Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

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

We have all the regulations we need right now.... the ones you guys want don't do anything to help....at all.

Do we need these regulations? Do they help or should we get rid of them?

With the lack of trustworthiness from the gun-grabbers and their attempt to have the right to keep and bear found by the SCOTUS to NOT be an individual right, has me completely unconcerned about their bullshit claims to want safety.

THE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT VIA JUDICIAL LEGISLATION WAS UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

IT JUSTIFIES THE BURTAL EXECUTION OF EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!


I am fucking pissed off enough to push hardcore for a repeal of all regulations, just so I can dance in their cocksucking faces.

But, more importantly, we MUST push back with equally-determined force or we will lose it all.

NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!

.

Unfortunately I agree.
Federal gun laws, drug law, etc. are entirely illegal.
The federal government is out of control conducting torture, war crimes like Shock and Awe, etc.
There has to be a line in the sand drawn, or else we will be victims of Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago".
The Russians waited too long.
So the Assault Weapons Ban in particular, needs to be the call to arms, if it is attempted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump may have been a Democrat and has some slight liberal views, but he has presided as a true conservative most of the time.

Show me any President that performed to your total satisfaction, and I'll show you a million dollars buried somewhere. Bush sold us out on the environment. Reagan sold us out on immigration. Old man Bush made the drug problem much worse by having the feds chase down marijuana growers and sellers.

Trump will still carry the enthusiasm and sellout crowds wherever he goes, mainly because of the immigration issues. Yes, gun regulations can be a threat, but I think our country is doomed if we don't stop these people from entering our country.

That is the thing. Everybody sells us out. Every year the government grows bigger and the debt gets greater. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the rate of growth.

Our country can't be fixed at the ballot box. Republicans are always better than Democrats but our country won't be fixed and our liberties restore by electing Republicans over Democrats. At the end of the day there isn't that much difference.

I just hope Trump is playing rope a dope with the Democrats on these gun control issues. I also hope that it is not us gun owners he is playing for a dope.

I also suspect that he is taking advice from the NRA leadership. They may be giving Trump permission to go forward with oppressive Red Flag Laws and UBC. I wouldn't put it past those weak minded sonofabitches. They haven't been looking after our interest for some time now. That is why I giving my support to GOA instead of the NRA.

Not one Democrat will vote for Trump if he pushes UBC but hundreds of thousands if not over a million gun owners may not vote for him. They are not going to vote for a Democrat but Trump won't get their vote.

It will be political suicide.

I think you are correct. Trump will introduce legislation that will include things that make the Democrats cringe, and when they vote against his bill that also includes their goodies, Trump can say "Well......I tried!"

He can piss off some Republicans to the point they don't vote. But if he pisses off Democrats, they may come out in droves as they did during the mid-terms. Both parties had outstanding results and way above average turnout, it's just that hate won more people over, and that's how we lost the House.

That can happen in 2020 as well. If Trump is putting on a dog and pony show, then let him say what he wants. It's what he does that counts. No matter what Trump does, it's better than looking forward to reparations, Medicare for all, taxpayer funded colleges, and worst of all, liberal Supreme Court justices, the most important thing about having a Republican President.

I don't know about you Ray but I am getting damn tired of voting for somebody just because he/she is the lesser of two evils.

I need a President that will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms. Not one that will deteriorate it.

It pains me to say it but already Trump has a worst record than Obama.

DumBama was helpless when it came to firearms because he was dealing with a Republican House. Do you really think if he had the legislative backing, we would have the same gun freedoms we have today? Don't you believe it.

Now if you want to see what will happen to your gun rights, allow a Democrat President to get in and possibly turn the SC to the Democrats side. Then you will see the huge loss of gun rights.

I'm sorry, but voting for legislators has always been about the least of two evils. All you can do is support the one that will take the least from you. We are on a roll right now with the SC justices Trump selected although they didn't vote in our favor a couple of times. But it can always be worse.

It's not that I don't understand your frustration, I do. I'm a landlord, and I can't tell you the financial losses I took during the housing bubble which Bush didn't do enough to stop. With 0% down, lowlifes from the inner-city moved into my suburb and destroyed it, thus cutting my property value in half. Sure I'm pissed, but what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in the White House instead of Bush? It would have been much, much worse.

