Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Slade3200]

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Believe it or not, there are some problems that can't be solved.......not even by your precious government.

You want doctors, many who are leftists, to be able to determine if you are capable of exercising your constitutional rights? How about if we apply the same standards to voting? Would you be acceptable of that? What about free speech?

Family, friends, employers? Those people running to the government to get even with you for quitting your job, breaking up with your wife, a disagreement over a game of pool are not spying?

So let's say a family member reported either of these to recent shooters. How is government going to determine if they are mentally incompetent unless they do spy on these people? Just take the word of a family member or what? Or are you suggesting that it's okay to spy on them after they've been reported?

What a silly way to frame it. If a kid told the police that his teacher molested him do you think the police have a right to spy on that teacher?

If a neighbor reports their Muslim neighbors with suspicions that they are building bombs do you think the authorities have the right to spy on the accused?

No, they do not have the right to spy on the teacher in any way that breaches the teacher's rights to be free from government intrusion. They must get a warrant. They have probable cause to get a warrant, but they must go through the process.

Same with the alleged bomb makers.

You seem to want to SKIP that whole pesky warrant process and have anybody make any kind of false claim, including divorcing spouses (especially) and rights get FUCKED RIGHT UP THE ASS!!!!

Quit being a statist authoritarian. DO NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT....EVER!!!! Government is made up of people who do NOT have your interests in mind.

.

i don’t want to skip anything, I want to create and discuss ideas for a good process to implement. You seem to not want to do anything because your scared of the boogeyman and the slippery slope he is on.

It is NOT a boogeyman.
Clearly the federal government is extremely corrupt, and should not be making any weapons laws at all.
If you want gun control laws, that is fine.
But state or local, where everyone has a chance to say something.
Federal laws are impossible to influence or prevent from being totally corrupt.
Just look at the way the feds lied about WMD in Iraq, and murdered over half a million innocent people.
Then there is Waco and Ruby Ridge.
We don't need more federal weapons laws, we need to eliminate ALL federal weapons, drug, or any law that is supposed to be local jurisdiction.

At least you are admitting that state and local governments have the right to make gun control laws... that’s a start

 

[toobfreak]

I can't trust my doctor to get my cough medicine straight nor to put my interests ahead of the insurance company paying him, now you want him to decide if I get to own guns? No thank you.

You think I’m calling on your cough doctor to determine if you should get a gun?! What a stupid way to frame the argument.

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

You're not calling for deep psych-ops, yet that is just what it would take to accomplish your aim! There is no threshold definition for what is a "mentally unstable" person is nor set of "indicators" that you can ascribe that fits everyone because they are different for every person. I'm not going to repeat that again. We already have long had laws keeping "crazy people" from having guns. That was the start of my posts! Look what it gets us! Now for like the NINTH time, there IS NO FIXED SET OF INDICATORS you can apply across the board to all people that won't on the one hand let a lot of seemingly otherwise OK reasonable people through who STILL go on to murder others with guns anyway, while at the same time deprive many many good people of their right to own firearms who would not have ever otherwise done anything improper or illegal with them!

End result is that far far more innocent people are always harmed by such efforts than the number of actual people ever usefully stopped by them because the actual percentage of crazed gun murders is such a small number of society and again, the variables change for every person. So politicians wishing to save their careers and idiots like you who want to do "something," invariable always end up going after "assault-style" rifles which only account for less than 1% of gun deaths and only harming a lot of innocent, law abiding people to make it look good and make them feel good and the crimes go on. Meantime, actual gun violence is DOWN.

And if you can't tell whether I'm being reasonable or a "looney tune," well, you've just made my point. Bye. You just want to do something to do something, even if you admit you don't know what to do, don't know if it will be effective, just throwing mud at a wall, just so you can say you did something, and then once the harm is done by another stupid, useless law, it is permanent.

In a free society, there will always be a certain tiny, small number of people who abuse that freedom, and you can't fix or stop that without taking away the freedom of everyone.

 

[2aguy]

I can't trust my doctor to get my cough medicine straight nor to put my interests ahead of the insurance company paying him, now you want him to decide if I get to own guns? No thank you.

You think I’m calling on your cough doctor to determine if you should get a gun?! What a stupid way to frame the argument.

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

It is when you realize that implementing it will lead to all sorts of abuse.....

What criteria? Who decides? How do you appeal? Who pays for the appeal?

 

[2aguy]

I would if we had that kind of control, but we won't if Democrats get enough power to make those decisions.

Which is why it should be a bipartisan deal.

