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good greif

Sorry Bruce the guns don’t kill people, people kill people is very convenient, but doesn’t address the ease at which these either mentally or socially bankrupt individuals can obtain weapons capable of killing dozens in seconds. We have an equal number now bring killed by domestic terror than radical Islamic terror.
I find that much like the emotionally reactionary charged left that tries to make the president complicit accusing him of racism in these awful shooting events accusing him of racism in handling the border crisis, the media in the sensationalism of this news brings too much attention to it in their twisted spin which makes them complicit planting seeds in sick peoples' minds to find an easy way to kill so many in such a short amount of time. The more it happens, the more normalized it becomes to the point of numbing which is really sad. "Equal number"? you want to talk statistics? I can give actual factual statistics that will open you mind and see closer to the truth about so called gun violence. Convenience has nothing to do with it. What you sheep believe is if the tool was not in existence, then there would not be victims, that is fantasy land false promises of in the name of safety from leaders like Maura Healy. Background checks already exist.
Keep making more laws to infringe law abiding people and more and more criminals will continue to avoid those same laws. Get it?
To suggest the evil Dems are coming for your guns is nuts, go count how many of those evil Dems are avid hunters or handgun owners. The number of nut jobs isn’t going down and making it more difficult if not impossible for troubled people or someone with an online agenda from being able to purchase makes sense.
I did not suggest that Bob. In fact of the last few presidents, Obama passed less gun control than the conservatives so I realize it is not just the Democrats who pass gun control. But you can't tell me there are not progressive Dems who have actually said they are for banning guns. Gun control for politicians is not about guns, it is about control and the sooner you realize what they are doing, the better off we will all be.
Nutjobs also use other inanimate objects to main and kill yet we do not ban those things. What gives you or I the right to dictate what anyone can choose to own to defend themselves? None of any of the firearms my family own are a threat to anybody.

I have no issue with legal gun ownership, but I also don’t see a need for assault rifles, or at least magazines with the capacity to kill so many in do little time.
OK, you and many others don't see the need. Well then, people like you JimW, etc. need to get informed then. You don't hear about incidents like this one?https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190711/summerfield-homeowner-injured-kills-2-intruders-with-ar-15
You try taking on a group of home invaders with a revolver or pistol and see where it gets you, dead most likely. That AR-15 semi automatic (not an Assault Rifle) saved this guys' life.
Or the many more examples that happen and it does not fit the left medias' narrative so the sheep just go along with the views they are told and fed by the ultra rich who run the country. How about the church shooting in Texas that was stopped by a law abidding citizen neighbor who prevented further deaths( and if he had his magazines already loaded would have gotten there faster and prevented more) ?

You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody limits you to how many golf clubs you can own, yet they are also used to kill as well, not just hit a white ball. I use tools every day. I can choose to own what I want. Don't blame the tool or dictate what tool people in a free country can choose to own.

Nobody limits you to how many golf clubs you can own, yet they are also used to kill as well, not just hit a white ball. I use tools every day. I can choose to own what I want. Don't blame the tool or dictate what tool people in a free country can choose to own.

slipknot, i’m a pretty conservative republican.

i believe that nothing will
eliminate violence, because the underlying problem is us. you’re right, the gun is an inanimate object. but are you telling me that if Adam Lanza went to Sandy Hook elementary school with a golf
club,,he would have killed as many kids as he did? Come on.

i find it difficult to discuss economic issues rationally with liberals, they have a hard time being rational. conservatives, in my opinion, can be equally irrational on this issue.

if i say “maybe high capacity magazines should be banned”, it’s not a valid argument to say that such a ban wouldn’t have stopped Timothy McVeigh. No one is saying gun control will reduce gun violence to zero. But maybe there are things that can help reduce the body count, and maybe we can do it without trampling on the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

of course not Jim, don't be silly, leave that to the sheep.


ya maybe, that is a big maybe as far as not trampling. The constitution has been trampled almost to death

Big difference in head count based on the weapon used, your kidding yourself if you don’t believe that is true. Give the Vegas shooter 6 hunting rifles with 6 round clips and 25 times to rack up the same head count and he won’t get there once. TOOLS do influence the head count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as far as red flag laws

it is a serious issue and they are subject to abuse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ApDFIbwuE&feature=push-sd&attr_tag=jRFljU0kWijzbZVy%3A6

of course not Jim, don't be silly, leave that to the sheep.


ya maybe, that is a big maybe as far as not trampling. The constitution has been trampled almost to death

i hear you, it’s a very big maybe as far as reducing freedoms. i agree 100%. but dont we have to try something? we cant legislate behavior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, you and many others don't see the need. Well then, people like you JimW, etc. need to get informed then. You don't hear about incidents like this one?https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...ers-with-ar-15
You try taking on a group of home invaders with a revolver or pistol and see where it gets you, dead most likely. That AR-15 semi automatic (not an Assault Rifle) saved this guys' life.
I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

Of Course Lanza, Roof, Johnson, Mateen, and the like had mental issues.

We don't need to stigmatize people that suffer from mental health problems, but we don';t need them to have access to firearms either.

Fix existing background checks so states can't block informatrion that would be entered into NICS.

My biggest issues on Red Flag and what make walk away from compromise here is that I believe it will just be a stepping stone for the Anti2A folks - you know, the ones that don't want to take your guns but want to ban them, tax them higher, ban ammunition, do this and do that, and then confiscate them (Wayne says they don't, BS).

If a Red Flag was passed, based on how previous big legislation is all screwed up, what loopholes will there be to classify large swaths of people as mentally ill (he voted for Trump, must be unwell, she listens to rap, must be unwell, Timmy thinks there should be less government, he must be unwell).

There needs to be clearly defined rules about how due process is handled, sunsets, unbiased arbitration between parties.

I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.

All the more reason to be vigilant and able to defend yourself when there are criminals bold enough to try to rob you, not ironic at all. So now you understand why those NY permit holders whose names were made public in an article years ago were upset. A little common sense goes a long way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the argument that mental health is the root cause of mass shootings — doesn’t appear to be borne out by studies,
https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2013/03/13/why-the-nra-keeps-talking-about-mental-illness-rather-than-guns

why the NRA keeps talking about mental illness, rather than guns
Explaining away exceptional horrors like the Newtown school massacre

this is from Mar 13th 2013 and they are beating the same drum today ??

So mental issues are not the root cause of mass shootings? I can not buy that can you, really? Do reasonably level headed individuals initiate these horrific acts of violence? I think not. Every one of them has a mental health issue to do those deeds.

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.




It happens many times per year. While you cannot imagine it people, by them selves, have used their semi to fend off multiple people with hand guns. Sure, an MP5 would be better for home defense than an AR15, but those are illegal and highly hard to get the few places they are legal.

Then there are situations where the home owner was killed, maybe they would not have been had they been better armed.

https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/ownership-vs-deaths630.png
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.good common sense right there :uhuh: and practical

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

that last word is where you fail to understand.
A cannon would do also but doesn't make much sense.
Determined thieves are sometimes hard to chase away or kill with 6 shots when you are outnumbered.

It's a God given right, not a question of necessary

Guns are not a god given right but certainly we are entitled under our constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No doubt that mental illness deserves a seat at the table for the background check discussion. The big question is who will be the ultimate gatekeeper on an individual basis? LEOs? Pols? Mental health providers?

Are we going to be made to get a mental health evaluation every couple years and pay another $250 to $500 like the medical marijuana card holders do for their continuing need evaluation? Another cash grab?

I do think video games skew many young people and their perception of gun reality..... Have thought so for years after watching over my son's shoulder. How many of you have seen Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

The NRA very effectively spread the notion that any gun legislation was the first step towards the government taking your guns, to the point the government isn’t even allowing funding to study gun violence. Auto fatality rates used to be very high, study, engineering and legislation, has brought that rate dramatically down. Car manufacturers were forced to add seat belts, then air bags, road designs were less banked and laws to license and penalties for operating under the influence and now texting were added.

Lobbyists like the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to buy our policies and if over 250 massshootings only 7 months into a year isn’t a “red flag” then what is. I believe the military and our police forces are where assault rifles belong, the argument you need that for home protection is nuts, you are far more likely to chock to death while eating at Chick Fillet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do think video games skew many young people and their perception of gun reality..... Have thought so for years after watching over my son's shoulder. How many of you have seen Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

weird isn't it? in so many movies/video games you watch action heroes strap all sorts of guns to themselves and walk through the doors someplace and start mowing people down....and then some deranged kid acts out the same sort of action scene in real life...and then hollywood actors decry the violence and demand something be done about guns

I do think video games skew many young people and their perception of gun reality..... Have thought so for years after watching over my son's shoulder. How many of you have seen Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto?

Agreed.


"The NRA very effectively spread the notion that any gun legislation was the first step towards the government taking your guns"


It is.


"Lobbyists like the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to buy our policies and if over 250 massshootings only 7 months into a year isn’t a “red flag” then what is. I believe the military and our police forces are where assault rifles belong"


And in how many of these were AR/AK's used? Take the ghetto/hood #'s out of that "over 250 massshootings in only 7mo" I doubt many used them. They love them their 9's.

The NRA very effectively spread the notion that any gun legislation was the first step towards the government taking your guns, to the point the government isn’t even allowing funding to study gun violence. Auto fatality rates used to be very high, study, engineering and legislation, has brought that rate dramatically down. Car manufacturers were forced to add seat belts, then air bags, road designs were less banked and laws to license and penalties for operating under the influence and now texting were added.