I get the "lesser of two evils", but can you watch the video and not wonder if the lesser of the two evils was chosen? I said in another thread that I can recall a democrat president just outright saying stuff like that. If it comes to it, I hope congress stops any such bill cold, but I won't hold my breath.

They won't, but the courts will.

Trump doesn't work alone. He's surrounded by legal teams of people that understand he will never be able to create a law that allows the government to take action before due process. So even if he could institute such a thing, it would eventually be stopped by the courts and he can just shrug his shoulders and say "I tried!"

Maybe Trump is more politically brilliant than we give him credit for.

 

[Rigby5]

No matter what trump does, it will be better than what hilary planned to do...

That is true.

However, gun nut people like me are starting to get really pissed at Trump for the anti gun shit he has come up with. We are his core base. It is not politically astute to piss off your core base hoping that they will still vote for you as a lesser of two evils. That is how you lose elections.

Just ask all those RINOs and Democrats that lost their offices in 1994 because they voted for the AWB.

Trump got my vote because he wasn't Hillary. I was becoming okay with trump even with his failure to slow the illegals, but whatever. I was pleased with the mayhem he has caused and the mess he made of the DNC. But after this,





He has proven that he is no different then any other politician in Washington. He is pandering to the democrats. He pretty much lied about his stance on the 2nd. Many have said this is just a ploy to mess with the democrats. I don't think so.

You hit on something there.

Many voters supported Trump because he wasn't Crooked Hillary. It is not that they had a reason to trust Trump but they knew they had a reason not to trust Crooked Hillary.

If Trump goes Libtard bat shit crazy with this gun control shit he will lose the trust of a lot of his core voters. Like I said, political suicide.

This is the Duopoly paradox these fucking assholes create. They don't have to be good. Just better than the other guy who is the only shitty alternative.

We continue to find ourselves voting for the least destructive, rather than the best.

I FUCKING HATE IT.

We have no alternatives.

.

Yes, you have alternatives. Back in the good old days, you started at the grass roots level and grew.

Its too lack for that most likely.
They have already cheated too much, like giving out the DNC debate questions ahead of time to only some candidates.
They control the media.
You can't get the truth or any message out.
And they will use things like gun red flag laws to pretend you have to be arrested to protect society.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Trump may have been a Democrat and has some slight liberal views, but he has presided as a true conservative most of the time.

Show me any President that performed to your total satisfaction, and I'll show you a million dollars buried somewhere. Bush sold us out on the environment. Reagan sold us out on immigration. Old man Bush made the drug problem much worse by having the feds chase down marijuana growers and sellers.

Trump will still carry the enthusiasm and sellout crowds wherever he goes, mainly because of the immigration issues. Yes, gun regulations can be a threat, but I think our country is doomed if we don't stop these people from entering our country.

That is the thing. Everybody sells us out. Every year the government grows bigger and the debt gets greater. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the rate of growth.

Our country can't be fixed at the ballot box. Republicans are always better than Democrats but our country won't be fixed and our liberties restore by electing Republicans over Democrats. At the end of the day there isn't that much difference.

I just hope Trump is playing rope a dope with the Democrats on these gun control issues. I also hope that it is not us gun owners he is playing for a dope.

I also suspect that he is taking advice from the NRA leadership. They may be giving Trump permission to go forward with oppressive Red Flag Laws and UBC. I wouldn't put it past those weak minded sonofabitches. They haven't been looking after our interest for some time now. That is why I giving my support to GOA instead of the NRA.

Not one Democrat will vote for Trump if he pushes UBC but hundreds of thousands if not over a million gun owners may not vote for him. They are not going to vote for a Democrat but Trump won't get their vote.

It will be political suicide.

I think you are correct. Trump will introduce legislation that will include things that make the Democrats cringe, and when they vote against his bill that also includes their goodies, Trump can say "Well......I tried!"

He can piss off some Republicans to the point they don't vote. But if he pisses off Democrats, they may come out in droves as they did during the mid-terms. Both parties had outstanding results and way above average turnout, it's just that hate won more people over, and that's how we lost the House.

That can happen in 2020 as well. If Trump is putting on a dog and pony show, then let him say what he wants. It's what he does that counts. No matter what Trump does, it's better than looking forward to reparations, Medicare for all, taxpayer funded colleges, and worst of all, liberal Supreme Court justices, the most important thing about having a Republican President.

