Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?
The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?
Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.
The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.
I can't even read your post because of that stupid sig pic. It is way too distracting...and dumb.
I agree, it even bothers me. I've taken it down.
In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?
The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?
Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.
The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.
I can't even read your post because of that stupid sig pic. It is way too distracting...and dumb.
I agree, it even bothers me. I've taken it down.
Thank you!!
Do you believe that if guns were taken away, the ones that really want them ie criminals, and''shooters'' like the one in Orlando would get them?
I do not see how you get millions of guns off the streets. Only good law abiding citizens would comply. Then what?
In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?
The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?
Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.
The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.
I can't even read your post because of that stupid sig pic. It is way too distracting...and dumb.
I agree, it even bothers me. I've taken it down.
Thank you!!
Do you believe that if guns were taken away, the ones that really want them ie criminals, and''shooters'' like the one in Orlando would get them?
I do not see how you get millions of guns off the streets. Only good law abiding citizens would comply. Then what?
I don't think removing guns is a possibility nor should it even be considered. I think we should be determined to take them out of the hands of those who can't handle the responsibility. Even that will be a difficult task, because too many people who own guns do so for the power they feel and that's why any plan to look at anger won't be considered seriously. Anger is the root cause, it's the common denominator. It is the reason people use guns for a variety of crimes and restricting ownership to those who have anger issues is the solution to the problem.
Anger is a controllable urge and those afraid of the approach should know that restriction doesn't have to be for life, it lasts as long as necessary until you learn to control your problem. To me, that's not a bad deal and it saves the 2nd Amendment from being torn apart.
Career politicians will never help the average citizen, so it's up to the average citizen to help themselves. The second amendment is the only protection we have from the federal government…You're talking out of your ass, now go hide dip shitThe conversation returns to banning weapons.Most violent first world country in the world.
The firearm is the chosen weapon.
Before disarming law abiding citizens I say we address the violent "individuals."
Why don't you address that question to Congressional Republicans, they're the one putting figurative handcuffs on the police. NRA money.
I live in Maryland. Democrat controlled.
My representatives are well aware of my attitude towards violent individuals, especially those in our inner cities.
They are also aware of my attitude towards curtailing my rights when it comes to my firearms.
Again. Before curtailing my rights and the possession of my firearms I would suggest they focus on violent individuals.
You just got a donation to the NRA in your name, in the amount of $100.00.
You can thank me later.
The conversation returns to banning weapons.
I live in Maryland. Democrat controlled.
My representatives are well aware of my attitude towards violent individuals, especially those in our inner cities.
They are also aware of my attitude towards curtailing my rights when it comes to my firearms.
Again. Before curtailing my rights and the possession of my firearms I would suggest they focus on violent individuals.
You just got a donation to the NRA in your name, in the amount of $100.00.
You can thank me later.
Republicans are the politicos that are making it hard for law enforcement, not Democrats.
I cut up my NRA card years ago and sent it back to them. By sending $100.00 to the NRA, your simply funding a gun manufacturer marketing concern and making the few at the top of the NRA very wealthy. In other words, NRA members are being taken for a ride.
You're talking out of your ass, now go hide dip shit
Republicans AREN'T making it hard for law enforcement to do their job? State your case.
In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?
The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?
Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.
The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.
I can't even read your post because of that stupid sig pic. It is way too distracting...and dumb.
I agree, it even bothers me. I've taken it down.
Thank you!!
Do you believe that if guns were taken away, the ones that really want them ie criminals, and''shooters'' like the one in Orlando would get them?
I do not see how you get millions of guns off the streets. Only good law abiding citizens would comply. Then what?
I don't think removing guns is a possibility nor should it even be considered. I think we should be determined to take them out of the hands of those who can't handle the responsibility. Even that will be a difficult task, because too many people who own guns do so for the power they feel and that's why any plan to look at anger won't be considered seriously. Anger is the root cause, it's the common denominator. It is the reason people use guns for a variety of crimes and restricting ownership to those who have anger issues is the solution to the problem.
Anger is a controllable urge and those afraid of the approach should know that restriction doesn't have to be for life, it lasts as long as necessary until you learn to control your problem. To me, that's not a bad deal and it saves the 2nd Amendment from being torn apart.