Lobbyists like the NRA shouldn’t be allowed to buy our policies and if over 250 massshootings only 7 months into a year isn’t a “red flag” then what is. I believe the military and our police forces are where assault rifles belong, the argument you need that for home protection is nuts, you are far more likely to chock to death while eating at Chick Fillet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


NRA is doing a marginal job of protecting my rights (and yours whether or not you chose to exercise them) from the people that have exactly said that we will - if given a chance - confiscate your guns.

Gun rates are down from years ago. Suicides are down a little, overall gun violence is down. Like Auto deaths. Gang crime (large number) and mass shootings (statistically a small number) are up, like distracted driving and texting deaths.

that last word is where you fail to understand.
A cannon would do also but doesn't make much sense.
Determined thieves are sometimes hard to chase away or kill with 6 shots when you are outnumbered.

It's a God given right, not a question of necessary
Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.




Not many cannon in the neighborhood to worry about, there are people with illegal guns, however. It is necessary to have something approaching necessary levels of home defense that might be brought against you and yours.

The right is for self defense with something you feel reasonable and legal, not what someone - you for example - to decide what is acceptable.

So the problem is a small number of bad individuals per year doing horrific things. Yet you and others like you in gun control, want to blame everyone except the bad individual doing bad things.

The right is for self defense with something you feel reasonable and legal, not what someone - you for example - to decide what is acceptable.
But the people make the laws. Seems like the majority of the country wants stronger gun laws including an assault weapons ban. Doesn't mean it's easy to implement but that's not an excuse for inaction. Probably would open things up for the broader discussion around gun violence, suicide etc... that the status quo is suppressing.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.



I agree:nailem:

Seems like the majority of the country wants



:hihi:.....it appears?

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.


Not true.....:angel:

Not true.....:angel:
Colors!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I get it honestly.... Here is my Dad back in the day.....

I get it honestly.... Here is my Dad back in the day.....

Great family piece.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great family piece.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I don't have his loafers..... I assume that is what you meant? LOL, Jeff

These were fourth of July Shoots we would go to back in the 60's. Black powder. Sometimes get 20-25 of these together and fire at the same time. Crazy. My father had a cast one, then he had to get a brass turned. An engineer friend in town would produce a couple more every year. My sister hated it. Food, beer, kids and cannons! What could be better for these WW2 guys and gals? Good memories.

My brother has the 30" black cast cannon. I have the smaller 12ga.

The striped socks make the loafers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

*MOST* Cannon are not available as village level assets ; )

Your right to defend yourself is a God given right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just find it funny republicans are now considering better background checks... are they that afraid of Trump? or anything to make themselves look normal.. ask yourselves why now?

Your right to defend yourself is a God given right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Truth
Just not sure god wants us shooting each other.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your right to defend yourself is a God given right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then i guess to seek the reduction of the sales of miltary assault style weapon. Would be my god given right to defend my self and my family. Simple
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then i guess to seek the reduction of the sales of miltary assault style weapon. Would be my god given right to defend my self and my family. Simple
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can use any legal means necessary to protect your family. And if you have to - beyond that I guess. I don't want YOU limiting my options from me. I can assure you I am Zero threat to your family or any other family.

looks like the Clinton's got another one...

I get it honestly.... Here is my Dad back in the day.....

Did he use that to signal the start of the jart game?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did he use that to signal the start of the jart game?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup. We had those too. Cornhole with javelins....

Yup. We had those too. Cornhole with javelins....

some would suggest their demise was caused by the nanny state .. others would say common sense and technology just caught up..

Yup. We had those too. Cornhole with javelins....

First throw at my brothers birthday party broke skin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First throw at my brothers birthday party broke skin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you're not supposed to try to catch them :scream:

you're not supposed to try to catch them :scream:

Says who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yet you and others like you in gun control, want to blame everyone except the bad individual doing bad things.

not exactly true, i blame
the shooters, he gun is inanimate, but plays a role
in potential body count without question.
but if we all recognize the existence of bad
people, why not talk about he pros
and cons, not just he cons,
of ideas that reduce ( not eliminate) the damage that some
of the bad people can do.

i hear the pro 2a crowd just as likely to be repeating extremist theories as the gun grabbers.

talk about limiting high capacity magazines, bump stocks, and maybe only allow
guns with fingerprint recognition in the home of someone who’s mentally ill.

those proposals will save some lives. they won’t eliminate gun violence, they won’t turn us into venezuela either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

talk about limiting high capacity magazines,

be specific...limit the capacity? or the number of them you can own?...what is the number?

bump stocks think this has been addressed and I can only think of one instance


and maybe only allow guns with fingerprint recognition in the home of someone who’s mentally ill.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right so to get or own a gun the authorities have to clear everyone in your home for mental illness...that should be easy

didn't the nuts decide a while back that it was too tough to ban guns so they thought they'd just ban bullets...or at least tax them so much that nobody could afford them...should probably give that a whirl again

right so to get or own a gun the authorities have to clear everyone in your home for mental illness...that should be easy

didn't the nuts decide a while back that it was too tough to ban guns so they thought they'd just ban bullets...or at least tax them so much that nobody could afford them...should probably give that a whirl again

an initial
conversation doesn’t need
to be specific. How about we talk about it the way every person it work talks
rationally about proposals. i’m this case how many lives would have been saved in the true mass shootings, and whats the cost i. terms of
liberty, and is it worth the cost. is that so scary or crazy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

an initial
conversation doesn’t need
to be specific.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes it does

yes it does

never heard of spitballing, eh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

an initial
conversation doesn’t need
to be specific. How about we talk about it the way every person it work talks
rationally about proposals. i’m this case how many lives would have been saved in the true mass shootings, and whats the cost i. terms of
liberty, and is it worth the cost. is that so scary or crazy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


My initial conversation is not specific. I am willing to do additional background checks and mental health screening. That is my hard line.

To get specific, I need to know how how my rights will not be infringed upon by someone that believes if I want to own a gun, I am crazy. Or that I do not agree with them then I must be crazy or unwell.

My initial conversation is not specific. I am willing to do additional background checks and mental health screening. That is my hard line.

To get specific, I need to know how how my rights will not be infringed upon by someone that believes if I want to own a gun, I am crazy. Or that I do not agree with them then I must be crazy or unwell.

i don’t think anyone is crazy for wanting to own a gun. liz warren might really believe that, and that’s a problem. but if adam lanzas mother was required to have firearms with fingerprint recognition, the town of newton CT would
be a different place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t think anyone is crazy for wanting to own a gun. liz warren might really believe that, and that’s a problem. but if adam lanzas mother was required to have firearms with fingerprint recognition, the town of newton CT would
be a different place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Fingerprint recognition can fail and if you need something for self defense, really need it, it could fail you. Quick scenario, you are out working on the yard, or working out in your house, super sweaty, and someone breaks into your house and you are unable to unlock your firearm, to defend your family, because your hand is all sweaty, or a battery failed.



I would like to see something that can adress the Adam Lanzas of the world so keep it coming.

I am concerned that the Elizabeth Warrens and Kamala Harrises of the world, or their faithful, would fail normal people in order to further their gun control. This is why we need concrete and impartial systems in place to prevent normal people from being unfairly treated.

Before you say that won't happen, think of all the trivial news items that are improperly reported.

Is it worth this to you?

“My son’s first day of Kindergarten included an active shooter lockdown drill this morning.

He’s five years old and that is what he will always remember from his first day of elementary school.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is it worth this to you?

“My son’s first day of Kindergarten included an active shooter lockdown drill this morning.

He’s five years old and that is what he will always remember from his first day of elementary school.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boo-f u cking-hoo

tis better to shelter in place than shelter for life

Boo-f u cking-hoo

tis better to shelter in place than shelter for life

it would be better if it didn't have to be done at all

but what ever it takes so people can buy what ever gun they want classic :kewl:

never heard of spitballing, eh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you need to be specific....

I'm sick of "we need common sense gun legislation" doesn't take a genius to repeat that over and over

you want to ban 100 round clips?...can I own 5 -20 round clips?

what qualifies as mental illness?

if you own guns and have kids at what point as they grow up and exhibit certain behavior do you notify the authorities to come get your guns?

Does the family of a gun owner have to come in every year or two for mental evaluations and background checks?

in order for Adam Lanza's mother to have been required to have fingerprint recognition wouldn't something have to happen to trigger requirement? how does that work?

from PBS

"Before becoming the name behind the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, Adam Lanza was known as a shy boy who was quiet, withdrawn and seemed to recoil from being touched. He played violent video games and went to shooting ranges with his mother, but hardly showed signs of dangerous behavior."

The real issue is existing supply already out there.... As of 2004, an estimated 75 million AK-47s worldwide.... How many AR platforms are out there? How do you convince me to give up one in the face of those numbers out there? How did the felon who killed a California Highway Patrolman last night get his hands on one? It is a slippery slope, with many avenues that need the same coverage as restricting new sales and manufacture...


I am good with more in depth background checks, especially in the area of mental health. But I do share the same concerns as JohnR regarding the human element of the ultimate decision maker....

it would be better if it didn't have to be done at all

but what ever it takes so people can buy what ever gun they want classic :kewl:

2 things you can always count on.

Talk about immigration laws and you’ll eventually be called a racist, and talk about 2a law and you’ll eventually be accused of not caring about children.