I don't know about you Ray but I am getting damn tired of voting for somebody just because he/she is the lesser of two evils.

I need a President that will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms. Not one that will deteriorate it.

It pains me to say it but already Trump has a worst record than Obama.

DumBama was helpless when it came to firearms because he was dealing with a Republican House. Do you really think if he had the legislative backing, we would have the same gun freedoms we have today? Don't you believe it.

Now if you want to see what will happen to your gun rights, allow a Democrat President to get in and possibly turn the SC to the Democrats side. Then you will see the huge loss of gun rights.

I'm sorry, but voting for legislators has always been about the least of two evils. All you can do is support the one that will take the least from you. We are on a roll right now with the SC justices Trump selected although they didn't vote in our favor a couple of times. But it can always be worse.

It's not that I don't understand your frustration, I do. I'm a landlord, and I can't tell you the financial losses I took during the housing bubble which Bush didn't do enough to stop. With 0% down, lowlifes from the inner-city moved into my suburb and destroyed it, thus cutting my property value in half. Sure I'm pissed, but what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in the White House instead of Bush? It would have been much, much worse.

I get the "lesser of two evils", but can you watch the video and not wonder if the lesser of the two evils was chosen? I said in another thread that I can recall a democrat president just outright saying stuff like that. If it comes to it, I hope congress stops any such bill cold, but I won't hold my breath.

Here, let me be the first to get this out of the way. I know, given 30 days, it's going to be said. President Trump did not say this, it's a lie, it's fake news. You heard it from me first.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same with the alleged bomb makers.

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

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

.

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

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

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

No, that is the end, not a start.
No federal weapons, drug, or any of the other laws the federal government is not authorized to pass in the constitution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That is the thing. Everybody sells us out. Every year the government grows bigger and the debt gets greater. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the rate of growth.

Our country can't be fixed at the ballot box. Republicans are always better than Democrats but our country won't be fixed and our liberties restore by electing Republicans over Democrats. At the end of the day there isn't that much difference.

I just hope Trump is playing rope a dope with the Democrats on these gun control issues. I also hope that it is not us gun owners he is playing for a dope.

I also suspect that he is taking advice from the NRA leadership. They may be giving Trump permission to go forward with oppressive Red Flag Laws and UBC. I wouldn't put it past those weak minded sonofabitches. They haven't been looking after our interest for some time now. That is why I giving my support to GOA instead of the NRA.

Not one Democrat will vote for Trump if he pushes UBC but hundreds of thousands if not over a million gun owners may not vote for him. They are not going to vote for a Democrat but Trump won't get their vote.

It will be political suicide.

I think you are correct. Trump will introduce legislation that will include things that make the Democrats cringe, and when they vote against his bill that also includes their goodies, Trump can say "Well......I tried!"

He can piss off some Republicans to the point they don't vote. But if he pisses off Democrats, they may come out in droves as they did during the mid-terms. Both parties had outstanding results and way above average turnout, it's just that hate won more people over, and that's how we lost the House.

That can happen in 2020 as well. If Trump is putting on a dog and pony show, then let him say what he wants. It's what he does that counts. No matter what Trump does, it's better than looking forward to reparations, Medicare for all, taxpayer funded colleges, and worst of all, liberal Supreme Court justices, the most important thing about having a Republican President.

I don't know about you Ray but I am getting damn tired of voting for somebody just because he/she is the lesser of two evils.

I need a President that will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms. Not one that will deteriorate it.

It pains me to say it but already Trump has a worst record than Obama.

DumBama was helpless when it came to firearms because he was dealing with a Republican House. Do you really think if he had the legislative backing, we would have the same gun freedoms we have today? Don't you believe it.

Now if you want to see what will happen to your gun rights, allow a Democrat President to get in and possibly turn the SC to the Democrats side. Then you will see the huge loss of gun rights.

I'm sorry, but voting for legislators has always been about the least of two evils. All you can do is support the one that will take the least from you. We are on a roll right now with the SC justices Trump selected although they didn't vote in our favor a couple of times. But it can always be worse.

It's not that I don't understand your frustration, I do. I'm a landlord, and I can't tell you the financial losses I took during the housing bubble which Bush didn't do enough to stop. With 0% down, lowlifes from the inner-city moved into my suburb and destroyed it, thus cutting my property value in half. Sure I'm pissed, but what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in the White House instead of Bush? It would have been much, much worse.

