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

Says who?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

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

yes it does

never heard of spitballing, eh?
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.

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

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:

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....

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

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

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:

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

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

your right I should have said indignant..

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

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/2...fles-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 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

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 "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.