CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[ChrisL]

In order to trust liberals, you would have to think of them as respectable with honor and integrity.

 

[Foxfyre]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

 

[Foxfyre]

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

Maybe I am going about this all wrong though we now have three votes up there on the compromise option which is encouraging. And appreciated. And it includes people who are more right than left and more left than right. Which is also encouraging.

I fully realize how dug in both sides of the gun debate are.

My goal is to change the debate from strictly the guns, which are not the problem, to what I believe is our dysfunctional culture that is promoting violence and changing that so that extreme security is not necessary in most places.

And I hope you're wrong about them not caring about school children. I can appreciate though that when the price is too high to have maximum security, we are willing to take more risks. For instance we have the technology to make cars pretty much 100% safe for the passengers in them but are unwilling to pay the tremendous cost involved to have that.

So I still argue for the solution that will make school kids and everybody else safer, won't require anybody to give up much of anything that is important to them, would benefit pretty much everybody, and wouldn't cost us a dime. In fact it would save us billions.

And that is to change the culture.

Well it is much worse than the picture I presented. As you have said, you have violence glorified in the media in movies and in video games, but there is also the media who gives 24/7 attention to the shooter as his name and face is plastered on the TV for the whole world to see. And people tune in and just watch and watch.

As the shooter said, he was there to break the old school shooting record. The media does not give a damn that they have blood on their hands for feeding these school shootings, for you see, they are one of the entities who are dug in on the side of banning guns and they make a great deal of money covering these tragedies as well. In fact, they probably have wet dreams about more shootings in schools.

In regards to not being able to afford proper security in our schools, that is a bunch of bull. Those in government don't seem to have any trouble affording protecting court houses and IRS building and other such government buildings around the country, yet there never is a shooting there, is there.

So no, I adamantly reject the notion that the government can't afford it. If they were in those schools or their children were in those schools instead of the nice private schools they send their children, then they would find a way to secure those buildings.

I'm so adamant about this that I hope parents of future school shootings begin to sue the state for incompetence in protecting schools that get shot up every month. I hope the courts become full of law suit after law suit against the state until their sorry asses actually do something about it. Unfortunately, I hate to inform you that I think so ill of the powers that be that I believe that these law makers would rather have the school shootings so that it can be used for fuel in the goal of banning or restricting gun use around the country.

You could be right that we have reached the point that the American culture has corrupted itself beyond repair and the only answer to school shootings is to make the schools into impenetrable fortresses. The only answer to mass shootings is to make all places where people gather into secure fortresses. But we lose so much when we are forced to live like that. And we know that banning the most dangerous guns has not made a difference.

I would like to think the American people overall are better than that.

I think within one generation, with some focus on those things that create a homogeonous and peaceful society, we could turn it around.

Again just citing one point again related to a point in the OP: 26 of 27 shooters in the most deadly mass killings were from fatherless homes. Does that mean boys from fatherless homes are going to be mass murderers? Of course not. At least one person posting in this thread is a single mom who raised a fine, responsible son and that is not at all unusual. I know of others. But evenso, that is a horrendous statistic and I think attention should be paid.

Patrick Fagan wrote in 1995:

• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
• High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
• The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

• Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
• Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.
• Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.
• The mother's strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child's best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father's authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime. . . . The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

I think until both sides--pro 2nd Amendment and pro gun control--are willing to look at the cultural issues involved in the problem, there will be no solution no matter what gun laws we do or do not pass.

I love you Foxy, but it would be a mistake to trust liberals. You must know how they are by now.

I agree that too often it is the right who concedes, both in guns and in the social contract--that is why we are in the terrible mess we are in--which is why I want something in writing like written into the law or possibly even the Constitution before any compromise will be granted. You can make deals with a snake if the contract is iron clad enough.

And I just feel in my bones that if this generation doesn't start turning it around, we will lose it all.

LYT

 

[ChrisL]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

It's a problem because they will never stop. This much is obvious. Also, none of their solutions are real solutions to any problems. They want to stick a Band Aid on a serious problem by blaming guns and call it good because useless laws make them feel better and they don't really care about rights that they aren't planning on practicing.

 

[Foxfyre]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

It's a problem because they will never stop. This much is obvious. Also, none of their solutions are real solutions to any problems. They want to stick a Band Aid on a serious problem by blaming guns and call it good because useless laws make them feel better and they don't really care about rights that they aren't planning on practicing.

Maybe, but if we don't at least try, then no solution is possible. For sure each side digging in and refusing to even discuss some possibilities of compromise isn't going to get us there.

 

[Desperado]

no solution iis better than a compromise with the left

 

[ChrisL]

I just today reset my search engine to Bing. I am used to Google and still trying to get used to Bing, but Google has become just as shady as Facebook or Twitter.