Always leads to productive dialogue :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am good with more in depth background checks, especially in the area of mental health. ...

absolutely, which will result in lot's of law abiding gun owners passing mental health screenings...the nuts intent on inflicting harm...will find a way

2 things you can always count on.

Talk about immigration laws and you’ll eventually be called a racist, and talk about 2a law and you’ll eventually be accused of not caring about children.

Always leads to productive dialogue :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and things you can always count on is the rights willingness to ignore how they go about getting their message out (its an invasion or telling kindergarteners Boo-f u cking-hoo .) then act surprised when others respond negatively :btu:

The real issue is existing supply already out there.... r....

this is bigger than MH issues which is a fraction of the issue

the majority of guns used in crimes are legally purchased but are stolen and not reported and with no digital data base near impossible to trace them back to an owner

I don’t think he acted surprised Wayne.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boo-f u cking-hoo

tis better to shelter in place than shelter for life

they had a drag queen reading to the kindergarteners at the library here the other day...I bet that was much more terrifying

I don’t think he acted surprised Wayne.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your right I should have said indignant..

your right I should have said indignant..

Then you would have been correct
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is bigger than MH issues which is a fraction of the issue

the majority of guns used in crimes are legally purchased but are stolen and not reported and with no digital data base near impossible to trace them back to an owner

Which is exactly why I choose not to voluntarily give up any such weapons, rendering me undergunned. But I do agree, in a perfect world, no reason to have these weapons out in our communities...

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

I borrowed that but would like to know the answer from any of you who feel it is alright to infringe others' rights.


Pols wet their fingers and put them in the wind after an incident or 3 of some awful senseless violence and react instead of acting. I say if we allow them to continue to erode the constitution like they have been getting away with, then I suppose we get what we deserve and we will either be serfs or die defending our rights. It really is that simple. It is not "gun violence" it is senseless violence.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-rifles-kind/amp/ I understand that statistics mean nothing to liberals but find this intriguing

ban hammers why don't you

We recall products that hurt people, so why don't we recall assault rifles?

We recall products that hurt people, so why don't we recall assault rifles?

We recall things that are defective. Plain and simple. You are once again pulling something as obscure as a safety recall as your reason for banning “assault “ rifles? They seem to work fine in most instances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

I borrowed that but would like to know the answer from any of you who feel it is alright to infringe others' rights.


Pols wet their fingers and put them in the wind after an incident or 3 of some awful senseless violence and react instead of acting. I say if we allow them to continue to erode the constitution like they have been getting away with, then I suppose we get what we deserve and we will either be serfs or die defending our rights. It really is that simple. It is not "gun violence" it is senseless violence.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-rifles-kind/amp/ I understand that statistics mean nothing to liberals but find this intriguing

ban hammers why don't you

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

Who thinks they can own any weapon they want?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.

What do you mean by "real purpose"? And what do you mean by "the militia"?

Here is a selection of quotes including by those who were involved with the creation of the Second Amendment, and who actually know why they wrote it, what it's purpose is, and what is meant by "the militia." In short, it was meant to be the final, ultimate, resource of self defense, especially against the tyranny of one's own government. And "the militia" was the whole body of the people capable of bearing and using arms:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-founding-fathers-explain-the-second-amendment-this-says-it-all


The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

The "very language" of the Second Amendment does not refute that "every citizen" who can bear and use arms and is capable of correctly and efficiently using them has a right to any arms that can be borne by one person.

this is bigger than MH issues which is a fraction of the issue

the majority of guns used in crimes are legally purchased but are stolen and not reported and with no digital data base near impossible to trace them back to an owner


The MH issues are the people shooting things up.

The MH issues are the people shooting things up.

Bingo.
What is bigger than MH issues? If there were no MH issues this thread would NOT exist.

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

No issue with owning weapons I have issue with thinking you can have any weapon you want ..

Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.


of course you do, you are a Statist

I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


what's your point?

Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....

"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."

According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."


I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP :jester:

what's your point?

Hamilton also proposed President for Life, Senators for Life and was viewed as a monarchist sympathizer....

"Ultimately Hamilton wanted to take the idea of self government out of the Constitution, claiming that power should go to the "rich and well born". This idea all but isolated Hamilton from his fellow delegates and others who were tempered in the ideas of revolution and liberty."

According to Madison's notes, Hamilton said in regards to the executive, "The English model was the only good one on this subject. The hereditary interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad... Let one executive be appointed for life who dares execute his powers."


I guess Hamilton would have been in favor of KING TRUMP :jester:

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

What’s yours?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you adhere to everythingHamilton stood for PeteF ,or are you being selective again? Asking for a friend.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong again, the mere ownership or choice of ownership of arms is supposed to protect all of us from a tyrannical government. But as you can see we are failing as they chip away at liberty with each breathe we take. Enough is enough.


of course you do, you are a Statist

I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good one!...wtf?

I know your smarter than a supreme court justice.. NRA and your view just another example if you say it enough it must be true. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Supreme Court Justices disagree with each other. So, I guess by your implication, some are smarter and others dumber. Supreme Court Justices have made vile or unconstitutional decisions, such as Dred Scott. The most important quality of a Supreme Court Justice, in my opinion, is fidelity to the Constitution. Justices who rule by various values of justice that come and go with generations, rather than by what the Constitution dictates, are the greatest enemies of the Constitution and our founding system of government.

SCOTUS Justices are not gods. They are fallible, all too human, sometimes vain and full of self-importance, or politically biased. Quoting one may tell more about you than the intelligence or constitutional fidelity of the judge. Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.

If all of the above were legal, would it increase or decrease their occurrence?answer a question with a question, typical. you have no answer

Why has government been instituted at all? So that a limited government can see to it that our natural rights can be exercised freelyBecause the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
Alexander Hamilton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try answering with an answer

My point is laws never totally eliminate behavior, but we still believe they are necessary.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


of course, but that does not mean we should put up with bad laws that favor the power hungry rulers who sit on their butts and tell us how to live.

Read the Constitution for yourself. Stick to its words, not the opinions about those words other than the opinions of the founders who wrote it.

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

https://www.brennancenter.org//analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment?gclid=Cj0KCQjw4s7qBRCzARIsAImcAxaa9KRzGC vgbgQty_XRNtseBZ3KxfmpTO6f8xOKHIDUSyR3hy8mMUwaAiLI EALw_wcB


not sure why 2a supporters think people against assault weapons think we Don't know how to read or do research or see the topic in historical terms... :rotflmao:

try answering with an answer
I'll ask again

"If making things illegal stops people, then why do people continue to drink and drive, sell drugs, rape people, kill people, steal ... ?

Since all of the above are illegal, and people still do them, what makes you think that making any guns illegal will stop those that want to cause harm?"

Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint, we enact laws that our elected officials feel are reasonable with the hope that our fellow Americans will obey them.

They do reduce behavior and actions that we find hazardous or objectionable, it is also obvious that laws don't absolutely prevent anything.

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means


read this if you can navigate around the ads

this link actually works unlike yours

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-%E2%80%98arms%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98well-regulated%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98militia%E2%80%99-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

So if AR's and AK's are banned and shootings are not reduced by any significant amount - what's next?

So if AR's and AK's are banned and shootings are not reduced by any significant amount - what's next?
I think it's more about comprehensive reform -- not just banning one type of weapon -- and a willingness to see things through long haul.

Probably have to try Hannity's brilliant idea, though I think he stole it from the Red Chinese.

"I'd like to see the perimeter of every school in America surrounded, secured by retired police ... retired Secret Service ... military, and I want guys to donate 15 hours. I think we could cover every school, every hour, every day," Hannity proposed. "Add a metal detector, and I think we're going to have safer schools. Have one armed guard on every floor of every school, all over every mall, the perimeter, and inside every hall of every mall. ... We can do that with stores; we can do that in malls; we can do that pretty much anywhere the public is — courthouses — we can expand that out everywhere and keep Americans safe."

Of course all these retired cops would gladly carry a gun for not having to pay taxes, most of the ones I know are actually working at something unless they are disabled.

And I'm sure all the 2a guys would be fine with a police state, wouldn't you? Remember someone will need to organize this s show.

read this if you can navigate around the ads

this link actually works unlike yours

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-%E2%80%98arms%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98well-regulated%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98militia%E2%80%99-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

you guys keep mudding the waters .. I am not against gun ownership never have been .. I am against the idea that somehow the constitution says you can have whatever type of gun you want . mantra hidden by your unfounded fear there taking our guns...

the NRA went from gun safety and marksmanship .. to marketing and sales of guns as their primary driver






https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.

So if AR's and AK's are banned and shootings are not reduced by any significant amount - what's next?

there was an assault ban. for 10 years guess what party killed it

death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban years to 23.8 per year afterwards.


it's hard to try and put the genie back in the bottle .. Republicans want to break the bottle completely:kewl:

I think it's more about comprehensive reform -- not just banning one type of weapon -- and a willingness to see things through long haul.

that's pretty deep......

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means


Ohhh I dunno, here is the Supreme Court's response:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-1) is a landmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_Sta tes) case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case) in which the Supreme Court of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that the Second Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-2)


I think it's more about comprehensive reform -- not just banning one type of weapon -- and a willingness to see things through long haul.

That is the problem why we do not get anything done. Each step that is completed by the left is one more step in that law, on its Long March to confiscation.

you guys keep mudding the waters .. I am not against gun ownership never have been .. I am against the idea that somehow the constitution says you can have whatever type of gun you want . mantra hidden by your unfounded fear there taking our guns...

the NRA went from gun safety and marksmanship .. to marketing and sales of guns as their primary driver






https://www.brennancenter.org//analy...waAiLIEALw_wcB


Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.


