Texas Shooting

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it.

I agree with this....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I agree with this....

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I GUESS THAT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I GUESS THAT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD

No it didn’t, I just kept going with my rant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Less entrances brings up its own set of problems."
Every proposed solution, will create a new set of issues to tackle. Maybe those problems are preferable to the problem of putting tiny caskets in the ground.

You are missing the point, Jim. The point is assessments to determine what best suits a particular school based on its own situation. Some places where there are less entrances might make the count inflicted go up.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Ban Gun folks are only willing to confiscate, for many there is no compromise. The pro 2A folks (of which I support) are very hesitant to move on some issues when the Ban Guns people are going to again increase pressure when and if anything is done. "

Many on the left are fixated on solving this with gun restrictions, and common sense suggests that of all proposed solutions, gun solutions aren't going to reduce the body count as much as other solutions. But the folks who believe that the 2A is absolute aren't bending either. The pro 2A folks are going to have to throw everyone else a bone to get something done, and bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a likely offering. We can argue all day long about all the ways to kill people without bump stocks and high capacity magazines, but how do we look at our kids if we do nothing? How?

The Pro2A folks have either been throwing bones or having their bones taken away against their will for some time, and in some locations more harshly than others. The gun takers have already been chipping away for decades. When is the erosion of a right enough?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that."

I am absolutely certain you do know what I mean. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it. Similarly, one of the men who crafted the 2A, banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia. it's not absolute. As far as my knowledge of history goes (which also isn't absolute) the guy who wrote it, didn't intend for it to be absolute.

"If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it,"

Guns are banned in Court Houses, Police Stations, and many other places. That does not prevent you from having them, just prevents you from bringing them into certain places.

When traveling in a car you need to have everything locked in a case, ammo separated from firearm. You can only travel between home, work, and a range. This is the law in RI. There have already been many laws and restrictions applied to good and honest people, many bones have been thrown or stolen.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What legislation would do some good? What is the common ground we can reach? Mental Health screening? Storage laws?

Clearly nobody wants to take away guns, the NRA just does it because it mindcontrols people and politicians. /sarc

http://buffalonews.com/2018/05/16/ro...kes-nras-case/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You are missing the point, Jim. The point is assessments to determine what best suits a particular school based on its own situation. Some places where there are less entrances might make the count inflicted go up.



The Pro2A folks have either been throwing bones or having their bones taken away against their will for some time, and in some locations more harshly than others. The gun takers have already been chipping away for decades. When is the erosion of a right enough?





Guns are banned in Court Houses, Police Stations, and many other places. That does not prevent you from having them, just prevents you from bringing them into certain places.

When traveling in a car you need to have everything locked in a case, ammo separated from firearm. You can only travel between home, work, and a range. This is the law in RI. There have already been many laws and restrictions applied to good and honest people, many bones have been thrown or stolen.






What legislation would do some good? What is the common ground we can reach? Mental Health screening? Storage laws?

Clearly nobody wants to take away guns, the NRA just does it because it mindcontrols people and politicians. /sarc

http://buffalonews.com/2018/05/16/ro...kes-nras-case/

"Some places where there are less entrances might make the count inflicted go up."

Good point, and something to be considered.

"The Pro2A folks have either been throwing bones or having their bones taken away against their will for some time"

True. But ask the victims' families which side has sacrificed more. There are two sides to this, not just one. Each side has a legitimate concern, not just the 2A side. CT has some strict gun laws I'm told. I can still get a handgun or a hunting rifle, I'm not a black in the segregated south who couldn't own a gun. I'm pretty sure the current situation is much closer to the ideal for the 2A crowd, than it is for the families of dead children. I'm not advocating for either extreme, I'm saying that even here in CT, I have the right to acquire a lot of different types of guns. At least I presume so. I have friends with handguns, shotguns, AR-15s. Not sure what more they want, or what they've had to surrender. But whatever they've had to surrender, I know some families in Newtown who have surrendered a lot more. The 2A crowd never talks about that.

I don't see having to lock my gun in a car, as a major infringement, but reasonable people can disagree on that point.

"What legislation would do some good? What is the common ground we can reach? Mental Health screening? Storage laws?"

Make it easier to commit the mentally ill. Policies (maybe not laws, but programs) that identify kids who are obviously isolated (the kid in FL put up every conceivable red flag), and which work with these kids to make sure they know that they matter and that someone cares about them. Policies that encourage families to stay together, instead of providing financial incentives for families to break apart. Funding for trained, carefully screened guards at schools. Policies that reduce the violence that we bombard our children with all day long. Maybe ask democrats and the media to stop endlessly mocking people of faith, and God forbid, start talking about the obvious benefits that faith can add to our lives. Maybe a national guardsmen in every school, every day.

I would trade bump stocks and high capacity magazines in a second, for all of that.

You made great points John, and you did it rationally. You didn't say "if I give up my bump stock today, then tomorrow they'll take my hunting rifle". I haven't heard any serious talk of an all-out gun grab, and until people of influence are calling for that, the right should stop acting as if that's around the corner.

I don't think gun control measures will do much, I agree with you on that. What I'm saying is, if we can't convince the left of the futility of fixing this with gun laws, that maybe we offer them something, in return for policies that will actually put a dent in the body count.

I don't see a lot of compassion from the 2A zealots on this issue...and we're better than that. I see a lot more paranoia, than I see compassion.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it. And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky. I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power, it should be reversed. The people need to take control not the other way around.
You want to give up bones, well that bumpstock thing was supposed to be in the same bill as the concealed carry reciprocity bill and look what happened to that.
A government who does not trust the people cannot be trusted themselves.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky.

Never heard of such a thing. Most if not all states encourage collecting rainwater. Some states do restrict how much you can hold as there are laws from the 1920's about maintaining large reservoirs on private property.

[TheSpecialist]

As a staunch member of the 2nd, there are only a couple of things I would support on the Federal Level:

1. Legislation to punish people that allow unauthorized people easy access to their guns, mandatory trigger locks, or gun safes on all guns that are not under a persons direct control.

2. All private gun sales and transfers have to be done at a dealer so that a NICS check can be done on the purchaser, the dealer should not be able to charge more than $10 per transaction

That's it , nothing else, we keep all of our guns that are legal today.
Then you have to set up school safety guidelines, metal detectors, clear backpacks, zero tolerance for bullying, violence etc.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Never heard of such a thing. Most if not all states encourage collecting rainwater. Some states do restrict how much you can hold as there are laws from the 1920's about maintaining large reservoirs on private property.

Colorado https://www.thealternativedaily.com/...-these-states/

CA http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...d_sen_v96.html

from here http://www.ncsl.org/research/environ...arvesting.aspx

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Colorado https://www.thealternativedaily.com/...-these-states/

CA http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...d_sen_v96.html

from here http://www.ncsl.org/research/environ...arvesting.aspx

This is citing obscure laws from when these western states were being settled and water rights were a huge issue for ranchers. Has nothing to so with progressive policy and I believe most laws have been updated.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

This is citing obscure laws from when these western states were being settled and water rights were a huge issue for ranchers. Has nothing to so with progressive policy and I believe most laws have been updated.

watch this
new laws not obsure

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it. And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky. I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power, it should be reversed. The people need to take control not the other way around.
You want to give up bones, well that bumpstock thing was supposed to be in the same bill as the concealed carry reciprocity bill and look what happened to that.
A government who does not trust the people cannot be trusted themselves.

"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."

Can you list those who have said it, please?

"I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power"

Not even if it helps save children's lives? If bump stocks were never available, isn't there a good chance the death toll would have been lower in Las Vegas? You can argue that cars kill a huge number of people, and therefore should we ban cars? But I don't see bump stocks as something that's as vital to our everyday lives, as cars.

None of us are advocating for anarchy, so we all agree there are worthwhile tradeoffs between liberty and security. It's just a question of whether or not we're at the point where moving the line towards safety, is warranted. I'm starting to think it is.

There is no fathomable gun law that would have prevented what happened in Texas. None. But there have been mass shooters who have used bump stocks and high capacity magazines to maximize the death count. I am willing to live without those things if it saves the life of one innocent person somewhere. I don't think that makes me a progressive liberal. But we can disagree.

Put common sense aside, and think about politics and optics. As I said, I don't see the 2A crowd showing much sympathy or empathy at all for the victims. That doesn't play well, and it gives the liberals useful, productive ammunition to use against us. So if you don't want more liberalism, that means you want as few democrats as possible to get elected. If you want to get as many conservatives elected as possible, you need to win as many elections as possible, and like it or not, that means appealing to the citizenry in those districts. That might mean throwing them a bone.

There are purple parts of the country that might choose a moderate democrat over a gun fanatic. If you won't budge from a stance of ideological purity, you might be helping the other side. And I know YOU care about those kids, I don't mean to imply you don't. But the media will portray our side as not caring, and that works on some people.

The 2018 midterms are important, I have zero interest in repeating the experience of having Nancy Pelosi as speaker. Locally in my state of CT, the democrats are extremely vulnerable, we could make some historic gains. I'd hate to lose that opportunity, because the media convinces the electorate that we don't care about dead kids. Perception matters if you want to win elections.

I completely agree that gun laws won't put a huge dent in the body count. But it might help a little, and it might get us a whole lot of political capital, and might stop the other side from acquiring political capital.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."

Can you list those who have said it, please? not enough time at lunch to make a list

"I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power"

Not even if it helps save children's lives? If bump stocks were never available, isn't there a good chance the death toll would have been lower in Las Vegas? You can argue that cars kill a huge number of people, and therefore should we ban cars? But I don't see bump stocks as something that's as vital to our everyday lives, as cars. no kidding, are golf clubs vital? I personally don't own, want or feel the need for a bump stock.

None of us are advocating for anarchy, so we all agree there are worthwhile tradeoffs between liberty and security. It's just a question of whether or not we're at the point where moving the line towards safety, is warranted. I'm starting to think it is.

There is no fathomable gun law that would have prevented what happened in Texas. None. But there have been mass shooters who have used bump stocks and high capacity magazines to maximize the death count. I am willing to live without those things if it saves the life of one innocent person somewhere. I don't think that makes me a progressive liberal. But we can disagree.

Put common sense aside, and think about politics and optics. As I said, I don't see the 2A crowd showing much sympathy or empathy at all for the victims. maybe you did not look or it is drowned out by the witch hunt for Trump collusion with Russians that seems to be backfiring once again That doesn't play well, and it gives the liberals useful, productive ammunition to use against us. So if you don't want more liberalism, that means you want as few democrats as possible to get elected. If you want to get as many conservatives elected as possible, you need to win as many elections as possible, and like it or not, that means appealing to the citizenry in those districts. That might mean throwing them a bone. I don't have to agree with it, they only take and never give so why should my opinion change? I can only control what I can control, I am not in the privileged ruling class

There are purple parts of the country that might choose a moderate democrat over a gun fanatic. If you won't budge from a stance of ideological purity, you might be helping the other side. And I know YOU care about those kids, I don't mean to imply you don't. But the media will portray our side as not caring, and that works on some people.I know, that is why it passed with flying colors in record time in my state

The 2018 midterms are important, I have zero interest in repeating the experience of having Nancy Pelosi as speaker. Locally in my state of CT, the democrats are extremely vulnerable, we could make some historic gains. I'd hate to lose that opportunity, because the media convinces the electorate that we don't care about dead kids. Perception matters if you want to win elections.

I completely agree that gun laws won't put a huge dent in the body count. But it might help a little, and it might get us a whole lot of political capital, and might stop the other side from acquiring political capital.

every day it moves closer and closer to confiscation piece by piece
tired of the circlejerk

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."

Can you list those who have said it, please?

Pelosi, Fienstien, Biden to begin with
but do some homework and read this ,you will get some laughs at this and see who are the ones who are paranoid. I think they forget we already have laws and they are so dumb that they don't realize that just because there is a law against something, doesn't mean it will prevent it from happening.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-polit...o-ban-firearms

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Pelosi, Fienstien, Biden to begin with
but do some homework and read this ,you will get some laughs at this and see who are the ones who are paranoid. I think they forget we already have laws and they are so dumb that they don't realize that just because there is a law against something, doesn't mean it will prevent it from happening.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-polit...o-ban-firearms

Can you please provide a link to a quote, where Biden said he wants to confiscate all the handguns and hunting rifles that are out there? I couldn’t find it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can you please provide a link to a quote, where Biden said he wants to confiscate all the handguns and hunting rifles that are out there? I couldn’t find it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he voted for gun control, did he not? that is his agenda

if you check his record, he also voted against some gun control laws