 

[ChrisL]

I just today reset my search engine to Bing. I am used to Google and still trying to get used to Bing, but Google has become just as shady as Facebook or Twitter.

Sorry, that's a little off topic, but I was just trying to find something and I'm having a difficult time.

 

[ChrisL]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

It's a problem because they will never stop. This much is obvious. Also, none of their solutions are real solutions to any problems. They want to stick a Band Aid on a serious problem by blaming guns and call it good because useless laws make them feel better and they don't really care about rights that they aren't planning on practicing.

Maybe, but if we don't at least try, then no solution is possible. For sure each side digging in and refusing to even discuss some possibilities of compromise isn't going to get us there.

No thank you. Their solutions are not actually solutions. They disagree with any logical solutions that are brought up.

 

[ChrisL]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

 

[task0778]

From the Washington Examiner a couple of days ago:

Senate Democrats on Tuesday were preventing movement on a bill to boost the criminal background check system for gun purchases, even as Republicans kept up the pressure for a quick vote in the wake of this month's school shooting in Florida.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he wanted the Senate to approve a bill this week that would provide a mix of penalties and rewards aimed at getting states and federal agencies to add eligible names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
.
.
“What I don’t want to do is leave this week and go back home to Texas and say we failed to do anything to try to address these tragedies,” said Cornyn, who co-sponsored the Fix NICS bill with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

But Democrats made it clear they want more than the Fix NICS bill.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., met with students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where a teenager shot and killed 17 people earlier this month. Schumer said the students “think this bill is fine but certainly not enough.”

Schumer is demanding the addition, at the very least, of universal background checks, which would expand screening requirements for firearms transactions to gun shows and Internet sales.

“We want a debate, but we want a debate on more than Fix NICS,” Schumer said Tuesday. “We Democrats have a list of things we think need to be done.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., added that he wants to implement a ban on weapons including the AR-15-style rifle used by the Florida shooter and the Sig Sauer MCX used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. "The Fix NICS bill is not nearly enough," he said.

Plus, Marco Rubio is introducing among other changes a bill to institute a GVRO program to remove guns from a person thought by local authorities to be a danger to him/herself or others and temporarily block their right to buy a gun until a hearing is held on the matter. Not sure what Schumer wants in the way of UBCs, I thought we already had req'ts on that for gun shows and the internet. From CBS News:


Sen. Marco Rubio took to the Senate floor Thursday morning to outline his ideals for gun-related reforms in the wake of the high school shooting in his state that left 17 dead last month.

Rubio said this attack "could have and should have" been prevented, if federal law was fully followed. Rubio, a Republican, was present Wednesday in the president's bipartisan meeting with members of Congress.

"This killer was a well-known danger" to the school, to the county sheriff's office, and his neighborhood, Rubio said.

"People saw something. And people said something," he added, saying somehow the "deranged and violent" suspect was able to take the lives of 17 people.

Rubio said he intends to introduce a new bill that will lead to the creation of gun violence restraining orders, which give law enforcement and family the chance to acquire restraining orders to keep someone who poses a threat from purchasing guns, and gives law enforcement the ability to take those guns away temporarily.

Rubio also said he will be joining Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in introducing the Stop School Violence Act. The legislation is intended to boost school security, provide schools with training to identify threats, among other things.

• 
  
  • Under Broward County schools' policies, according to the school promise program, reporting a potentially dangerous student to law enforcement is the sixth step in the process, not the first.
  • Someone who attempts to buy a gun and is prohibited from doing so should be investigated and prosecuted, Rubio said.
  • Strengthening background check communication through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

"We need to strengthen background checks, because a background check is only as good as the information that is on it," Rubio said.


Let's see if the Democrats are willing to compromise too. The plain truth is that they aren't going to get a ban on guns through Congress. But these measures should help if passed and enacted. Part of the problem as we have seen isn't inadequate laws but improper execution of those laws.

 

[task0778]

From the Washington Examiner a couple of days ago:

Senate Democrats on Tuesday were preventing movement on a bill to boost the criminal background check system for gun purchases, even as Republicans kept up the pressure for a quick vote in the wake of this month's school shooting in Florida.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he wanted the Senate to approve a bill this week that would provide a mix of penalties and rewards aimed at getting states and federal agencies to add eligible names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
.
.
“What I don’t want to do is leave this week and go back home to Texas and say we failed to do anything to try to address these tragedies,” said Cornyn, who co-sponsored the Fix NICS bill with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

But Democrats made it clear they want more than the Fix NICS bill.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., met with students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where a teenager shot and killed 17 people earlier this month. Schumer said the students “think this bill is fine but certainly not enough.”

Schumer is demanding the addition, at the very least, of universal background checks, which would expand screening requirements for firearms transactions to gun shows and Internet sales.