Cough, see DC vs Heller above.


there was an assault ban. for 10 years guess what party killed it

death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban years to 23.8 per year afterwards.


it's hard to try and put the genie back in the bottle .. Republicans want to break the bottle completely:kewl:

And it is the same ustable people doing it, so the unstable problem has not been addressed. Though overall gun crime and deaths are down.

Progressives want to STEAL the bottle.

Does anyone really feel there is any likelihood people with mental health, depression or radical ideas will reduce? If anything based on the current state of things, the likelihood financial and emotional burdens will radically increase with more large scale climate change induced disasters and the inevitable recession; we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. But hey manufacture all the AR and high capacity long rifles you can, with the largest capacity magazines you can and while your at it; ask your kids how their shelter in place drills at school are working. Depression is out of control, between the pressures on our kids with social media and bullying, now you have to factor in the impact of fear of school shootings.

Look at the increase in road rage, hit and runs, people just don’t give a f*ck any more, let’s arm everyone, it will be the wild Wild West.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does anyone really feel there is any likelihood people with mental health, depression or radical ideas will reduce? If anything based on the current state of things, the likelihood financial and emotional burdens will radically increase with more large scale climate change induced disasters and the inevitable recession; we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. But hey manufacture all the AR and high capacity long rifles you can, with the largest capacity magazines you can and while your at it; ask your kids how their shelter in place drills at school are working. Depression is out of control, between the pressures on our kids with social media and bullying, now you have to factor in the impact of fear of school shootings.

Look at the increase in road rage, hit and runs, people just don’t give a f*ck any more, let’s arm everyone, it will be the wild Wild West.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does anyone really feel there is any likelihood people with mental health, depression or radical ideas will reduce? If anything based on the current state of things, the likelihood financial and emotional burdens will radically increase with more large scale climate change induced disasters and the inevitable recession; we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. But hey manufacture all the AR and high capacity long rifles you can, with the largest capacity magazines you can and while your at it; ask your kids how their shelter in place drills at school are working. Depression is out of control, between the pressures on our kids with social media and bullying, now you have to factor in the impact of fear of school shootings.

Look at the increase in road rage, hit and runs, people just don’t give a f*ck any more, let’s arm everyone, it will be the wild Wild West.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We had actual bomb threats at my High School, by militant lefties.

Then get the kids off the XBox, out of their phones, and outside learning to play with others, get them off the effing antidepressants

^^^ this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha - so with all the crazy people out there if I turn in my rifle, that will make you feel better? :rotf3:

We had actual bomb threats at my High School, by militant lefties.

Then get the kids off the XBox, out of their phones, and outside learning to play with others, get them off the effing antidepressants



Haha - so with all the crazy people out there if I turn in my rifle, that will make you feel better? :rotf3:

If you think parents are suddenly going to understand the dangers of allowing their kids to continue playing the mindless video games that romanticize weapons of all types and desensitizing them to what death is, I think you are dreaming. The internet, smart phones and social media were once a blessing and now may becoming a curse. After bullied Johnny finishes a failed attempt at his favorite shoot them up game after another bad day at school, the lock on daddies gun locker better be able to stop junior with his bolt cutter or torch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

What's "funny" is the notion that every specific thing that the Federal Government might possibly wish to abridge the citizens right to own should have been discussed during the Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure, but I don't think the right to a head of cabbage, for health or any other purpose, was discussed during the Convention.

What is not funny is that deceptive articles such as the one you linked actually persuade good people to believe that there is any significance to the idea that if some particular thing was not discussed, then there is no reason to believe that the Federal Government should be denied the power to control that thing.

To begin with, the Bill of Rights as a whole and as it was drafted, was not written during the convention. It was added to the Constitution afterwards in order to assure ratification by states whose representatives wanted a Bill of Rights. The reason that the majority of Representatives during the Convention voted down addressing a Bill of Rights was because the way the Constitution was written already denied the Federal Government the power to abridge the rights that a bill of rights would propose.

So your article's ruse of pretending that somehow the 2A is diminished in scope and meaning because "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention" is an idiotic tautology. Of course there was not a single word about and individual's right to a gun--because they did not discuss it during the Convention. And they didn't because, even if the 2A had not been created, the limitations that the original, pre-amended, Constitution would still have prohibited the government from infringing the right to arms. The Bill of Rights was not part of the original constitution. It was added later as an Amendment in order to assure Ratification.


or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

This is a bald faced lie. We really do know what the Framers meant by those words. They are preserved, verbatim, as in the above links which it seems you did not read.


so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means

I don't know what the gun lobby is suggesting. I know what the 2A says and what those who wrote it and discussed it and later commented on it meant.

I couldn't stand reading your whole article because it started out with lies and misinformation. It was an obvious progressive ploy to make us believe that the 2A, and the entire Constitution no doubt, can mean whatever a judge says it means. To which I say, then if that is so, what purpose does it serve? Why bother to have written it in the first place?

If you think parents are suddenly going to understand the dangers of allowing their kids to continue playing the mindless video games that romanticize weapons of all types and desensitizing them to what death is, I think you are dreaming. The internet, smart phones and social media were once a blessing and now may becoming a curse. After bullied Johnny finishes a failed attempt at his favorite shoot them up game after another bad day at school, the lock on daddies gun locker better be able to stop junior with his bolt cutter or torch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




So because kids - particularly those with underlying mental health issues - can't adjust well to growing up and parents can't parent, other people, law abiding people, should give a constitutionally guaranteed right up and reduce their ability defend themselves and their family to accommodate one group of people? Rather than work to focus on the core issues of gun violence and keep firearms out of those hands, we'll punish everyone?

So because kids - particularly those with underlying mental health issues - can't adjust well to growing up and parents can't parent, other people, law abiding people, should give a constitutionally guaranteed right up and reduce their ability defend themselves and their family to accommodate one group of people? Rather than work to focus on the core issues of gun violence and keep firearms out of those hands, we'll punish everyone?

Never said that in this thread or any other related thread. What I don’t see the need for in Johnny’s dad’s gun case, is an assault rifle with several hundred rounds in high capacity magazines he can take to kill dozens in seconds.

Maybe Johnny isn’t the problem, but his neighbor has a history of mental illness and suddenly wants to vent, so it’s off to secure far to essentially legally or in private sales, the fire power he needs. I’d rather the loop holes be closed, but if I’m in a mall shopping for Xmas, I think I have a better chance for survival, if he is only armed with a handgun or shotgun and not an assault rifle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if I’m in a mall shopping for Xmas, I think I have a better chance for survival, if he is only armed with a handgun or shotgun and not an assault rifle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your chance of survival, as it is, is excellent. But you'd have a bit better chance for survival if he wasn't armed at all. Actually, you'd have an even better chance of survival if the nut was not there.

The nut is the problem.

Exactly, but the number of nuts is increasing at a very fast rate, better hope one with daddy's or his newly acquired assault weapon doesn't ruin you Xmas shopping, your trip the the movies with the kids or grand kids or that country concert you were waiting to see.

What's the take on the 5-10 million AR type gun in private hands now in circulation? You going to take them? If so, the civilian and leo casualties will out number the mass shooting #'s. You will instantly turn law abiding citizens into criminals and some won't swallow.

If you hold the parents of shooters accountable in terms of prison time for their child’s actions I bet you would solve a great % of mass shootings. If you know your kid is a risk and you had everything to loose I would imagine you might step up your parenting game.
That’s my take on a form of gun control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's the take on the 5-10 million AR type gun in private hands now in circulation? You going to take them? If so, the civilian and leo casualties will out number the mass shooting #'s. You will instantly turn law abiding citizens into criminals and some won't swallow.


I think the Gun Control / Confiscation side is seriously overestimating how many LEOs will be willing to go in against the 2A and confiscate people's firearms.


If you hold the parents of shooters accountable in terms of prison time for their child’s actions I bet you would solve a great % of mass shootings. If you know your kid is a risk and you had everything to loose I would imagine you might step up your parenting game.
That’s my take on a form of gun control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Would be a start. I do think there needs to be safe storage laws where they do not already exist (this is actual common sense gun discussion point). And I do not think young people need access to the safe (another actual common sense gun discussion point).

Wayne LaPierre this week, days after multiple mass shootings in Texas, Ohio, and California left the country, once again, reeling and mourning: “There’s nothing about an insane criminal committing a horrible act that should lead to the government taking guns away from law abiding citizens.”

Republican lawmakers continue to block any effort to impose even the most simplistic regulations on guns,


American people continue to support common sense gun control measures by overwhelming majorities.

Fox News poll, the one that showed the NRA with its lowest favorability numbers ever, also captured one other troubling statistic for the organization: For the first time in its history, the NRA’s unfavorable numbers were higher than its favorable ones.

Keep saying no to any gun changes and sooner or later it will be done for you....


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear their poll numbers were 67% of those polled supported a ban on assault rifles, that has to include a good number of gun owners to be that high. Not likely anything will change, not until a couple GOP schools suffer the same high losses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear their poll numbers were 67% of those polled supported a ban on assault rifles, that has to include a good number of gun owners to be that high. Not likely anything will change, not until a couple GOP schools suffer the same high losses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you hear Hillary is going to win the election in a landslide too?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

20,000 gun laws federal and state, and people want more. keep listening to your echo chambers

There is a mental illness problem that has to be dealt with. It's not the gun that pulls the trigger — it's the person holding the
gun," Trump said. Flip flop flip flop
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey All Y'all, let's have a discussion on what we can do for gun safety.