Spying on Americans and determining their ability to own a gun is not what our founders intended this federal government for. Once any law is in place, it's subject to manipulation by those in power down the road.

DumBama made a regulation that those on SS that cannot even write their own checks to pay bills not be allowed to own a firearm. Like how many old people on SS that couldn't pay bills became killers using a gun???

But this is what we are talking about here: party abuse. There are just some people in this country (and world) who have proven themselves never to be trusted. The Democrat party are those people.

When did I say anything about spying?

Why do you have to make shit up? Let’s have an honest debate here

How much more honest can we be? The last two shooters were invisible to government, but left a trail of disturbing posts on social media. The only way to stop those people from getting guns is if we spied on their posts and determined they were a danger to the public.

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Let's be honest...... 12 mass public shootings in 2018. total killed, 93. That is slightly more than are killed by lawn mowers each year. As people keep stating, we already have laws that can be used, the problem is that government keeps failing to use them....Parkland for example....over 30 visits by police....red flag after red flag....what kept them from preventing the attack (possibly)....the Obama "Promise Program" that encouraged the police and the school from pressing felony charges against the shooter....so they could keep their student arrest rate low.......

The Texas Church shooter...... the Air Force failed to put his records into NICS.......

A new red flag law wouldn't have prevented either one of those...because the government agencies meant to monitor these situations failed to do it.

 

[2aguy]

Believe it or not, there are some problems that can't be solved.......not even by your precious government.

You want doctors, many who are leftists, to be able to determine if you are capable of exercising your constitutional rights? How about if we apply the same standards to voting? Would you be acceptable of that? What about free speech?

Family, friends, employers? Those people running to the government to get even with you for quitting your job, breaking up with your wife, a disagreement over a game of pool are not spying?

So let's say a family member reported either of these to recent shooters. How is government going to determine if they are mentally incompetent unless they do spy on these people? Just take the word of a family member or what? Or are you suggesting that it's okay to spy on them after they've been reported?

What a silly way to frame it. If a kid told the police that his teacher molested him do you think the police have a right to spy on that teacher?

If a neighbor reports their Muslim neighbors with suspicions that they are building bombs do you think the authorities have the right to spy on the accused?

No, they do not have the right to spy on the teacher in any way that breaches the teacher's rights to be free from government intrusion. They must get a warrant. They have probable cause to get a warrant, but they must go through the process.

Same with the alleged bomb makers.

You seem to want to SKIP that whole pesky warrant process and have anybody make any kind of false claim, including divorcing spouses (especially) and rights get FUCKED RIGHT UP THE ASS!!!!

Quit being a statist authoritarian. DO NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT....EVER!!!! Government is made up of people who do NOT have your interests in mind.

.

i don’t want to skip anything, I want to create and discuss ideas for a good process to implement. You seem to not want to do anything because your scared of the boogeyman and the slippery slope he is on.

It is NOT a boogeyman.
Clearly the federal government is extremely corrupt, and should not be making any weapons laws at all.
If you want gun control laws, that is fine.
But state or local, where everyone has a chance to say something.
Federal laws are impossible to influence or prevent from being totally corrupt.
Just look at the way the feds lied about WMD in Iraq, and murdered over half a million innocent people.
Then there is Waco and Ruby Ridge.
We don't need more federal weapons laws, we need to eliminate ALL federal weapons, drug, or any law that is supposed to be local jurisdiction.

At least you are admitting that state and local governments have the right to make gun control laws... that’s a start

we already have all the laws we need....
You just want more useless laws so you can irritate normal gun owners.....at best.....and lock them up, at worst....for crimes they don't commit, but because of new red tape....

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

I had never heard that they did this during Katrina.
It is totally illegal.
They should have been shot or convicted for the crimes they committed.

Can't. The government has tons of power during an emergency.

What you have to do, is not let them have your information, before there is an emergency.

That's the problem with "Oh this seems reasonable", is that you are assuming its reasonable under the current government, in the current situation.

Governments change. Situations change.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

When I was in high school, I knew who to go to for a gun.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

Prove it.

Show me the person who was going to go on a mass shooting spree, or just join in on a normal night in Chicago, who was unable to find a gun, and thus didn't.

Where are these people? I have yet to hear of a single one.

I do know of a woman who owned a gun, but was prohibited by law from carrying it in a restaurant, and a mad man with a gun started shooting people, and all she could do was watch both her mother and father get shot and killed.



So if you don't know the story, Suzanna Hupp was having dinner with her parents, when a crazy nut drove his truck through the front of the store. He started shooting people. Her father attempted to stop the attacker, and was shot. Her mother seeing her husband shot, went after him, and was shot.

