Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[2aguy]

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?

Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.

Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...

That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.

 

[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?

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

Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

 

[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?

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

Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.

Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...

That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.

Actually owning a car is a right as owning any property is

The operation of that car on public roads is not a right

 

[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!

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?

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

I want them registered so that they can be traced if necessary.

I have no problem with you owning an auto-weapon. I just want to ensure that you are properly trained to do so, minimizing accidents and disasters.

I apologize if you find my safety and the safety of my children an imposition.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.

Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...

That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.

Actually owning a car is a right as owning any property is

The operation of that car on public roads is not a right

Here is the problem with that:

I was called a conspiracy theorist until my girlfriend (now my wife) came to my defense. She recently retired after 25 years of service with the County Tax Assessors Office.

The reality is, you never own your car. You get a Certificate of Title; never the actual Title. The "birth certificate" for you car is the Origination Papers - which Uncle Scam keeps.

And, yes, you can travel down the road in your car freely; you have to have a license if you use the roads for commercial gain.

https://www.agenda31.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The-Right-to-Travel.pdf

 

[2aguy]

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?

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

I want them registered so that they can be traced if necessary.

I have no problem with you owning an auto-weapon. I just want to ensure that you are properly trained to do so, minimizing accidents and disasters.

I apologize if you find my safety and the safety of my children an imposition.

I want them registered so that they can be traced if necessary.


Registration doesn't enable this......criminals can't be easily traced to a registered gun, and mass shooters will register their guns since they only commit that one crime...

Do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns...that if they are caught with an illegal gun that is not registered, they will not be prosecuted for it? That ruling came from Haynes v United States......it is against the 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination...

Gun registration is only useful for later confiscation from normal gun owners....nothing else....as Canada shows..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[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?

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.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

I assume you are referring to the Virginia Tech shooter?

That was not the real problem, and nothing proposed would have change that outcome.

The REAL problem is that the law abiding were FORBIDDEN from carrying their own arms on campus. No one could have protected themselves.

We must get more people trained and carrying to prevent this stuff in the future.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

.

No I don’t think people will all of a sudden become violent. If that’s how you are interpreting my arguments then you aren’t paying attention.

I for one don’t assume everybody around me is armed and I see many people with crazy tempers that get in fights while drunk where I’m sure glad they aren’t armed during those situations.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

You think the guys who want regulation are trustworthy after that attempt to end the right permanently via SCOTUS legislation from the bench?

I don't have an absolutist attitude. Every time the gun-grabbers propose a license or registry or other action, I ask them what they are willing give us in return.

If we go through the battery of background and mental health evaluations these fools demand, shouldn't we be deemed safe for any and all firearms?

The answer is a decided NO. They still want to cut us back even AFTER we jump the hoops.

So, I have no reason to believe that the gun-grabbers are acting in good faith. THEY ARE NOT!!!

We can't trust them.

.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I’m not opposed to harsh punishment for gun related violent crime. I think that could have some positive effects. I also think regulations have positive effects as well

 

[Slade3200]

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.

How do you justify taking away second amendment rights for convicted felons? If they have done their time then aren’t they entitled to their rights?

 

[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?

Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.

Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...

That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.

Im so tired of the knee jerk reaction “driving isn’t a right” retort. that has nothing to do with his point which was regarding the effects of licensing and registration

 

[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?

Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

There’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.

I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!

 

[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?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

I assume you are referring to the Virginia Tech shooter?

That was not the real problem, and nothing proposed would have change that outcome.

The REAL problem is that the law abiding were FORBIDDEN from carrying their own arms on campus. No one could have protected themselves.

We must get more people trained and carrying to prevent this stuff in the future.

.

Ok forget about proposed laws for a second and let’s look at current laws that prohibit Big 5 or 7-11 from selling UZIs like they do packs of gum. Had they been able to sell Uzi with no regulation, don’t you think he would have picked up a few on his way to school? How many more do you think would be dead?

Can we agree that some regulation laws save lives and make us safer?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?