Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Blues Man]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime

 

[Blues Man]

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

So now it's sane to take rights away from people who have never and will never commit a crime?

 

[iceberg]

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

What history?

What exactly was not on his background check that you want to be?

the link i provided goes into a lot of that. i'll need to go into the history forbes is referring to that was left out to know for sure. the article says that each had a history that should have been on there but it wasn't for XYZ reason. i agree we'd next need to find out what should have been there and why it wasn't and determine if a corrective action needs to be taken.

if you read the entire article, it also talks about lower gun violence in a time gun sales are soaring - that also contradicts the arguments of many anti-gunners in here.

ok - followed one and found this:

In 2012 Assault, Texas Gunman Broke Skull of Infant Stepson
After his confinement, Mr. Kelley was forced out of the military with a bad conduct discharge. The Air Force said the conviction should have barred Mr. Kelley from owning any guns. Instead, law enforcement officials say, he bought several.
-----

there's more that was on his criminal record - but why was none of this enough to raise a flag that selling this guy a gun was a bad idea? how did his discharge NOT get onto his public record?

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to that database. Hopefully, the military is now reporting domestic cases, after that fiasco, but I'm not sure they are.

yea, i'm not advocating we add stuff at this point. but what should be there NEEDS to be there. unsure why anyone would disagree but open to thoughts and their experiences behind it to better understand the view.

 

[iceberg]

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Blues Man]

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

What history?

What exactly was not on his background check that you want to be?

the link i provided goes into a lot of that. i'll need to go into the history forbes is referring to that was left out to know for sure. the article says that each had a history that should have been on there but it wasn't for XYZ reason. i agree we'd next need to find out what should have been there and why it wasn't and determine if a corrective action needs to be taken.

if you read the entire article, it also talks about lower gun violence in a time gun sales are soaring - that also contradicts the arguments of many anti-gunners in here.

ok - followed one and found this:

In 2012 Assault, Texas Gunman Broke Skull of Infant Stepson
After his confinement, Mr. Kelley was forced out of the military with a bad conduct discharge. The Air Force said the conviction should have barred Mr. Kelley from owning any guns. Instead, law enforcement officials say, he bought several.
-----

there's more that was on his criminal record - but why was none of this enough to raise a flag that selling this guy a gun was a bad idea? how did his discharge NOT get onto his public record?

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to that database. Hopefully, the military is now reporting domestic cases, after that fiasco, but I'm not sure they are.

yea, i'm not advocating we add stuff at this point. but what should be there NEEDS to be there. unsure why anyone would disagree but open to thoughts and their experiences behind it to better understand the view.

so you won't advocate adding stuff but the stuff that you think isn't there should be there?

 

[RealDave]

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime

What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

 

[iceberg]

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

What history?

What exactly was not on his background check that you want to be?

the link i provided goes into a lot of that. i'll need to go into the history forbes is referring to that was left out to know for sure. the article says that each had a history that should have been on there but it wasn't for XYZ reason. i agree we'd next need to find out what should have been there and why it wasn't and determine if a corrective action needs to be taken.

if you read the entire article, it also talks about lower gun violence in a time gun sales are soaring - that also contradicts the arguments of many anti-gunners in here.

ok - followed one and found this:

In 2012 Assault, Texas Gunman Broke Skull of Infant Stepson
After his confinement, Mr. Kelley was forced out of the military with a bad conduct discharge. The Air Force said the conviction should have barred Mr. Kelley from owning any guns. Instead, law enforcement officials say, he bought several.
-----

there's more that was on his criminal record - but why was none of this enough to raise a flag that selling this guy a gun was a bad idea? how did his discharge NOT get onto his public record?

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to that database. Hopefully, the military is now reporting domestic cases, after that fiasco, but I'm not sure they are.

yea, i'm not advocating we add stuff at this point. but what should be there NEEDS to be there. unsure why anyone would disagree but open to thoughts and their experiences behind it to better understand the view.

so you won't advocate adding stuff but the stuff that you think isn't there should be there?

i don't know enough about it to say. conversations like this is where i try and learn from people talking factually, not emotionally. but we have seen as illustrated by this case that people do get by a background check that should not and gave specific examples of what was left off the check.

i would like to understand why it was left off? at this point no - i'm not advocating adding more to it, but enforcing what is there or should be there as a first step. however, is this and the other stories i'm reading are correct, why is this information not on their background for just such a purpose?

if there are valid reasons to leave off their violent criminal record and/or dishonorable discharge, let me know so i can understand and learn. i have no "final position" on this just yet cause i don't know enough to say. from what i do know, it would seem we can simply ensure the db is correct and that alone would have prevented people from buying guns initially. whether or not that would have stopped the crime or just sent them elsewhere is another matter.

 

[Blues Man]

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime

What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

 

[leftwinger]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

Heroin is banned Nationally yet Tons pour over the open Border. Guns would do the same if there was Peso to be made?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

Interesting.
Explain the 50% drop in US gun-related homicides 1993-2014, while the number of guns increased 22% over the same period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered.

Ok... why should guns be registered?

The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners

"The government" may not.
The anti-gun left CERTAINLY does.
Why should we think otherwise?

 

[pismoe]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

Heroin is banned Nationally yet Tons pour over the open Border. Guns would do the same if there was Peso to be made?

------------------------------------- yeah Old Yellar , yep !!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Based on... what?

Based on the experience of developed nations.

An excellent post hoc fallacy - and thus, a ineffective answer.

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

The Constitution has been amended before and can be again.

Until it is, your suggestions - insipid as they are - are off the table,
You understand the 2nd was put in place because those who created it knew there's be people like you - right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

First...you keep saying Military style..

Military style you invincibly obtuse gun nut.

So... You'd ban this.....

But not this.

What would that accomplish/
How?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because the AR15 can take large capacity removable mags it should be severely restricted, as should all the other military style semi auto rifles that can similarly take large capacity removable mags. And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

You cannot demonstrate a factual, rational basis for any of this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you guys can keep killing each other off in mass murders for all I care, but effectively banning the rifles to which the boxes with springs attach will reduce mass shooting fatalities where rifles are used.

Absent the use of post-hoc fallacies, you cannot support this statement .

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

Why do they make pillboxes and bunkers out of concrete?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

Yeah, I'll let 10 round removable mags for the Ruger pass. That's where my line is drawn.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy of, such a ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Which brings me back to my initial point. Eliminate the Second Amendment and the same can be said of owning guns.

Good luck with that.

 

[OldLady]

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.