The sad part of the story, is that Suzanna owned a weapon, and had the gun in her car, because it wasn't legal for her to carry it with her.

So while people were being slaughtered, the means to defend themselves was in the parking lot on the other side of the gun man.

Just another of hundreds of examples where gun-controller killed people with their evil policies. If anything we should be demanding left-wingers answer for all the deaths they caused, than Trump.

 

[anynameyouwish]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!


every car was confiscated!


and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!


same thing will happen with guns!

 

[Blues Man]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!


every car was confiscated!


and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!


same thing will happen with guns!

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How much more honest can we be? The last two shooters were invisible to government, but left a trail of disturbing posts on social media. The only way to stop those people from getting guns is if we spied on their posts and determined they were a danger to the public.

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Believe it or not, there are some problems that can't be solved.......not even by your precious government.

You want doctors, many who are leftists, to be able to determine if you are capable of exercising your constitutional rights? How about if we apply the same standards to voting? Would you be acceptable of that? What about free speech?

Family, friends, employers? Those people running to the government to get even with you for quitting your job, breaking up with your wife, a disagreement over a game of pool are not spying?

So let's say a family member reported either of these to recent shooters. How is government going to determine if they are mentally incompetent unless they do spy on these people? Just take the word of a family member or what? Or are you suggesting that it's okay to spy on them after they've been reported?

What a silly way to frame it. If a kid told the police that his teacher molested him do you think the police have a right to spy on that teacher?

If a neighbor reports their Muslim neighbors with suspicions that they are building bombs do you think the authorities have the right to spy on the accused?

Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.

Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.

Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.

But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

 

[Slade3200]

You think I’m calling on your cough doctor to determine if you should get a gun?! What a stupid way to frame the argument.

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

You're not calling for deep psych-ops, yet that is just what it would take to accomplish your aim! There is no threshold definition for what is a "mentally unstable" person is nor set of "indicators" that you can ascribe that fits everyone because they are different for every person. I'm not going to repeat that again. We already have long had laws keeping "crazy people" from having guns. That was the start of my posts! Look what it gets us! Now for like the NINTH time, there IS NO FIXED SET OF INDICATORS you can apply across the board to all people that won't on the one hand let a lot of seemingly otherwise OK reasonable people through who STILL go on to murder others with guns anyway, while at the same time deprive many many good people of their right to own firearms who would not have ever otherwise done anything improper or illegal with them!

End result is that far far more innocent people are always harmed by such efforts than the number of actual people ever usefully stopped by them because the actual percentage of crazed gun murders is such a small number of society and again, the variables change for every person. So politicians wishing to save their careers and idiots like you who want to do "something," invariable always end up going after "assault-style" rifles which only account for less than 1% of gun deaths and only harming a lot of innocent, law abiding people to make it look good and make them feel good and the crimes go on. Meantime, actual gun violence is DOWN.

And if you can't tell whether I'm being reasonable or a "looney tune," well, you've just made my point. Bye. You just want to do something to do something, even if you admit you don't know what to do, don't know if it will be effective, just throwing mud at a wall, just so you can say you did something, and then once the harm is done by another stupid, useless law, it is permanent.

In a free society, there will always be a certain tiny, small number of people who abuse that freedom, and you can't fix or stop that without taking away the freedom of everyone.

I just don’t buy the argument that all these innocent people are being hurt. How are good responsible people being hurt? I own guns, many of my friends own guns. We live in liberal California, it isn’t a problem.

Now let me ask a simple question. Do you really think if we dropped gun regulations and let anybody go into any store and buy a gun and then carry those guns in public... do you really think that would make our communities safer?

 

[Slade3200]

You think I’m calling on your cough doctor to determine if you should get a gun?! What a stupid way to frame the argument.

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

It is when you realize that implementing it will lead to all sorts of abuse.....

What criteria? Who decides? How do you appeal? Who pays for the appeal?

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

You're not calling for deep psych-ops, yet that is just what it would take to accomplish your aim! There is no threshold definition for what is a "mentally unstable" person is nor set of "indicators" that you can ascribe that fits everyone because they are different for every person. I'm not going to repeat that again. We already have long had laws keeping "crazy people" from having guns. That was the start of my posts! Look what it gets us! Now for like the NINTH time, there IS NO FIXED SET OF INDICATORS you can apply across the board to all people that won't on the one hand let a lot of seemingly otherwise OK reasonable people through who STILL go on to murder others with guns anyway, while at the same time deprive many many good people of their right to own firearms who would not have ever otherwise done anything improper or illegal with them!