I get the "lesser of two evils", but can you watch the video and not wonder if the lesser of the two evils was chosen? I said in another thread that I can recall a democrat president just outright saying stuff like that. If it comes to it, I hope congress stops any such bill cold, but I won't hold my breath.

They won't, but the courts will.

Trump doesn't work alone. He's surrounded by legal teams of people that understand he will never be able to create a law that allows the government to take action before due process. So even if he could institute such a thing, it would eventually be stopped by the courts and he can just shrug his shoulders and say "I tried!"

Maybe Trump is more politically brilliant than we give him credit for.

No, I think that's about the first bright thing I have hear Pence say. Trump does not write his own EOs. His legal staff does. And it would be completely outside of the Due Process to take the guns before the judge rules. Trump is incorrect. If the community wants the guns taken bad enough, a Judge can be woken up in the middle of the night to make that ruling. Judges are not hourly wagers.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

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

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

And here's the other side.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governments change. Situations change.

Governments have tons of power in an emergency, but NOT more than individuals have in their own homes, emergency or not.
There is no emergency power that government can claim, that individuals do not also have, in even greater magnitude.
That is because all government authority or power, comes only from that of individuals, in a weaken, delegated form.
Each individual is supposed to be considered sovereign in their own home.
It is only outside their home where they are supposed to defer to agents of government, who represent the land outside of your home.

 

[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.

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

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

And here's the other side.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governments change. Situations change.

Governments have tons of power in an emergency, but NOT more than individuals have in their own homes, emergency or not.
There is no emergency power that government can claim, that individuals do not also have, in even greater magnitude.
That is because all government authority or power, comes only from that of individuals, in a weaken, delegated form.
Each individual is supposed to be considered sovereign in their own home.
It is only outside their home where they are supposed to defer to agents of government, who represent the land outside of your home.

It is as if people forget that government is granted power/authority by the people who created it. How can people grant to government a power they do no possess themselves?

How can government justify taking actions that individuals would not have by their nature (like murder or theft)?

How can government take from the people a right that government exercises exclusively?

Did we forget that government exists by the consent of the governed?

.

 

[Rigby5]

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!

That is silly because corrupt criminals infiltrating government do not want cars of brides.
They want you to have cars and buy more.
They want you to be married and have more kids.

But they do not want you to have weapons, because then you could defend yourself from corruption.

You claim seems to be that all licensing is for the exact same reason, and that makes no sense.
They license cars to prove you learned how to drive, and so that they can write tickets.
They license marriage so that they can trace if is comes to a divorce, inheritance, etc.
Clearly government has never tried to ban cars or marriage.
But all corrupt government HAVE tried to ban weapons.

 

[Slade3200]

I didn’t state anything as fact. I’m expressing my opinion and using common sense so when you ask me to prove something that can’t be proven I explain why. I just dont understand how you can argue against the logic that regulations reduce access which reduces firepower which reduces carnage/damage. It’s not rocket science

I'll explain this to you, clearly one time. If you have enough intelligence to comprehend, you will stop with this biased and thoughtless question.

The 2nd Amendments VERY PURPOSE is to put firepower into the hands of citizens. Throughout history it is PROVEN FACT that armed societies are far less likely to end up oppressed by governments that couldn't care less about human rights such as China and North Korea.

Further, it has been PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt that such occurrences can and do occur in modern times. Venezuela to name one.

While any shooting is a tragedy, the extremely small number of lives that "might" be saved via the incremental and never ending march of infringing regulations people such as you propose is VASTLY, OVERWHELMINGLY and DECISIVELY outweighed by the FACT that an armed society is safer than an unarmed one, to the tune of potentially hundreds of millions of lives saved, vs a handful per year.

Your primary fallacy is that you have been conditioned to believe in something history has proven wrong too many times......that governments never becomes corrupted and turn on their population. it also has JUST happened (again in China) by the way.

If you continue to be in the dark, then it is because you choose to be there, for whatever purpose or agenda.

Everything I just posted is solid, verifiable and indisputable no matter how hard you might work to say otherwise.

If I played your game and dismissed your ideas because I claim you were conditioned by NRA talking points and fear tactics would you take that statement seriously?