How about this and this to address problems with bad guys getting guns?

No, not far enough !! We need to remove the Automatic Climate Busting Weapons of Mass Assault Clips for people that haven't done anything wrong but are probably racists!!

But I am concerned that as a 2A supporter, with my rights being eroded and slowly infringed, because it is just one more step in a slow roll of steps.

Paraphrasing Wayne: "Don't be worried. No one is coming to take our guns that is just NRA Fear Mongering"

Actual Wayne:Keep saying no to any gun changes and sooner or later it will be done for you....



After the shootings this week in Philly, lawmakers and pundits are saying this is another reason we need common sense gun reform.

Except existing laws did not prevent this guy that shot 6 cops from using firearms, selling narcotics, and doing a host of other things that were against the law.

Anyone want to take a guess if he went through the same background checks I did?

20,000 gun laws federal and state, and people want more. keep listening to your echo chambers

I could not hear you over you were echoing .
please. Echo chamber you need to get expand your information base... this has been the trend for years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey All Y'all, let's have a discussion on what we can do for gun safety.

How about this and this to address problems with bad guys getting guns?

No, not far enough !! We need to remove the Automatic Climate Busting Weapons of Mass Assault Clips for people that haven't done anything wrong but are probably racists!!

But I am concerned that as a 2A supporter, with my rights being eroded and slowly infringed, because it is just one more step in a slow roll of steps.

Paraphrasing Wayne: "Don't be worried. No one is coming to take our guns that is just NRA Fear Mongering"

Actual Wayne:

After the shootings this week in Philly, lawmakers and pundits are saying this is another reason we need common sense gun reform.

Except existing laws did not prevent this guy that shot 6 cops from using firearms, selling narcotics, and doing a host of other things that were against the law.

Anyone want to take a guess if he went through the same background checks I did?

John its call gun regulations not confiscation.. only a true believer would associates my statment as evidence we want to take your guns...keep spreading the lie.. but climate change is a hoax Russia a hoax. But there coming to take our guns many on the right believe that..

The NRA policy of just saying No .. its not flying with a large subsection of Americans.. once the NRA can't keep paying or candidates see there views as counter productive to their elections... you'll look back and wish common sense gun owners had a seat at the table.. but you gambled on No. Carrying the day... so you'll get what you get...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John its call gun regulations not confiscation.. only a true believer would associates my statment as evidence we want to take your guns...keep spreading the lie.. but climate change is a hoax Russia a hoax. But there coming to take our guns many on the right believe that..

The NRA policy of just saying No .. its not flying with a large subsection of Americans.. once the NRA can't keep paying or candidates see there views as counter productive to their elections... you'll look back and wish common sense gun owners had a seat at the table.. but you gambled on No. Carrying the day... so you'll get what you get...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess we should hold our breath.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John its call gun regulations not confiscation.. only a true believer would associates my statment as evidence we want to take your guns...keep spreading the lie.. but climate change is a hoax Russia a hoax. But there coming to take our guns many on the right believe that..

The NRA policy of just saying No .. its not flying with a large subsection of Americans.. once the NRA can't keep paying or candidates see there views as counter productive to their elections... you'll look back and wish common sense gun owners had a seat at the table.. but you gambled on No. Carrying the day... so you'll get what you get...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe in the 1A and the 2A. I believe in good people. I believe we have won the lottery of birth being born in this country (particularly after living overseas for several years). And I believe this country is truly great and that the liberties (supposed) and the freedoms granted are sacrosanct. I believe their are good people and ideas from the left and the right. I believe in the fact that sensible people can hash things out and come to an agreement.

I also believe that the left is more willing to cut those items out to the detriment of our countries benefit. This is why I am no longer a moderate Dem.

Wayne - you really need to step outside your bubble. Many of your statements lean right up against confiscation, or rely on such a fine line it is hard to see daylight between your position and confiscation / eroding of rights. Everything you push WRT Gun Control is the same. You target a large group of law abiding people and further to reduce their right to self defense beyond where already eroded.

I believe in the 1A and the 2A. I believe in good people. I believe we have won the lottery of birth being born in this country (particularly after living overseas for several years). And I believe this country is truly great and that the liberties (supposed) and the freedoms granted are sacrosanct. I believe their are good people and ideas from the left and the right. I believe in the fact that sensible people can hash things out and come to an agreement.

I also believe that the left is more willing to cut those items out to the detriment of our countries benefit. This is why I am no longer a moderate Dem.

Wayne - you really need to step outside your bubble. Many of your statements lean right up against confiscation, or rely on such a fine line it is hard to see daylight between your position and confiscation / eroding of rights. Everything you push WRT Gun Control is the same. You target a large group of law abiding people and further to reduce their right to self defense beyond where already eroded.

30 years in Corrections 24 years in the Military bought and sold guns lived in mutiple states and a very diverse group of friends and acquaintance's. Thats a big bubble

Maybe you need to look beyound your bubble how any regulation always leads to confiscation as a argument against it 100% of the time

Not beliving people should not own Ak 47s and M-4 or an AR-15 or other assault rifles dosnt equal i support confiscation.. but with most conservatives it all or nothing ,

And the only party i have seen reducing the freedoms and choices of ordinary americans with vigor..are Republicans state and federal.. across America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

30 years in Corrections 24 years in the Military bought and sold guns lived in mutiple states and a very diverse group of friends and acquaintance's. Thats a big bubble

Maybe you need to look beyound your bubble how any regulation always leads to confiscation as a argument against it 100% of the time

Not beliving people should not own Ak 47s and M-4 or an AR-15 or other assault rifles dosnt equal i support confiscation.. but with most conservatives it all or nothing ,

And the only party i have seen reducing the freedoms and choices of ordinary americans with vigor..are Republicans state and federal.. across America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are arguing for confiscation of certain types of guns, I suppose, because they are used to kill a lot of people. In actuality, the types of guns you say you are not interested in confiscating, on a daily basis, are used to kill lots more people than the guns you say should be confiscated.

One precedent leads to another. If the object is to save lives, than all guns should be banned from ownership. Before the mass shooting using high capacity guns started to happen, there were calls for the elimination of the right to own hand guns. I recall being able to search the net for articles, such as by the NYT that openly called for the elimination of the right to own guns. It's suspicious that I can't find those articles now on a web search.

Here's a NO GUN argument from an established and respected left wing publication, The New Republic.

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

Here is a call by the NYT to repeal the 2A:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

Here's a video by some would demonize as kooky but who actually presents a whole host of statistics re the various gun control arguments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWYd3S_iR1M

More ban all guns from the left including the WAPO:

https://newrepublic.com/article/105337/yes-really-ban-all-guns

More ban all guns from the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper:

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/

There are a lot more calls from the left to ban all guns. I'm not going to link them, but you get the picture

Here is a call by the NYT to repeal the 2A:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
This is a very rational piece.

30 years in Corrections 24 years in the Military bought and sold guns lived in mutiple states and a very diverse group of friends and acquaintance's. Thats a big bubble
Typical pink panty wearing, pot smoking, FM radio freakshow of a snowflake.

What's the take on the 5-10 million AR type gun in private hands now in circulation? You going to take them? If so, the civilian and leo casualties will out number the mass shooting #'s. You will instantly turn law abiding citizens into criminals and some won't swallow.
That raises a good question as to how we got here in the first place.

30 years in Corrections 24 years in the Military bought and sold guns lived in mutiple states and a very diverse group of friends and acquaintance's. Thats a big bubble

Maybe you need to look beyound your bubble how any regulation always leads to confiscation as a argument against it 100% of the time

Not beliving people should not own Ak 47s and M-4 or an AR-15 or other assault rifles dosnt equal i support confiscation.. but with most conservatives it all or nothing ,

And the only party i have seen reducing the freedoms and choices of ordinary americans with vigor..are Republicans state and federal.. across America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Apologies - your thought bubble. Your thought bubble is always pretty hard left. I know you have time in the Mil and I did not know you are in corrections (not surprised and I am not saying that in a malicious demeanor).

I can't get a M4. The worst I have is the scary looking version of a Ruger Mini-14. And you understand the background checks I have to go through to get one. When you were in the service you saw kids that probably should not have had access to one and did anyway, (some learned, some were moved elsewhere). Other than a rare accident, nothing went wrong with them. My hope is we find a way to weed out the people that should not have access to them so they cannot have them.

Courts have ruled that our rights as an American to defend ourselves grant us the right to access appropriate tools to do that. You are proposing to remove a/k/a infringe on that.

Not beliving people should not own Ak 47s and M-4 or an AR-15 or other assault rifles dosnt equal i support confiscation.. but with most conservatives it all or nothing ,

How do you make your belief "they should not own them" a reality?

I can't get a M4. The worst I have is the scary looking version of a Ruger Mini-14.
For non-military purposes though they're pretty close to being the same weapon. I'll put you on the list.

I can't get a M4. The worst I have is the scary looking version of a Ruger Mini-14.

I always wanted the mini-30 for deer hunting. Funny isn't it? You order the wood stock version and it's a great little hunting rifle, you order the black "tactical" stock option and it's suddenly a scary military assault weapon.