“We want a debate, but we want a debate on more than Fix NICS,” Schumer said Tuesday. “We Democrats have a list of things we think need to be done.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., added that he wants to implement a ban on weapons including the AR-15-style rifle used by the Florida shooter and the Sig Sauer MCX used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. "The Fix NICS bill is not nearly enough," he said.

Plus, Marco Rubio is introducing among other changes a bill to institute a GVRO program to remove guns from a person thought by local authorities to be a danger to him/herself or others and temporarily block their right to buy a gun until a hearing is held on the matter. Not sure what Schumer wants in the way of UBCs, I thought we already had req'ts on that for gun shows and the internet. From CBS News:


Sen. Marco Rubio took to the Senate floor Thursday morning to outline his ideals for gun-related reforms in the wake of the high school shooting in his state that left 17 dead last month.

Rubio said this attack "could have and should have" been prevented, if federal law was fully followed. Rubio, a Republican, was present Wednesday in the president's bipartisan meeting with members of Congress.

"This killer was a well-known danger" to the school, to the county sheriff's office, and his neighborhood, Rubio said.

"People saw something. And people said something," he added, saying somehow the "deranged and violent" suspect was able to take the lives of 17 people.

Rubio said he intends to introduce a new bill that will lead to the creation of gun violence restraining orders, which give law enforcement and family the chance to acquire restraining orders to keep someone who poses a threat from purchasing guns, and gives law enforcement the ability to take those guns away temporarily.

Rubio also said he will be joining Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in introducing the Stop School Violence Act. The legislation is intended to boost school security, provide schools with training to identify threats, among other things.

• 
  
  • Under Broward County schools' policies, according to the school promise program, reporting a potentially dangerous student to law enforcement is the sixth step in the process, not the first.
  • Someone who attempts to buy a gun and is prohibited from doing so should be investigated and prosecuted, Rubio said.
  • Strengthening background check communication through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

"We need to strengthen background checks, because a background check is only as good as the information that is on it," Rubio said.


Let's see if the Democrats are willing to compromise too. The plain truth is that they aren't going to get a ban on guns through Congress. But these measures should help if passed and enacted. Part of the problem as we have seen isn't inadequate laws but improper execution of those laws.

Another bipartisan compromise:

U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) introduced a bill to prohibit the sale of bump stock devices and other mechanisms which allow semi-automatic firearms to materially increase their rate of fire and effectively operate as fully automatic weapons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

And this post is an example of why most conservatives are unable to address the issue in good faith: their propensity for lying, their inherent dishonesty, their hyperbolic demagoguery, and their comprehensive ignorance of the law.

As already correctly noted: no Second Amendment rights have been ‘trampled on,’ particularly by ‘liberals’ – the notion is a ridiculous lie; all the measures advocated for by Democrats are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

As long as conservatives remain ignorant of Second Amendment case law, as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and as long as they refuse to address the issue honestly and in good faith, seeking compromise with conservatives is pointless.

 

[oldsoul]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

While I agree that seems quite true for many POLITICIANS, as well as some here on this board, I do not believe that is true for the "run of the mill" type liberal. Many of them are gun owners themselves, hunt and like the idea of being able to defend themselves and their families, with guns if necessary. To categorically say that all liberals, think this or that is no different than saying all conservatives think this or that, or all (insert group here) think the same. Therefore, this position is unhelpful at best, and detrimental to our ability to have a rational discussion on the topic at worst.

 

[oldsoul]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

 

[oldsoul]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

 

[Foxfyre]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

 

[oldsoul]

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

 

[Picaro]

Well, after a few days, it becomes even more clear who the corps and the establishment party is, and it's the Democrats naturally; their laughable attempts at pretending to be the 'anit- establishment anti- big corps' party has left them with even fewer 'talking points than they had before, with Wally World and several others jumping on the 'NRA' hoax campaign. We now know the 'Sheriff' was an Obama Democrat, and his policies came directly from Obama's campaign to reduce the number of arrests of minorities in Broward County, and essentially ignore crime in exchange for a $54 million dollar 'grant', and we see the results with this shooting.

There is always a cover up being implemented when Democrats send their puppet brigades forth with new buzz words and ludicrous deflections like the NRA being responsible for the murders and deaths of children caused by Democratic policies of the criminal Resident in Chief. Thank goodness Hillary was shut down; the murders would be up in the 10's of thousands in her first year if she had won.

Now hopefully Trump appoints a tough guy as AG, and start indicting the scum, starting with their treason and multiple security felonies, most of which were probably deliberate, given their histories.

 

[Foxfyre]

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

Yes. That is where we have to start. And that requires calling out those who deliberately create and/or promote the divisions for fun, profit, personal/political advantage, etc.