The problem with your theory is you are comparing modern day USA, the worlds greatest military and superpower to completely different societies. We aren’t going to get into a shooting war with our government... just not a possibility. if we did we would be demolished with the push of a button and I’m personally not interested in putting energy into arming our citizens to be able to stand up to the US military. Regardless we have the right to bare arms and defend ourselves from danger but you are joking if you think it’s going to be against our government. I’m more concerned with public safety, not a civil war. But if you wanna focus on that then go right ahead. I hear they are having a big sale on bunkers and spam.

 

[Rigby5]

I think you are correct. Trump will introduce legislation that will include things that make the Democrats cringe, and when they vote against his bill that also includes their goodies, Trump can say "Well......I tried!"

He can piss off some Republicans to the point they don't vote. But if he pisses off Democrats, they may come out in droves as they did during the mid-terms. Both parties had outstanding results and way above average turnout, it's just that hate won more people over, and that's how we lost the House.

That can happen in 2020 as well. If Trump is putting on a dog and pony show, then let him say what he wants. It's what he does that counts. No matter what Trump does, it's better than looking forward to reparations, Medicare for all, taxpayer funded colleges, and worst of all, liberal Supreme Court justices, the most important thing about having a Republican President.

I don't know about you Ray but I am getting damn tired of voting for somebody just because he/she is the lesser of two evils.

I need a President that will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms. Not one that will deteriorate it.

It pains me to say it but already Trump has a worst record than Obama.

DumBama was helpless when it came to firearms because he was dealing with a Republican House. Do you really think if he had the legislative backing, we would have the same gun freedoms we have today? Don't you believe it.

Now if you want to see what will happen to your gun rights, allow a Democrat President to get in and possibly turn the SC to the Democrats side. Then you will see the huge loss of gun rights.

I'm sorry, but voting for legislators has always been about the least of two evils. All you can do is support the one that will take the least from you. We are on a roll right now with the SC justices Trump selected although they didn't vote in our favor a couple of times. But it can always be worse.

It's not that I don't understand your frustration, I do. I'm a landlord, and I can't tell you the financial losses I took during the housing bubble which Bush didn't do enough to stop. With 0% down, lowlifes from the inner-city moved into my suburb and destroyed it, thus cutting my property value in half. Sure I'm pissed, but what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in the White House instead of Bush? It would have been much, much worse.

I get the "lesser of two evils", but can you watch the video and not wonder if the lesser of the two evils was chosen? I said in another thread that I can recall a democrat president just outright saying stuff like that. If it comes to it, I hope congress stops any such bill cold, but I won't hold my breath.

They won't, but the courts will.

Trump doesn't work alone. He's surrounded by legal teams of people that understand he will never be able to create a law that allows the government to take action before due process. So even if he could institute such a thing, it would eventually be stopped by the courts and he can just shrug his shoulders and say "I tried!"

Maybe Trump is more politically brilliant than we give him credit for.

No, I think that's about the first bright thing I have hear Pence say. Trump does not write his own EOs. His legal staff does. And it would be completely outside of the Due Process to take the guns before the judge rules. Trump is incorrect. If the community wants the guns taken bad enough, a Judge can be woken up in the middle of the night to make that ruling. Judges are not hourly wagers.

I do not support Trump, but Trump is right on this.
If you suspect someone is acting suspiciously, you can't get them to a judge without first taking their weapon.
Only then can a judge hear both sides and rule.
If you go to a judge first and let the suspect go, you may never find them again.
If you take them before a judge without disarming them, they could murder the judge.

 

[Slade3200]

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

We have all the regulations we need right now.... the ones you guys want don't do anything to help....at all.

Do we need these regulations? Do they help or should we get rid of them?

With the lack of trustworthiness from the gun-grabbers and their attempt to have the right to keep and bear found by the SCOTUS to NOT be an individual right, has me completely unconcerned about their bullshit claims to want safety.

THE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT VIA JUDICIAL LEGISLATION WAS UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

IT JUSTIFIES THE BURTAL EXECUTION OF EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!


I am fucking pissed off enough to push hardcore for a repeal of all regulations, just so I can dance in their cocksucking faces.

But, more importantly, we MUST push back with equally-determined force or we will lose it all.

NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!

.

