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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

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)

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...ther-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 ??

good greif

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=N4Ap...0kWijzbZVy%3A6

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

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.

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

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.

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.