End result is that far far more innocent people are always harmed by such efforts than the number of actual people ever usefully stopped by them because the actual percentage of crazed gun murders is such a small number of society and again, the variables change for every person. So politicians wishing to save their careers and idiots like you who want to do "something," invariable always end up going after "assault-style" rifles which only account for less than 1% of gun deaths and only harming a lot of innocent, law abiding people to make it look good and make them feel good and the crimes go on. Meantime, actual gun violence is DOWN.

And if you can't tell whether I'm being reasonable or a "looney tune," well, you've just made my point. Bye. You just want to do something to do something, even if you admit you don't know what to do, don't know if it will be effective, just throwing mud at a wall, just so you can say you did something, and then once the harm is done by another stupid, useless law, it is permanent.

In a free society, there will always be a certain tiny, small number of people who abuse that freedom, and you can't fix or stop that without taking away the freedom of everyone.

I just don’t buy the argument that all these innocent people are being hurt. How are good responsible people being hurt? I own guns, many of my friends own guns. We live in liberal California, it isn’t a problem.

Now let me ask a simple question. Do you really think if we dropped gun regulations and let anybody go into any store and buy a gun and then carry those guns in public... do you really think that would make our communities safer?

Do you really think people who would otherwise not be dangerous, would suddenly become violent criminals and start shooting up any and all places around them?

Go look at General S.L.A. Marshall's study on soldiers in combat. His research OVERWHELMINGLY demonstrates that most humans will naturally try to avoid shooting at the enemy in a combat situation. Most WW2 soldiers simply hid and tried to avoid engaging the enemy.

The military had to create pop-up target training to get soldiers to actually shoot the enemy in combat.

People don't naturally want to kill.

But, don't we already assume everyone we don't know is armed? Hasn't it been that way since the beginning?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

It is when you realize that implementing it will lead to all sorts of abuse.....

What criteria? Who decides? How do you appeal? Who pays for the appeal?

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

The first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That first step FAILED MISERABLY!!!

The gun-grabbers made us fight that out in Court, and we barely prevailed in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

Those who want regulation have a LONG way to go to earn our trust, would you not agree?

.

 

[Slade3200]

Which is why it should be a bipartisan deal.

Spying on Americans and determining their ability to own a gun is not what our founders intended this federal government for. Once any law is in place, it's subject to manipulation by those in power down the road.

DumBama made a regulation that those on SS that cannot even write their own checks to pay bills not be allowed to own a firearm. Like how many old people on SS that couldn't pay bills became killers using a gun???

But this is what we are talking about here: party abuse. There are just some people in this country (and world) who have proven themselves never to be trusted. The Democrat party are those people.

When did I say anything about spying?

Why do you have to make shit up? Let’s have an honest debate here

How much more honest can we be? The last two shooters were invisible to government, but left a trail of disturbing posts on social media. The only way to stop those people from getting guns is if we spied on their posts and determined they were a danger to the public.

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Let's be honest...... 12 mass public shootings in 2018. total killed, 93. That is slightly more than are killed by lawn mowers each year. As people keep stating, we already have laws that can be used, the problem is that government keeps failing to use them....Parkland for example....over 30 visits by police....red flag after red flag....what kept them from preventing the attack (possibly)....the Obama "Promise Program" that encouraged the police and the school from pressing felony charges against the shooter....so they could keep their student arrest rate low.......

The Texas Church shooter...... the Air Force failed to put his records into NICS.......

A new red flag law wouldn't have prevented either one of those...because the government agencies meant to monitor these situations failed to do it.

Well I agree, we need to do better with the laws we have in the books because that would help. laws can help. Agreed?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

Prove it.

Show me the person who was going to go on a mass shooting spree, or just join in on a normal night in Chicago, who was unable to find a gun, and thus didn't.

Where are these people? I have yet to hear of a single one.

I do know of a woman who owned a gun, but was prohibited by law from carrying it in a restaurant, and a mad man with a gun started shooting people, and all she could do was watch both her mother and father get shot and killed.



So if you don't know the story, Suzanna Hupp was having dinner with her parents, when a crazy nut drove his truck through the front of the store. He started shooting people. Her father attempted to stop the attacker, and was shot. Her mother seeing her husband shot, went after him, and was shot.

The sad part of the story, is that Suzanna owned a weapon, and had the gun in her car, because it wasn't legal for her to carry it with her.

So while people were being slaughtered, the means to defend themselves was in the parking lot on the other side of the gun man.

Just another of hundreds of examples where gun-controller killed people with their evil policies. If anything we should be demanding left-wingers answer for all the deaths they caused, than Trump.