Honestly you should go all in to push for repeal of all regulations and for the death of democrats. It will do wonders for progressing your cause. Go ahead, ramp it up!

 

[Rigby5]

I didn’t state anything as fact. I’m expressing my opinion and using common sense so when you ask me to prove something that can’t be proven I explain why. I just dont understand how you can argue against the logic that regulations reduce access which reduces firepower which reduces carnage/damage. It’s not rocket science

I'll explain this to you, clearly one time. If you have enough intelligence to comprehend, you will stop with this biased and thoughtless question.

The 2nd Amendments VERY PURPOSE is to put firepower into the hands of citizens. Throughout history it is PROVEN FACT that armed societies are far less likely to end up oppressed by governments that couldn't care less about human rights such as China and North Korea.

Further, it has been PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt that such occurrences can and do occur in modern times. Venezuela to name one.

While any shooting is a tragedy, the extremely small number of lives that "might" be saved via the incremental and never ending march of infringing regulations people such as you propose is VASTLY, OVERWHELMINGLY and DECISIVELY outweighed by the FACT that an armed society is safer than an unarmed one, to the tune of potentially hundreds of millions of lives saved, vs a handful per year.

Your primary fallacy is that you have been conditioned to believe in something history has proven wrong too many times......that governments never becomes corrupted and turn on their population. it also has JUST happened (again in China) by the way.

If you continue to be in the dark, then it is because you choose to be there, for whatever purpose or agenda.

Everything I just posted is solid, verifiable and indisputable no matter how hard you might work to say otherwise.

If I played your game and dismissed your ideas because I claim you were conditioned by NRA talking points and fear tactics would you take that statement seriously?

The problem with your theory is you are comparing modern day USA, the worlds greatest military and superpower to completely different societies. We aren’t going to get into a shooting war with our government... just not a possibility. if we did we would be demolished with the push of a button and I’m personally not interested in putting energy into arming our citizens to be able to stand up to the US military. Regardless we have the right to bare arms and defend ourselves from danger but you are joking if you think it’s going to be against our government. I’m more concerned with public safety, not a civil war. But if you wanna focus on that then go right ahead. I hear they are having a big sale on bunkers and spam.

YES, we absolutely ARE going to get into a shooting war with our government.
It has ALWAYS become necessary eventually.
No government has ever survived more than about 400 years without becoming corrupt and needing to be destroyed.
That has ALWAYS happened in the past.
And it is almost always won by the good guys because only the minority support corruption.
The US military has not once succeeded in defeating an insurgency.
And in fact, the vast majority of the military would also join the insurgency if there was something like an Assault Weapons Ban proposed in the near future. The definition of an assault weapon now would cover the most common and popular weapons, which have the least involvement in crimes.

 

[Rigby5]

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

We have all the regulations we need right now.... the ones you guys want don't do anything to help....at all.

Do we need these regulations? Do they help or should we get rid of them?

With the lack of trustworthiness from the gun-grabbers and their attempt to have the right to keep and bear found by the SCOTUS to NOT be an individual right, has me completely unconcerned about their bullshit claims to want safety.

THE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT VIA JUDICIAL LEGISLATION WAS UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

IT JUSTIFIES THE BURTAL EXECUTION OF EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!


I am fucking pissed off enough to push hardcore for a repeal of all regulations, just so I can dance in their cocksucking faces.

But, more importantly, we MUST push back with equally-determined force or we will lose it all.

NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!

.

Honestly you should go all in to push for repeal of all regulations and for the death of democrats. It will do wonders for progressing your cause. Go ahead, ramp it up!

Only all federal regulations that are not specifically authorized by the constitution, and not some backhanded commerce clause nonsense.

 

[Slade3200]

t

I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea

Who are the wrong hands?

Who gets to decide that?

Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?

If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

That is not at all legal.
That is what you expect in Russia, where anyone who is critical of the government is deemed violent or mentally unstable.
That not how law is supposed to work.
Anyone who is actually violent or mentally unstable should be involuntarily committed.
Preventing them from legally being able to buy a gun does nothing except corrupt the system.
A violent or mentally unstable person can still easily get a gun illegally, or flammables, poisons, explosives, large vehicles, etc.
What you suggest makes no sense, and it totally contrary to a democratic republic.