How do you make your belief "they should not own them" a reality?

Stop selling them.. once that happens whats in the system already stays .. the prices will increase expediently. Weeding out the want a be's .(thats the face of a 2A supporter that most Americans see they have hijacked the narrtive to the point a regular gun owner has no voice...change open carry laws ( not sure how carrying an ak or a mini 14 fullbody armor and 6 full mags in the mall or burger king .was the laws intent.. those guns now are like gold not everyone has it but if you do it can be a good investment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

( not sure how carrying an ak or a mini 14 fullbody armor and 6 full mags in the mall or burger king .was the laws intent..

It wasn't the intent. Burger King was intended to have the right to ban carrying them onto its property. The intent was to secure the right to own them.

It wasn't the intent. Burger King was intended to have the right to ban carrying them onto its property. The intent was to secure the right to own them.

your correct it wasn't the laws intent ... but it wasn't (The intent was to secure the right to own them) they all ready had that right .. please


the yahoos hijacked open carry Laws ... and regular gun owners get push out of view ...that's my point

For non-military purposes though they're pretty close to being the same weapon.

What do you mean?

I always wanted the mini-30 for deer hunting. Funny isn't it? You order the wood stock version and it's a great little hunting rifle, you order the black "tactical" stock option and it's suddenly a scary military assault weapon.

They offer Wood Furniture for your Modern Sporting Rifle.

your correct it wasn't the laws intent ... but it wasn't (The intent was to secure the right to own them) they all ready had that right .. please


the yahoos hijacked open carry Laws ... and regular gun owners get push out of view ...that's my point

What are you talking about?


Open Carry into Burger King? Are you OK with Concealed Carry?

I could not hear you over you were echoing .
please. Echo chamber you need to get expand your information base... this has been the trend for years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
you have your stance and I have mine
I'm done repeating myself
I understand you have an opinion no matter how wrong it is.

I suggest you listen to this whole video and open your mind because you sound like you are not very observant judging by your comments on here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucCU_NnJ-0

your correct it wasn't the laws intent ... but it wasn't (The intent was to secure the right to own them) they all ready had that right .. please


the yahoos hijacked open carry Laws ... and regular gun owners get push out of view ...that's my point

It wasn't clear to me what you where referring to. I thought you were referring to the 2A. As for the rest of your sentence, it is also not clear to me what you mean. Probably my lack of reading comprehension.

this is what it's like reading some of the posts here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uzoz6Eh_2c

you have your stance and I have mine


I suggest you listen to this whole video and open your mind because you sound like you are not very observant judging by your comments on here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucCU_NnJ-0

I'm done repeating myself
I understand you have an opinion no matter how wrong it is.

AND everyone one else is the issue.. classic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What do you mean?



They offer Wood Furniture for your Modern Sporting Rifle.



What are you talking about?


Open Carry into Burger King? Are you OK with Concealed Carry?

Clearly you don't see a difference

How do you tell a 10-year-old little girl who got a Ruger 10/22 with a pink stock for her birthday that her rifle is an assault weapon and she has to turn it over to government or be arrested for felony possession?" Hammer asked at the meeting.
Florida National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer warned state economists Friday that a proposed assault rifle ban would be devastating to gun manufacturers lured to the state over the last eight years.

NRA mixing confiscation with concern about gun sales
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like a safe place, pretty mass shooter proof. CC is a good thing.

What do you mean?
Same calibre, can generally fire the same round, similar muzzle velocity, compact barrel, semi-auto operation and the mini can be decked out with all the necessities for home defense like an extended round magazine, pistol grip, collapsible stock etc... :doh:

I think we've seen time and time again when you put what's really a military weapon in the hands of a killer even with little experience they can be quite effective.

Looks like a safe place, pretty mass shooter proof. CC is a good thing.
If that guy had dark skin someone would have already taken him out.

If that guy had dark skin someone would have already taken him out.

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything. Again, really?

Same calibre, can generally fire the same round, similar muzzle velocity, compact barrel, semi-auto operation and the mini can be decked out with all the necessities for home defense like an extended round magazine, pistol grip, collapsible stock etc... :doh:

I think we've seen time and time again when you put what's really a military weapon in the hands of a killer even with little experience they can be quite effective.

is there a point here?

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything. Again, really?

it's a nervous tic

it's a nervous tic

He's a good little soldier
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like a safe place, pretty mass shooter proof. CC is a good thing.

Thats not a picture of Cc thats open carry.. if you want to play soldier join the service ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=afterhours;1172514]Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6jzzh-FZgs

Thats not a picture of Cc thats open carry.. if you want to play soldier join the service ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Duhh no chit it's open carry. Just read what I said, two different things.

[QUOTE=afterhours;1172514]Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6jzzh-FZgs

Gee....you don't think that ever happens to white people?

I think we've seen time and time again when you put what's really a military weapon in the hands of a killer even with little experience they can be quite effective.

Then don't put them in the hands of a killer and legislate that. I am sick and effing tired of having to have you and others claim what rights can be taken away rather than even try to focus on the few bad actors.

Gee....you don't think that ever happens to white people?

Well the white people deserved it.

We are in post Content of Character America

Well the white people deserved it.

We are in post Content of Character America

I never said that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=wdmso;1172522]

Gee....you don't think that ever happens to white people?

Guess you didnt watch the video
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Duhh no chit it's open carry. Just read what I said, two different things.

I did you think one will cancel out the other. .. i would hate to be a cop responding to an active shooter in that store.. does he shoot everyone with an assault rifle and body armor 1st or wait until its over and arrests the last one standing.. then figure it out..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did you think one will cancel out the other. .. i would hate to be a cop responding to an active shooter in that store.. does he shoot everyone with an assault rifle and body armor 1st or wait until its over and arrests the last one standing.. then figure it out..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glad you think you know what I think, you don't. Just said i'd personally feel safe in an open carry environment......AND i'm for CC. It could be a confusing situation IF an active shooter decided to shoot there (instead of a gun free zone) AND he survived long enough for the police to arrive, I don't think he would.

I never said that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was the quoting of a quoting in response to you and the code got messed up.

I did you think one will cancel out the other. .. i would hate to be a cop responding to an active shooter in that store.. does he shoot everyone with an assault rifle and body armor 1st or wait until its over and arrests the last one standing.. then figure it out..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there was an active shooter in that store, maybe they wouldn't not be active by the time the cop gets there. You and I both know that if an active shooter was in that store the gamut would run between the shtttshow that would have happened if only the gunman was armed to all resolved before LE showed on scene. Odds are somewhere in the middle but barring a fustercluck, like better than had they not.

Then don't put them in the hands of a killer and legislate that. I am sick and effing tired of having to have you and others claim what rights can be taken away rather than even try to focus on the few bad actors.
Perhaps you've just been lead to believe you have rights that you don't? Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon. That's for the people and laws to decide. They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.

Really Jeff, it's not about race in MOST instances. Seems the leftist thing to do - tie racism into everything. Again, really?
Just an observation. Do you disagree?

Perhaps you've just been lead to believe you have rights that you don't? Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon. That's for the people and laws to decide. They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.

And that back in the 1930’s is the beginning of unconstitutional infringements that you and others like you are ok with because you buy their excuses while being blind to their agendas. You do realize the Patriot act has chipped away at our freedoms at a high cost don’t you?
The second Amendment does not define arms for a reason you obviously don’t understand.

Perhaps you have been led to believe a ban of semi automatic black rifles with scary military like features that supposedly makes it an assault weapon reduces deaths somehow yet it has been done and proven not to reduce deaths no matter what lies you have been fed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just an observation. Do you disagree?

If you've observed all the instances in which "that guy had dark skin" it might be hard to disagree with you. But since you haven't, you're right, it's just an observation--which doesn't amount to much.

Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon.

Yes, the Constitution says we can. It says we have the right to keep arms. Semi auto high velocity weapons are arms. Labeling them "assault" doesn't change anything. And all "arms" can be used to assault.

That's for the people and laws to decide.

They did decide and make a law. The 2A. If the people don't like that, they can amend the Constitution.

They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.

"They" were not "the people" acting by Constitutional Convention. Judicial "interpretations" can, as in this case, be erroneous. And they can be overturned or made null by later decisions. They are not as immutable as constitutional text. And even if that line you speak of were truly and constitutionally drawn, then your semi auto high velocity "assault" weapons would not be prohibited by that line.

If that guy had dark skin someone would have already taken him out.

Why would you say that? I seriously doubt anyone else here thought that, but i'm sure that is due to your heightened sense of perceived social awareness. I'd view him as just another guy OC'ing as would most people.

Strong majorities of Americans from across the political spectrum support laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who is seen to be a risk to themselves or others, according to a new APM Research Lab/Guns & America/Call To Mind survey.


Some opposition is likely born out of the general rhetoric around the gun debate related to "serious distrust" and "seizing guns," Swearer explained. One Colorado-based gun rights group, for instance, refers to the state's recently passed red flag law as a "Gun Confiscation Scheme."

it always go back to that

"They" were not "the people" acting by Constitutional Convention. Judicial "interpretations" can, as in this case, be erroneous. And they can be overturned or made null by later decisions. They are not as immutable as constitutional text. And even if that line you speak of were truly and constitutionally drawn, then your semi auto high velocity "assault" weapons would not be prohibited by that line.
You're just highlighting the problem with the amendment as it is written. I agree though, we should scrap it and amend.

You're just highlighting the problem with the amendment as it is written. I agree though, we should scrap it and amend.