I can definitely agree with that to a degree, but the problem comes in when we try and decide who has anger issues. How would we know?
The Orlando shooter obviously did, and was on the FBI watch list, and yet in the end he bought guns.
If he could not have bought it... He would have stolen it.Muslims hating gays that's what made the shooting possible dip shitThe NRA is harmless.Most violent first world country in the world.
The firearm is the chosen weapon.
Before disarming law abiding citizens I say we address the violent "individuals."
Why don't you address that question to Congressional Republicans, they're the one putting figurative handcuffs on the police. NRA money.
The NRA is harmless.
NRA backed Republicans made the Orlando shooting possible.
Muslims hating gays that's what made the shooting possible dip shit
How did he legally buy a weapon? Should a person that is on a no-fly list be able to buy a gun?
No law would've stopped what happened that's just a fact. Jack ass
I can't even read your post because of that stupid sig pic. It is way too distracting...and dumb.
I agree, it even bothers me. I've taken it down.
Thank you!!
Do you believe that if guns were taken away, the ones that really want them ie criminals, and''shooters'' like the one in Orlando would get them?
I do not see how you get millions of guns off the streets. Only good law abiding citizens would comply. Then what?
I don't think removing guns is a possibility nor should it even be considered. I think we should be determined to take them out of the hands of those who can't handle the responsibility. Even that will be a difficult task, because too many people who own guns do so for the power they feel and that's why any plan to look at anger won't be considered seriously. Anger is the root cause, it's the common denominator. It is the reason people use guns for a variety of crimes and restricting ownership to those who have anger issues is the solution to the problem.
Anger is a controllable urge and those afraid of the approach should know that restriction doesn't have to be for life, it lasts as long as necessary until you learn to control your problem. To me, that's not a bad deal and it saves the 2nd Amendment from being torn apart.
I can definitely agree with that to a degree, but the problem comes in when we try and decide who has anger issues. How would we know?
The Orlando shooter obviously did, and was on the FBI watch list, and yet in the end he bought guns.
Anger has been an identifiable issue for a long time. There are tests that take just a few minutes and can be graded confidentially. We know the biggest cause that hurts gun ownership, figuring out how to deal with it shouldn't be all that difficult if people cooperated and were mutually driven to find a solution.
I agree, it even bothers me. I've taken it down.
Thank you!!
Do you believe that if guns were taken away, the ones that really want them ie criminals, and''shooters'' like the one in Orlando would get them?
I do not see how you get millions of guns off the streets. Only good law abiding citizens would comply. Then what?
I don't think removing guns is a possibility nor should it even be considered. I think we should be determined to take them out of the hands of those who can't handle the responsibility. Even that will be a difficult task, because too many people who own guns do so for the power they feel and that's why any plan to look at anger won't be considered seriously. Anger is the root cause, it's the common denominator. It is the reason people use guns for a variety of crimes and restricting ownership to those who have anger issues is the solution to the problem.
Anger is a controllable urge and those afraid of the approach should know that restriction doesn't have to be for life, it lasts as long as necessary until you learn to control your problem. To me, that's not a bad deal and it saves the 2nd Amendment from being torn apart.
I can definitely agree with that to a degree, but the problem comes in when we try and decide who has anger issues. How would we know?
The Orlando shooter obviously did, and was on the FBI watch list, and yet in the end he bought guns.
Anger has been an identifiable issue for a long time. There are tests that take just a few minutes and can be graded confidentially. We know the biggest cause that hurts gun ownership, figuring out how to deal with it shouldn't be all that difficult if people cooperated and were mutually driven to find a solution.
Ahhh so you mean someone goes to buy a gun....they have to be tested first?
Thank you!!
Do you believe that if guns were taken away, the ones that really want them ie criminals, and''shooters'' like the one in Orlando would get them?
I do not see how you get millions of guns off the streets. Only good law abiding citizens would comply. Then what?
I don't think removing guns is a possibility nor should it even be considered. I think we should be determined to take them out of the hands of those who can't handle the responsibility. Even that will be a difficult task, because too many people who own guns do so for the power they feel and that's why any plan to look at anger won't be considered seriously. Anger is the root cause, it's the common denominator. It is the reason people use guns for a variety of crimes and restricting ownership to those who have anger issues is the solution to the problem.