Who said anything about being critical of government as a disqualifying factor?! You’re injecting that into the conversation.

And what I say makes sense to millions who support gun control measures. Yes, some people will have contacts to get guns on the black market but others won’t and we need to have some safeguards in place so they can’t just walk into any old store and walk out with the power to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Call me crazy if you must

That is silly.
Interjecting suppression of anything or anyone critical of government is EXACTLY what governments ALWAYS do!
Federal gun control is always a guaranteed means of suppressing any dissent, and being able to completely dominate and intimidate the entire population.
That is always the only point of any gun control, and always has been.

What you say your intent is makes no sense to anyone because they never actually thought about it.
They go by hysterical emotions that make no sense at all.
You are suggesting we try to disarm 100% of the non-government population, so that the criminal 0.1% can not just buy a gun from a gun store. And that clearly is ridiculous because the 0.1% who are criminals, already have their guns, and get all then need from drug traffickers from South America, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, etc.
All gun control laws do is disarm the honest people who we need and want to be armed, and all federal gun laws to is create a corrupt federal government that is not even supposed to be passing ANY weapons law at all.

You are crazy.
Obviously anyone too dangerous to allow to walk into a gun store to buy a gun, also can not be allowed in a fertilizer store to buy explosives, to buy gasoline, to buy poisons, etc.
Guns are likely the LEAST dangerous thing people could buy.
With something like ricin, which is easily obtained, one could not only kill thousands, but not even get caught.
It is clear you have NO understanding of technology, society, or common sense.
So it bares repeating, you are crazy is you support federal gun control in any way, shape, or form.

What proves you wrong is the fact that millions, like over half of Americans according to polls, support gun control measures. These are people who are neither in government nor hoping for government to control them. They support it because they feel like it makes them safer so it would do you some good to try and listen with an open mind. You don’t need to agree but at least try and understand their perspective. That way you won’t keep misstating it and sounding like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't know about you Ray but I am getting damn tired of voting for somebody just because he/she is the lesser of two evils.

I need a President that will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms. Not one that will deteriorate it.

It pains me to say it but already Trump has a worst record than Obama.

DumBama was helpless when it came to firearms because he was dealing with a Republican House. Do you really think if he had the legislative backing, we would have the same gun freedoms we have today? Don't you believe it.

Now if you want to see what will happen to your gun rights, allow a Democrat President to get in and possibly turn the SC to the Democrats side. Then you will see the huge loss of gun rights.

I'm sorry, but voting for legislators has always been about the least of two evils. All you can do is support the one that will take the least from you. We are on a roll right now with the SC justices Trump selected although they didn't vote in our favor a couple of times. But it can always be worse.

It's not that I don't understand your frustration, I do. I'm a landlord, and I can't tell you the financial losses I took during the housing bubble which Bush didn't do enough to stop. With 0% down, lowlifes from the inner-city moved into my suburb and destroyed it, thus cutting my property value in half. Sure I'm pissed, but what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in the White House instead of Bush? It would have been much, much worse.

I get the "lesser of two evils", but can you watch the video and not wonder if the lesser of the two evils was chosen? I said in another thread that I can recall a democrat president just outright saying stuff like that. If it comes to it, I hope congress stops any such bill cold, but I won't hold my breath.

They won't, but the courts will.

Trump doesn't work alone. He's surrounded by legal teams of people that understand he will never be able to create a law that allows the government to take action before due process. So even if he could institute such a thing, it would eventually be stopped by the courts and he can just shrug his shoulders and say "I tried!"

Maybe Trump is more politically brilliant than we give him credit for.

No, I think that's about the first bright thing I have hear Pence say. Trump does not write his own EOs. His legal staff does. And it would be completely outside of the Due Process to take the guns before the judge rules. Trump is incorrect. If the community wants the guns taken bad enough, a Judge can be woken up in the middle of the night to make that ruling. Judges are not hourly wagers.

I do not support Trump, but Trump is right on this.
If you suspect someone is acting suspiciously, you can't get them to a judge without first taking their weapon.
Only then can a judge hear both sides and rule.
If you go to a judge first and let the suspect go, you may never find them again.
If you take them before a judge without disarming them, they could murder the judge.

