Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You give these so called gun grabbers way too much power and are acting defensively. So instead of working on productive solutions you are defending and demonizing. Again, not a productive way to get things done. Take some power and control and promote what you think is rightYou think the guys who want regulation are trustworthy after that attempt to end the right permanently via SCOTUS legislation from the bench?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 counterproductiveThe first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.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 executedI’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?
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?
.
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.
.
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?
Owning a car is not a Right.
The concepts get confusing for everyone and false comparisons start flying left and right.Owning a car is not a Right.
WTF?? Of course owning a car is a right. Why wouldn't it be? Are you one of these people who thinks the only rights we have are those enumerated in the Constitution?
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?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.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.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?
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.
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.
Disarming the public isn't something I want done. I think the 2nd Amendment is right. I want you to keep your hands off of it.You give these so called gun grabbers way too much power and are acting defensively. So instead of working on productive solutions you are defending and demonizing. Again, not a productive way to get things done. Take some power and control and promote what you think is rightYou think the guys who want regulation are trustworthy after that attempt to end the right permanently via SCOTUS legislation from the bench?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 counterproductiveThe first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.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 executedIt’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?
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?
.
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.
.
Your ideas will only move us closer to totalitarianism. I would rather you shut the fuck up and keep your puerile ideas to yourself.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 counterproductiveThe first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.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 executedI’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.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 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?
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?
.
Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.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?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.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.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?
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.
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.
7-11s are not going to sell items that cost over $1000.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?I assume you are referring to the Virginia Tech shooter?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.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.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?
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.
Get it?
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.
.
Can we agree that some regulation laws save lives and make us safer?
Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.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?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.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.
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.
There arguments all start out with the premise "suppose we ignore the 2nd Amendment."Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.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?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.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.
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.
They know. They just don't shit about it. They know some will wail for gun control, so why not help us get there faster?
There arguments all start out with the premise "suppose we ignore the 2nd Amendment."Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.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?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.
They know. They just don't shit about it. They know some will wail for gun control, so why not help us get there faster?
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.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.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?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?
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?
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.
Get it?
Unfortunately the law does depend on it. Most leftwingers don't recognize the principle of a right that is distinct from the law.There arguments all start out with the premise "suppose we ignore the 2nd Amendment."Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.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?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.
They know. They just don't shit about it. They know some will wail for gun control, so why not help us get there faster?
Okay, let's ignore it. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Right predated that document AND the Right is NOT dependent upon that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence.
At least you’re consistent at being wrong.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.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.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?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?
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?
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.
.
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.
No it doesn't. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?At least you’re consistent at being wrong.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.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.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?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?
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?
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.
.
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.
Government has the authority to regulate firearms, to place limits and restrictions on the sale and possession of guns – including the Federal government – as long as those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law.
I don't need a license to exercise a guaranteed rightThen tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.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!
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.
No kid can buy a handgun nowHow 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.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.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?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?
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?
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.
Get it?
The gun isn't the root of the problemHow 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.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.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?
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.
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.