Well . . If you scrap it, there is nothing left to amend.

I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid.

That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation."

When the NRA and big money owns our policies it doesn’t even matter that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well . . If you scrap it, there is nothing left to amend.
Any amendment will be seen as scrapping by some.

I don't have a problem with how the Amendment or the Constitution as a whole is written. I understand "why" the Constitution was written. Progressives no long believe that "why" is valid.

That is why they prefer that the Constitution should be scrapped. Of course, it is not feasible at this time to do that, so they peck away at it by "interpretation."
That's what the Judicial Branch does. It's why we have decisions that are obvious and that are controversial. If it was so easy judges would be more like bookkeepers.

LOL. Figured I'd poke my head in here and see how the gun debate is going . . . I read the thread and nothing has changed in the months since I was last here.


https://www.brennancenter.org//analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment?gclid=Cj0KCQjw4s7qBRCzARIsAImcAxaa9KRzGC vgbgQty_XRNtseBZ3KxfmpTO6f8xOKHIDUSyR3hy8mMUwaAiLI EALw_wcB


not sure why 2a supporters think people against assault weapons think we Don't know how to read or do research or see the topic in historical terms... :rotflmao:

Well, when you link to commentary like that for support of your position, we know you would rather read BS instead of original sources.

There is but one constitutionally, legally and historically correct statement in that article; it is found in the first sentence:


"The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun."



The FRAMERS knew they were not creating anything with the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right to arms is a pre-existing right, not created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment.

"We the People" don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; "We the People" possess the right because We never surrendered any aspect of the right, never conferred any power to government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

IOW, We don't posses the right because of what the 2ndA says, we posses the right because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

That you fail to comprehend this foundational tenet means you will never compose a single thought about guns and gun rights that conforms with the Constitution.

You will continue to say stuff like this, not realizing you are totally wrong in your thinking . . .

funny ...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned,

or One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

so please show me how the Words support what the gun lobby is suggesting . 2a means



What a purposefully wrong approach you take.

Please show me the words in the body of the Constitution that grants to Congress the power to ban any guns . . . Read the body of the Constitution to discern what the government can do, not the 2nd Amendment to try to discrn what the citizen is -allowed- to do.

Perhaps you've just been lead to believe you have rights that you don't? Doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution you have the right to own a semi auto high velocity assault weapon. That's for the people and laws to decide. They drew the line with full auto quite some time ago and I don't see you beotching about that.


It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the government can ban my "semi auto high velocity assault weapon".

That's the singular truth you need to accept.

Those who desire to ban them should make the plea that government should be allowed to ban them (with a constitutional amendment). Problem is, you are pushing against the clear and unambiguous criteria established by SCOTUS that determines if a type of arm is outside the reach of government.

Of all the types of guns currently available to the general public, those deemed to be "assault weapons" with their standard issue magazines, (typically holding 20-30 cartridges), fit that protection criteria better than any other type of firearm.

When the NRA and big money owns our policies it doesn’t even matter that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed.





Original, fundamental rights (and the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right -- see McDonald v Chicago) are not subject to the ignorant whims of public opinion. The "majority" does not get to impose its disdain of certain rights on anyone, simply because they are the majority.


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

Original, fundamental rights (and the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right -- see McDonald v Chicago) are not subject to the ignorant whims of public opinion. The "majority" does not get to impose its disdain of certain rights on anyone, simply because they are the majority.


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)



I’m certain country wide universal background checks and closing gun show and private sales loopholes isn’t going to impact anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL. Figured I'd poke my head in here and see how the gun debate is going . . . I read the thread and nothing has changed in the months since I was last here.




Well, when you link to commentary like that for support of your position, we know you would rather read BS instead of original sources.

There is but one constitutionally, legally and historically correct statement in that article; it is found in the first sentence:


"The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun."



The FRAMERS knew they were not creating anything with the words of the 2nd Amendment. The right to arms is a pre-existing right, not created, given, granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment.

"We the People" don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; "We the People" possess the right because We never surrendered any aspect of the right, never conferred any power to government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

IOW, We don't posses the right because of what the 2ndA says, we posses the right because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

That you fail to comprehend this foundational tenet means you will never compose a single thought about guns and gun rights that conforms with the Constitution.

You will continue to say stuff like this, not realizing you are totally wrong in your thinking . . .





What a purposefully wrong approach you take.

Please show me the words in the body of the Constitution that grants to Congress the power to ban any guns . . . Read the body of the Constitution to discern what the government can do, not the 2nd Amendment to try to discrn what the citizen is -allowed- to do.


you should come around more often like most 2 a supporters here you are the only ones talking confiscation or bans .. and spewing this god given aspect to 2A :rotflmao:

I’m certain country wide universal background checks and closing gun show and private sales loopholes isn’t going to impact anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.


You say that as if you feel the federal government exceeding the powers granted to it under the Constitution is no big deal.

That's the crux of the issue. You feel that the only thing that matters is that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed . . .

You feel that such a "mandate" from a majority demands the government act without regard to what the government is actually allowed to do . . . and you expect me to believe you when you say there's no threat to my rights.

You're funny!

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the government can ban my "semi auto high velocity assault weapon".



.

where does it say they cant?


That's the singular truth you need to accept.:kewl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CDtSHAmoFg&feature=youtu.be

where does it say they cant?


That's the singular truth you need to accept.:kewl:


And the spring from which your incorrect ideas flow, has been discovered. You are so profoundly backwards in your thinking I realize now it is probably useless to even try to correct you. How does your position mesh with the 10th Amendment?

I'll state my argument anyway, just for those who might be interested.

The specific enumeration of powers in the Constitution limits the powers of the government . . . IOW, the feds can only do what the Constitution says it can do.


If it ain't there it can not be done!


That correct "singular truth" was the main reason the Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. They believed it was dangerous to add declarations that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to do those things . . . that it was absurd to provide against the abuse of an authority which was ever granted to government!*

They also argued that the attempt to list rights was not only impossible, it was also dangerous. Our rights are innumerable, they are everything not conferred to government through the Constitution and someone, someday might assume and argue that that was the entire list of rights and something not listed was actually under the domain of government.

Of course the Federalists "lost" the argument and a bill of rights was added but Madison, being a Federalist, composed and proposed two provisions that codified Federalist argument against the bill of rights into the Constitution. They became the 9th and 10th Amendments:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you recognize how profoundly wrong your thinking is?






* Federalist 84 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp), arguing against adding a bill of rights:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."


.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CDtSHAmoFg&feature=youtu.be


And the absurdity of you arguing that the 2nd Amendment right to arms is cemented in the 18th Century by using the 1st Amendment secured right to hit keys on an electronic device and sending the words across time and space on waves of light and having them appear on my screen, is lost on you.

Please rewrite your message using quill pen on parchment and give it to a postal worker and have him deliver it to me on horseback.

You say that as if you feel the federal government exceeding the powers granted to it under the Constitution is no big deal.

That's the crux of the issue. You feel that the only thing that matters is that over 90% of ALL Americans want the universal background check legislation passed . . .

You feel that such a "mandate" from a majority demands the government act without regard to what the government is actually allowed to do . . . and you expect me to believe you when you say there's no threat to my rights.

You're funny!

Wasn’t meant to be funny, but if you are a gun owner and have already purchased and passed a background check, then my statement is true; those changes in and of themselves do NOT impact your ability to arm yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn’t meant to be funny, but if you are a gun owner and have already purchased and passed a background check, then my statement is true; those changes in and of themselves do NOT impact your ability to arm yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It doesn't matter, RR's mission is to spam the planet with cut and paste to throw sand in your eyes. It's all he ever does :rotf2:

Wasn’t meant to be funny, but if you are a gun owner and have already purchased and passed a background check, then my statement is true; those changes in and of themselves do NOT impact your ability to arm yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Do you believe that your personal opinion on what is and is not an impact on the right, (that you obviously have no understanding of), is the deciding principle for determining constitutionality?


I'll spare myself the laugh cramps asking you about free speech.

Do you believe that your personal opinion on what is and is not an impact on the right, (that you obviously have no understanding of), is the deciding principle for determining constitutionality?


I'll spare myself the laugh cramps asking you about free speech.

Spare me the cut and paste , tell me in your own words, how those simple changes impact your ability to purchase and arm yourself to your hearts content; you can’t of course but keep spouting the NRA taking points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It doesn't matter, RR's mission is to spam the planet with cut and paste to throw sand in your eyes. It's all he ever does :rotf2:


And all you ever do is pontificate and spew until somebody challenges you and then to resort to personal attacks, red herrings and then finally, meek abandonment of the discussion . . . all mouth and no trousers.

Spare me the cut and paste , tell me in your own words, how those simple changes impact your ability to purchase and arm yourself to your hearts content; you can’t of course but keep spouting the NRA taking points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Any discussion of what the government should do while ignoring what the government can do is mental masturbation.

The problem with 'universal background checks' is that anti-gun people will be writing the legislation. The stated and indisputably worthwhile goal of improving the system limiting gun access for prohibited people will be hijacked because the people writing the law have a general overriding hostility for gun rights.

The other problem is that it will become a gun and owner registry, it really can't be avoided.

I would support actually prosecuting people for selling to a prohibited person and opening the NICS to private citizens. Private citizens selling a gun should be able to make a phone call, punch in the buyer's ID #'s and get an approved / denied code for the sale.