Trump did NOT say anything about taking them to a judge first. He said take the guns and then take it to the judge. Have you ever had a restraining order? Did you get your time in court before it was issued or did you have to go by it and then take it back to court to get your rights back. I don't see where this is any different than a restraining order. A Restraining order did have to go before a judge. And in many cases, the filing person lied out their asses but got it issued anyway. But they did it in such a way that it would be almost impossible to prove without being extreme rich.

The Judge can do the Order for Seaziure without the person being in his court. The weapons can be taken. And then the court can revisit it at a later time. If it proves through a mental health professional that the person is mentally in full control then the weapons can be returned. But if that person is proven to be mentally unstable, the weapons can go to another family member with the agreement NOT to be accessed by the nutcase for any reason.

That is the Red Flag Law in a nutshell. It does take into consideration Due Process.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You don't need to stop all murders.
All you have to try to do is minimize them as much as possible.
And gun control can't and won't do that.
It will increase the number of murders instead, just as Prohibition of Alcohol and the War on Drugs greatly increased the murder rate.

The best way I can think of to deal with dangerous people, is a better public health care system that identifies dangerous people decades before they actually go out and kill people.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

We have all the regulations we need right now.... the ones you guys want don't do anything to help....at all.

Do we need these regulations? Do they help or should we get rid of them?

With the lack of trustworthiness from the gun-grabbers and their attempt to have the right to keep and bear found by the SCOTUS to NOT be an individual right, has me completely unconcerned about their bullshit claims to want safety.

THE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT VIA JUDICIAL LEGISLATION WAS UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

IT JUSTIFIES THE BURTAL EXECUTION OF EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM!!!


I am fucking pissed off enough to push hardcore for a repeal of all regulations, just so I can dance in their cocksucking faces.

But, more importantly, we MUST push back with equally-determined force or we will lose it all.

NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!

.

Honestly you should go all in to push for repeal of all regulations and for the death of democrats. It will do wonders for progressing your cause. Go ahead, ramp it up!

But, we are justifiably angry at gun-grabbers for that stunt.
We are justifiably suspicious of them being lying, cheating, fraudsters wanting a complete ban, even though they lie about it constantly.
We are justified in giving them NOTHING, right? Even if we decide to negotiate, we are the wronged party and there should be some concessions by the gun-grabbers first, right?

.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

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

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

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that was the way it was in the past, about 40 years ago there was almost no gun control, and it made our communities safer.
Clearly there are way too many means of mass murder, besides firearms.
So the only way to make society safer is better health care that identifies and fixes dangerous people earlier.

 

[Slade3200]

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

Again, who decides the threshold for "violent" and "mentally unstable?" We already deny people with known violent past, crimes, threats to others the right to hold a gun. And we already do the same for the mentally institutionalized deemed not in good control of themself. What has it accomplished?

So now we are back in that gray area where someone must guess who might BECOME violent or has the CAPACITY to be so, and who is just a little goofy and who is dangerously so?

And that leads us right back to lopping off a whole bunch of totally innocent, harmless people who have not done a thing to deserve it in the hopes that we catch enough of the truly crazy, dangerous people in the process!

So that leads us full circle right back to the original questions:

• Who gets to decide all that?
• What if they rule against you for reasons other than actual things you've done?
• Where is the governing watch dogs which keeps such power from being abused?
• And why are we still blaming the guns and not going after the cause which drives these people in the first place?

We the people decide through the representatives that we elect. Hopefully there are town halls and public forums to gather input from the people but that’s how it works in a republic.

That is not how a democratic republic works.
Individual rights, like self defense, are not up for anyone's vote.
That is as silly as claiming that slavery would be legal if the majority voted for it against a minority.

Slavery would be legal if it was voted into law. That’s not silly at all that actually how our government works.

That is not just silly, but insane.
That is NOT at all how law works.
This is a democratic republic, so then the ONLY source of any legal authority is the inherent rights of individuals.
So then when we create government, all government is then authorized to do, is defend those inherent rights.
And slavery would not be defending the rights of anyone.
So it could never be legal, even if 100% of the population voted for it.
The first thing a democratic republic has to do is write up the basic goals and limitations or government, including the basic Bill of Rights which government is NEVER supposed to be able to violate, under any circumstances.
You really do not seem to understand anything about law, democratic republics, rights, or delegated authority.

No the only source of legal authority is what’s written in the constitution and our laws. Moral laws are different