How does one prove something that didn’t happen?

 

[2aguy]

Spying on Americans and determining their ability to own a gun is not what our founders intended this federal government for. Once any law is in place, it's subject to manipulation by those in power down the road.

DumBama made a regulation that those on SS that cannot even write their own checks to pay bills not be allowed to own a firearm. Like how many old people on SS that couldn't pay bills became killers using a gun???

But this is what we are talking about here: party abuse. There are just some people in this country (and world) who have proven themselves never to be trusted. The Democrat party are those people.

When did I say anything about spying?

Why do you have to make shit up? Let’s have an honest debate here

How much more honest can we be? The last two shooters were invisible to government, but left a trail of disturbing posts on social media. The only way to stop those people from getting guns is if we spied on their posts and determined they were a danger to the public.

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Let's be honest...... 12 mass public shootings in 2018. total killed, 93. That is slightly more than are killed by lawn mowers each year. As people keep stating, we already have laws that can be used, the problem is that government keeps failing to use them....Parkland for example....over 30 visits by police....red flag after red flag....what kept them from preventing the attack (possibly)....the Obama "Promise Program" that encouraged the police and the school from pressing felony charges against the shooter....so they could keep their student arrest rate low.......

The Texas Church shooter...... the Air Force failed to put his records into NICS.......

A new red flag law wouldn't have prevented either one of those...because the government agencies meant to monitor these situations failed to do it.

Well I agree, we need to do better with the laws we have in the books because that would help. laws can help. Agreed?

I explain how you stop gun crime over in the CDZ...you might want to join.......

Laws that make the sentence for violent gun crime.....rape, robbery and murder, a life sentence without parole, and a 30 year sentence for illegal gun possession by a felon.....that is the only law we need to stop 95% of the gun crime in this country.... all the rest, universal background checks, gun registration, fees, taxes, are all useless, and only serve to slowly squeeze law abiding gun owners with so much red tape, fees and taxes that they give up on owning guns.....

My way works, and makes the other crap pointless.

 

[2aguy]

You're the one who made it. At least the guy kinda sorta KNOWS ME. Maybe you have some shrink somewhere who knows you better? As a student of psychology, I know that some of the most fucked up people are psychologists.

You make a protocol based on symptoms actions medications etc and the follow it. Put an appeal process in there if you dont agree with the verdict

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

You're not calling for deep psych-ops, yet that is just what it would take to accomplish your aim! There is no threshold definition for what is a "mentally unstable" person is nor set of "indicators" that you can ascribe that fits everyone because they are different for every person. I'm not going to repeat that again. We already have long had laws keeping "crazy people" from having guns. That was the start of my posts! Look what it gets us! Now for like the NINTH time, there IS NO FIXED SET OF INDICATORS you can apply across the board to all people that won't on the one hand let a lot of seemingly otherwise OK reasonable people through who STILL go on to murder others with guns anyway, while at the same time deprive many many good people of their right to own firearms who would not have ever otherwise done anything improper or illegal with them!

End result is that far far more innocent people are always harmed by such efforts than the number of actual people ever usefully stopped by them because the actual percentage of crazed gun murders is such a small number of society and again, the variables change for every person. So politicians wishing to save their careers and idiots like you who want to do "something," invariable always end up going after "assault-style" rifles which only account for less than 1% of gun deaths and only harming a lot of innocent, law abiding people to make it look good and make them feel good and the crimes go on. Meantime, actual gun violence is DOWN.

And if you can't tell whether I'm being reasonable or a "looney tune," well, you've just made my point. Bye. You just want to do something to do something, even if you admit you don't know what to do, don't know if it will be effective, just throwing mud at a wall, just so you can say you did something, and then once the harm is done by another stupid, useless law, it is permanent.

In a free society, there will always be a certain tiny, small number of people who abuse that freedom, and you can't fix or stop that without taking away the freedom of everyone.

I just don’t buy the argument that all these innocent people are being hurt. How are good responsible people being hurt? I own guns, many of my friends own guns. We live in liberal California, it isn’t a problem.

Now let me ask a simple question. Do you really think if we dropped gun regulations and let anybody go into any store and buy a gun and then carry those guns in public... do you really think that would make our communities safer?

As long as you punished gun criminals with a life sentence...yes. If you give a 30 year sentence for a felon caught with a gun? Yes. If you give a straw buyer who knowingly sells a gun to a criminal....30 years....yes.

You won't have to worry about background checks anymore.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!


every car was confiscated!


and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!


same thing will happen with guns!

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?