As far as cut and paste goes, what is wrong with reading original sources and actual quotes from SCOTUS etc. that state the law? Is supported argument really scorned on this site?


.

As I predicted, you can’t say why those changes impact your ability to arm yourself, tough trying to win an argument you can’t possibly win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I predicted, you can’t say why those changes impact your ability to arm yourself, tough trying to win an argument you can’t possibly win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you missed the point completely and then claimed victory...good job :claps: I guess the means justify the end or something....

No you missed my original point, in that yet another mass shooting gets Trump talking momentarily about universal background checks, only to reverse course on talking to the NRA, which prompted the usual NRA talking points by RR. To which I asked why universal background checks and closing show and private sale loopholes would affect anyone’s ability to legally purchase legal arms under the 2A. So how does he or anyone win that very pointed question, they can’t unless they need those loopholes to secure those arms. So RR and others spew the usual NRA talking points, it’s an old argument, but explain to me the harm done by the background checks and closing loopholes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That sounds about as sensible as only allowing United States citizens the right to vote in our elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m certain country wide universal background checks and closing gun show and private sales loopholes isn’t going to impact anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bob, gun shows and private sales are not loopholes, you are being mislead plain and simple.

take the time to really listen with an open mind and not a snarky biased attitude and you may be enlightened because what you are supporting is lazy. Problems don't just go away by writing a law banning an object.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkeZzLL6LRc

like he says, it is a cultural problem and if you don't think so, you are kidding yourself.

No you missed my original point, So how does he or anyone win that very pointed question, they can’t unless they need those loopholes to secure those arms. So RR and others spew the usual NRA talking points, it’s an old argument, but explain to me the harm done by the background checks and closing loopholes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh no, I got it and it was dumb...you should read this...you are barking up the wrong tree with your talking points


https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/08/06/expanded-background-checks-wouldn-prevent-mass-shootings/SaprIaTy43Dp2iDuyFNwyN/story.html

And the spring from which your incorrect ideas flow, has been discovered. You are so profoundly backwards in your thinking I realize now it is probably useless to even try to correct you. How does your position mesh with the 10th Amendment?

I'll state my argument anyway, just for those who might be interested.

The specific enumeration of powers in the Constitution limits the powers of the government . . . IOW, the feds can only do what the Constitution says it can do.


If it ain't there it can not be done!


That correct "singular truth" was the main reason the Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. They believed it was dangerous to add declarations that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to do those things . . . that it was absurd to provide against the abuse of an authority which was ever granted to government!*

They also argued that the attempt to list rights was not only impossible, it was also dangerous. Our rights are innumerable, they are everything not conferred to government through the Constitution and someone, someday might assume and argue that that was the entire list of rights and something not listed was actually under the domain of government.

Of course the Federalists "lost" the argument and a bill of rights was added but Madison, being a Federalist, composed and proposed two provisions that codified Federalist argument against the bill of rights into the Constitution. They became the 9th and 10th Amendments:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you recognize how profoundly wrong your thinking is?






* Federalist 84 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp), arguing against adding a bill of rights:

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."


.

Join the your wrong I am right club.. we get that alot from 2a guys.. its a typical response along with long theorize responses ..

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the absurdity of you arguing that the 2nd Amendment right to arms is cemented in the 18th Century by using the 1st Amendment secured right to hit keys on an electronic device and sending the words across time and space on waves of light and having them appear on my screen, is lost on you.

Please rewrite your message using quill pen on parchment and give it to a postal worker and have him deliver it to me on horseback.

Seems you've missed the point.. i wont waste time explaining it to you.. you already got it figured out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Join the your wrong I am right club..

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with..

size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

there's a lot to love here :D

oh no, I got it and it was dumb...you should read this...you are barking up the wrong tree with your talking points


https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/08/06/expanded-background-checks-wouldn-prevent-mass-shootings/SaprIaTy43Dp2iDuyFNwyN/story.html

You and RR take a page right out of Trump's playbook, can't win one argument, move to distraction and another direction. Did my post say I was suggesting background checks and closing show and private sale loopholes was going to end mass shooting? NO it didn't, my point was made and in response to RR's distraction, I asked why those simple changes (which the majority of the country) would impact your 2A rights. They don't of course, so distraction time, cut and paste time, same old arguments. OMG were all coming for your guns, this is just the first step.

No you missed my original point, in that yet another mass shooting gets Trump talking momentarily about universal background checks, only to reverse course on talking to the NRA,

Trump is a dealmaker who goes into any discussion where differences are apparent with the assumption that the other side is honest and wants to solve the immediate problem. Anti-gunners can not be afforded such confidence. There are plenty of reforms and changes that can be done to make the background check better but they will be sacrificed on the altar of poking a stick in the eye of legal gun owners and their evil overlords, the NRA.

which prompted the usual NRA talking points by RR.

Those "talking points" are direct attacks on your positions and beliefs, exposing them to be deficient, unworkable and usually unconstitutional. I realize and understand why you feel compelled to dismiss and ignore my arguments but please know, your inability and/or incapability to rebut my position or defend your position speaks louder than your diversionary bleats and whines about talking points.

There's a lot to find disgusting and detestable in leftist, statist authoritarian anti-gun arguments but the worst is that you feel you don't need to defend your positions and that's OK . . . Truth is, you can't defend them; such is the flaw in positions held as emotional constructs. A position that the holder is unwilling or incapable of defending, is hardly worth any respect or consideration in the debate over public policy enactments.

So RR and others spew the usual NRA talking points, it’s an old argument, but explain to me the harm done by the background checks and closing loopholes?

That you hold the Constitution and liberty principles in such disdain sure is cutting edge and novel; no wonder you think my points are old. Sorry, the Constitution doesn't change like liberals think it does and yes, the arguments that oppose what you promote don't vary too much over the years . . . They don't need to. The same late 18th century arguments in opposition to the King's edicts still apply to the proposals of today's statist authoritarian left.

That you have such a short attention span, that you can't comprehend anything longer than a few short sentences, demonstrates you will never "get" what the core of the argument is. Thus, you are dismissed as a complete waste of time and energy.

Join the your wrong I am right club.. we get that alot from 2a guys.

And yet you slog on, dismissing the corrective information, content that the positions and beliefs you "feel" are correct (thus are content to refuse to defend) are absolutely factually correct. Problem is, they aren't. . .

its a typical response along with long theorize responses ..

https://i.postimg.cc/CLYs1Vsd/answers.jpg

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with.

Well, when you can't even acknowledge that the base "conversation" is governed by a set of rules, it's hard to have any structure or arrive at any consensus. You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas, the singular directing force for you is opinion, based in emotion, divorced from principle. You react to challenges to defend your policy positions as a personal attack on your feelings which is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

.

[QUOTE=ReelinRod;1172789
Well, when you can't even acknowledge that the base "conversation" is governed by a set of rules, it's hard to have any structure or arrive at any consensus. You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas, the singular directing force for you is opinion, based in emotion, divorced from principle. You react to challenges to defend your policy positions as a personal attack on your feelings which is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

.[/QUOTE]

This is the critical distinction between the positions held on both sides of the argument. One side is based on a set of fundamental rules and principles, the other on transitory opinions that seem right for the moment.

Got Stripers, for instance, cannot understand why someone could object to a solution that would not harm the ability to lawfully own a gun. But he does not understand that there are principles that can be harmed by that solution.

It's similar to the idea of wondering what real harm there would be in having sex with others to whom you are not married. You can still love your wife or husband, still provide, give comfort and passion, raise children, be companions for life, and cooperate in building a home and life together. Aren't those the real, meaningful reasons to get married? There are folks who understand that and have "open" marriages.

But, on the other hand, is it necessary to marry in order to do those things? If there is no actual harm in so called infidelity, what is the point of having fidelity? What is the point of having marriage?

I suppose that the point would be determined by those who do it. But there will always be a point. A reason. A principle. All things, material or imaginary are based, for humans, on a principle. Otherwise they would not actually exist, not be comprehensible to the human mind.

Transitory opinions may be based on some principle such as carpe diem. And therein lies the problem of applying that principle to society as a whole. To have a society, a community, a nation, the principles must be lasting, structurally foundational rather than quicksand. That is they becomes rules. Laws. Rule of law.

For there to be such a thing as "marriage," it must be founded on some principle. "Marriage" is merely the name we give to the realization of that principle. And if our definition of "marriage" requires fidelity, and if we stray from that principle, in effect we have destroyed it, and the name has no meaning. So then it no longer exists.

And so, what is the rule, the principle, that we stray from when we apply the principle of "no harm" on the ability to legally own something if we impose various regulations on those for whom it is not necessary, nor constitutional, to do so merely because it would not harm their ability to own that thing legally in terms of a law we create?

Simply put we destroy the principles on which this nation was founded. We will still seem to have a nation, but really more of a mirage of one. An uncertain, vague, undefined one whose principles are no longer fundamental. No longer lasting. They are quicksand. They are transitory opinions which, as in this case as pointed out by Scott's post, are not founded on solid reality. They are desperate attempts at "solutions" which only further erode what is left of original principles and lead us into the rule by the few, whose motives we ultimately do not know.

And all you ever do is pontificate and spew until somebody challenges you and then to resort to personal attacks, red herrings and then finally, meek abandonment of the discussion . . . all mouth and no trousers.
I don't make personal attacks, they're just observations. As for my trousers, don't bait me into posting pics of my wardrobe, I assure you it's well appointed :humpty: