Texas Shooting

[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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

watch this
new laws not obsure

Just be glad Mass has plenty of rainfall, I don't think the western states water usage control is just to upset people. More that if they didn't do it they would run out and then nobody could take a shower or flush.
She is also putting a little spin on consumption since new toilets cannot use more than 1.6 gallons and energy star washers 15 gallons.
It's sort of like limits on the number of fish you can catch.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weath...cipitation.php

[Slipknot]

Ya, no kidding Pete,
that's not the point and yes the 1.6 gallon to the mentioned 3 gallon is framed that way for the same reason and tactic liberals do, big deal. Didn't liberals spin Trump winning the election to we are going to die? SPin the bottle of water, this is rediculous.Water is water. Instead of controlling people, control the influx of people maybe, if they run out of water, no kidding they won't flush. Find a solution like get more water, that state is so wealthy, make water from the ocean if you have to, but to rule with forced conservation? bad idea. Watering the lawn bans are one thing, telling people they can't shower is another. Crap in the streets what the heck right

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

watch this
new laws not obsure

Can I have the ten seconds it took me to debunk this video back please?

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

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

This is my point. There is a big difference between supporting "gun control", and supporting the confiscation of every firearm out there. I have never heard anyone in Congress support the notion of confiscating all firearms, but you are suggesting that's what they're doing.

I support the banning of bump stocks. I would never, not in a million years, support the confiscation of legally owned handguns and hunting rifles.

Almost everyone is for some degree of gun control. We disagree, obviously, on where to draw the line. I don't know a single elected official in DC who wants to grab all the guns. Those are two very, very different things.