Obama politicizes Texas shootings

[easyt65]

Obama politicizes Texas shooting


Of course he did.....

 

[Slade3200]

It is working well in New York City.

Cities don't have walls, you should understand that. It's easy to get guns in and out.

then how do the laws stop criminals from getting guns?

show me laws that allow good people to keep their guns and bad people to be told NO in a manner they will accept and i'm in. but to date, just bitching and whining about guns.

what would you do?

To start we can better regulate these high capacity semi auto's. Make the vetting process much better for people to own those types of weapons. Will criminals still be able to get them? yes of course. Would it help save lives? Very likely. Why should a Yahoo, like this Texas church shooter be able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out carrying around a weapon capable of killings dozens of people in the matter of minutes? Do you think the same amount of people would have died if he would have had a pistol or a bolt action riffle or a shotgun?

You here of a semi-auto pistol? Shit for brains
Lol

Sure, why?

It’s obvious you have no understanding of the issue then

Why?

 

[iceberg]

then how do the laws stop criminals from getting guns?

show me laws that allow good people to keep their guns and bad people to be told NO in a manner they will accept and i'm in. but to date, just bitching and whining about guns.

what would you do?

To start we can better regulate these high capacity semi auto's. Make the vetting process much better for people to own those types of weapons. Will criminals still be able to get them? yes of course. Would it help save lives? Very likely. Why should a Yahoo, like this Texas church shooter be able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out carrying around a weapon capable of killings dozens of people in the matter of minutes? Do you think the same amount of people would have died if he would have had a pistol or a bolt action riffle or a shotgun?

Great. Give me the specs to manage to. 30? 15? 10?

All semi auto or just the military style? Even 22s? Semi pistols?

Thats all part of the conversation. Do you think it is a good conversation to have. Do you agree with the spirit of my argument or do you believe it is a moot point? I'm happy to engage further into it, just curious about where you stand on it.

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

Given it already is due to no automatically, yes. The problem is loose descriptions that can be applied to a revolver.

 

[iceberg]

It is working well in New York City.

Cities don't have walls, you should understand that. It's easy to get guns in and out.

then how do the laws stop criminals from getting guns?

show me laws that allow good people to keep their guns and bad people to be told NO in a manner they will accept and i'm in. but to date, just bitching and whining about guns.

what would you do?

To start we can better regulate these high capacity semi auto's. Make the vetting process much better for people to own those types of weapons. Will criminals still be able to get them? yes of course. Would it help save lives? Very likely. Why should a Yahoo, like this Texas church shooter be able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out carrying around a weapon capable of killings dozens of people in the matter of minutes? Do you think the same amount of people would have died if he would have had a pistol or a bolt action riffle or a shotgun?

You here of a semi-auto pistol? Shit for brains
Lol

Sure, why?

It’s obvious you have no understanding of the issue then

You are not talking issues, just trash.

 

[rightwinger]

Come on Barry you controlled both chambers and didn’t do a dang thing
I swear this guy has the IQ of my golf handicap

Obama Uses Texas Church Massacre To Call For Fewer Guns

Daily Caller. Your cult loves that non news site.
We need more semiautomatic weapons so we can have MORE mass killings.
Let’s shoot for one per week. That will make you idiots cream in your pants.

Ar15’s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less. Dip shit

Great for shooting small children and churchgoers

 

[rightwinger]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

 

[iceberg]

then how do the laws stop criminals from getting guns?

show me laws that allow good people to keep their guns and bad people to be told NO in a manner they will accept and i'm in. but to date, just bitching and whining about guns.

what would you do?

To start we can better regulate these high capacity semi auto's. Make the vetting process much better for people to own those types of weapons. Will criminals still be able to get them? yes of course. Would it help save lives? Very likely. Why should a Yahoo, like this Texas church shooter be able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out carrying around a weapon capable of killings dozens of people in the matter of minutes? Do you think the same amount of people would have died if he would have had a pistol or a bolt action riffle or a shotgun?

Great. Give me the specs to manage to. 30? 15? 10?

All semi auto or just the military style? Even 22s? Semi pistols?

Thats all part of the conversation. Do you think it is a good conversation to have. Do you agree with the spirit of my argument or do you believe it is a moot point? I'm happy to engage further into it, just curious about where you stand on it.

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

ok, waking up and work hasn't started yet. let me answer better.

we already regulate them so that question isn't really relevant. the question becomes how deeply we regulate them.

semi-auto. by definition this is a gun that will kick the bullet out of the chamber and move a new one into it after firing.

seems simple, only that definition applies to anything from a revolver to an AR-15 "style" weapon. a dual action revolver will reload and you just keep pulling the trigger. so we now range from said revolver, to handguns to ruger 22's to just about anything else "semi-automatic". the next point is usually "we're only after the military rifles!"

great. define something that applies to ONLY the military rifles in question.

good luck with that one.

collapsable stock? shotguns have 'em. hell you can get kits to put 'em on a 22. those banned too now in the "Crossfire" here? even then many AR-15 style rifles have full stocks so they'd not be included and now you have to define that vs. any other normal semi-auto rifle. now, other than the deadly looks, what makes an AR-15 different than a remington .308 semi-auto? capacity is the big one i suppose so we're back to that.

the biggest issue here is coming to an agreement on how you define what is to be regulated and how it is to be done. the trouble is, no one on the gun side trusts people on the "let's use common sense here" side. why?

people say you can't use the AR-15 for defense. then they don't say why not. seems perfect for it. good in tight quarters, accurate and if you're not used to guns, you get 30 tries per a mag. you can also accessorize the hell out of it and defend away. ask the guy who took out the church shooter what he used to do it.

green tipped ammo is armor piercing. we must ban it. these are simply training rounds, nothing more. but obama's gov went after these because he couldn't get the guns but he did it with a lie.

colorado senators want to ban high capacity magazines. when asked about the tons of them already in colorado she simply said once used they will no longer be an issue. so total lack of education even on what she is demanding. would you trust this person to be fair and reasonable in these discussions?

Manipulative Editing Reflects Poorly On Katie Couric, Gun Documentary
really, katie? you want people to listen and trust you and you pull shit like this?

WATCH: CNN Tries To Explain Bump Stocks With Animation, Fails Miserably
really, CNN? a bump stock makes the AR look like a horney teenager AND suddenly it has a rocket launcher on it? would you trust a media who does this far too often and every chance they get?

so you tell me - as long as the left is in a I DON'T CARE mentality, is "common sense" possible? as long as ANY admin is willing to flat out lie about bullets would you trust them to define things "loosely" and in good faith - of which you'd require in order to write up any form of regulation and get them to agree. would you agree they would limit these definitions of "no high capacity" to only 223's and .308s in military style rifles? you don't think they'd then go for the 22's out there next?

for the left, it's not about gun control, it's just about control. and as long as they don't care how they get it you can't meet in the middle to solve this issue and any $$$ spent to try *i* feel should be put into looking into our background checks and improving that system. not much no, but it's a start. then what when the military forgets to tag someone as "no" when it comes to rifles? we can't eliminate human error either but anything done would need due process to be a part of it.

and our last admin would have nothing to do with that.

Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

you tell me how you can be reasonable with a mindset that doesn't even care if you get due process.

once we figure out that THEN we can start trying to define any additional form of regulation on guns. any chance you see of that happening or will we have frigginweirdos out there demanding all people turn them in and everything is cool.

 

[Rustic]

Come on Barry you controlled both chambers and didn’t do a dang thing
I swear this guy has the IQ of my golf handicap

Obama Uses Texas Church Massacre To Call For Fewer Guns

Daily Caller. Your cult loves that non news site.
We need more semiautomatic weapons so we can have MORE mass killings.
Let’s shoot for one per week. That will make you idiots cream in your pants.