Anger is a controllable urge and those afraid of the approach should know that restriction doesn't have to be for life, it lasts as long as necessary until you learn to control your problem. To me, that's not a bad deal and it saves the 2nd Amendment from being torn apart.
I can definitely agree with that to a degree, but the problem comes in when we try and decide who has anger issues. How would we know?
The Orlando shooter obviously did, and was on the FBI watch list, and yet in the end he bought guns.
Anger has been an identifiable issue for a long time. There are tests that take just a few minutes and can be graded confidentially. We know the biggest cause that hurts gun ownership, figuring out how to deal with it shouldn't be all that difficult if people cooperated and were mutually driven to find a solution.
Ahhh so you mean someone goes to buy a gun....they have to be tested first?
Yes, or if they have a background of violence. It could be a requirement separate to a gun store purchase, go to a office fill out the form. Red fail, green ok to buy, done on the spot. No one at the gun store would know, yet people who like the ease of purchase will complain, but how do you solve the problem otherwise?
I don't think removing guns is a possibility nor should it even be considered. I think we should be determined to take them out of the hands of those who can't handle the responsibility. Even that will be a difficult task, because too many people who own guns do so for the power they feel and that's why any plan to look at anger won't be considered seriously. Anger is the root cause, it's the common denominator. It is the reason people use guns for a variety of crimes and restricting ownership to those who have anger issues is the solution to the problem.
Anger is a controllable urge and those afraid of the approach should know that restriction doesn't have to be for life, it lasts as long as necessary until you learn to control your problem. To me, that's not a bad deal and it saves the 2nd Amendment from being torn apart.
I can definitely agree with that to a degree, but the problem comes in when we try and decide who has anger issues. How would we know?
The Orlando shooter obviously did, and was on the FBI watch list, and yet in the end he bought guns.
Anger has been an identifiable issue for a long time. There are tests that take just a few minutes and can be graded confidentially. We know the biggest cause that hurts gun ownership, figuring out how to deal with it shouldn't be all that difficult if people cooperated and were mutually driven to find a solution.
Ahhh so you mean someone goes to buy a gun....they have to be tested first?
Yes, or if they have a background of violence. It could be a requirement separate to a gun store purchase, go to a office fill out the form. Red fail, green ok to buy, done on the spot. No one at the gun store would know, yet people who like the ease of purchase will complain, but how do you solve the problem otherwise?
We have to try something. And I mean something other than just gun removal.
Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’
“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”
A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu
— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016
In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.
“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.
“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”
Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.
‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’
Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'
way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!
Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate
April 17, 2013
The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.
One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.
But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.
Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate
Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide
"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."
Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton
Ya see, after the "banning" comes confiscation and jack booted thugs breaking into homes and dragging innocent civilians out and shooting them if they resist the search. Think it can't happen?
As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.
“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.
“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.
The Assault Weapon Ban Would Have Never Passed If It Wasn't For Ronald Reagan
rethuglicans lie and fear monger waaa hussein obama is conspiring to take your guns!!
while gun manufacturers profit and gun lobbyists go cha-ching*
there is no civilian lawful purpose for this type of military grade weapon.
they'll figure it out. which weapons to permit to whom and for what lawful purposes. some weapons should be permitted only to some citizens for some purposes but not all weapons for all purposes to all people...
Ok. I agree. Rocket launchers. Claymore mines. Grenades. Yes...no one should have them except military. Fair debate.
But...what about this one. Is this a Weapon of War...as Hillary says that doesn't belong in US citizens hands??
View attachment 78198
there is no civilian lawful purpose for this type of military grade weapon.
Yes there is.... to protect ourselves from people like you and your Government whixg will try to take our Rights away from us.
Ya see, after the "banning" comes confiscation and jack booted thugs breaking into homes and dragging innocent civilians out and shooting them if they resist the search. Think it can't happen? The federal government incinerated about 80 men women and children in the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in a botched raid that was resisted by the occupants. The the search warrant claimed that Branch Davidians were building fully automatic weapons out of rusty British WW2 junk. The claim was ludicrous and never addressed after the citizens were gassed by tanks and killed. We couldn't get away with such tactics in freaking Afghanistan but as long as the liberal media justifies the criminal actions of the federal government they can get away with any atrocity.