Ar15’s are sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less. Dip shit

Great for shooting small children and churchgoers

Na, They have no control over people

 

[Rustic]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

 

[Slade3200]

To start we can better regulate these high capacity semi auto's. Make the vetting process much better for people to own those types of weapons. Will criminals still be able to get them? yes of course. Would it help save lives? Very likely. Why should a Yahoo, like this Texas church shooter be able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out carrying around a weapon capable of killings dozens of people in the matter of minutes? Do you think the same amount of people would have died if he would have had a pistol or a bolt action riffle or a shotgun?

Great. Give me the specs to manage to. 30? 15? 10?

All semi auto or just the military style? Even 22s? Semi pistols?

Thats all part of the conversation. Do you think it is a good conversation to have. Do you agree with the spirit of my argument or do you believe it is a moot point? I'm happy to engage further into it, just curious about where you stand on it.

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

Given it already is due to no automatically, yes. The problem is loose descriptions that can be applied to a revolver.

Then let’s right up the definitions. If you can agree about the validity of restricting automatic weapons then you are agreeing that we should be restricting average people from having a certain level of firepower without further vetting/permitting. Let’s just nail down where that line is and which kind of weapons and accessories cross it.

I assume you also agree that violent criminals and people with certain kinds of mental problems shouldn’t be sold weapons. The solutions to that is beefing up our BG checks and databases.

I don’t think we are that far off if we are actually talking about the specific issues.

 

[Slade3200]

To start we can better regulate these high capacity semi auto's. Make the vetting process much better for people to own those types of weapons. Will criminals still be able to get them? yes of course. Would it help save lives? Very likely. Why should a Yahoo, like this Texas church shooter be able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out carrying around a weapon capable of killings dozens of people in the matter of minutes? Do you think the same amount of people would have died if he would have had a pistol or a bolt action riffle or a shotgun?

Great. Give me the specs to manage to. 30? 15? 10?

All semi auto or just the military style? Even 22s? Semi pistols?

Thats all part of the conversation. Do you think it is a good conversation to have. Do you agree with the spirit of my argument or do you believe it is a moot point? I'm happy to engage further into it, just curious about where you stand on it.

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

ok, waking up and work hasn't started yet. let me answer better.

we already regulate them so that question isn't really relevant. the question becomes how deeply we regulate them.

semi-auto. by definition this is a gun that will kick the bullet out of the chamber and move a new one into it after firing.

seems simple, only that definition applies to anything from a revolver to an AR-15 "style" weapon. a dual action revolver will reload and you just keep pulling the trigger. so we now range from said revolver, to handguns to ruger 22's to just about anything else "semi-automatic". the next point is usually "we're only after the military rifles!"

great. define something that applies to ONLY the military rifles in question.

good luck with that one.

collapsable stock? shotguns have 'em. hell you can get kits to put 'em on a 22. those banned too now in the "Crossfire" here? even then many AR-15 style rifles have full stocks so they'd not be included and now you have to define that vs. any other normal semi-auto rifle. now, other than the deadly looks, what makes an AR-15 different than a remington .308 semi-auto? capacity is the big one i suppose so we're back to that.

the biggest issue here is coming to an agreement on how you define what is to be regulated and how it is to be done. the trouble is, no one on the gun side trusts people on the "let's use common sense here" side. why?

people say you can't use the AR-15 for defense. then they don't say why not. seems perfect for it. good in tight quarters, accurate and if you're not used to guns, you get 30 tries per a mag. you can also accessorize the hell out of it and defend away. ask the guy who took out the church shooter what he used to do it.

green tipped ammo is armor piercing. we must ban it. these are simply training rounds, nothing more. but obama's gov went after these because he couldn't get the guns but he did it with a lie.

colorado senators want to ban high capacity magazines. when asked about the tons of them already in colorado she simply said once used they will no longer be an issue. so total lack of education even on what she is demanding. would you trust this person to be fair and reasonable in these discussions?

Manipulative Editing Reflects Poorly On Katie Couric, Gun Documentary
really, katie? you want people to listen and trust you and you pull shit like this?

WATCH: CNN Tries To Explain Bump Stocks With Animation, Fails Miserably
really, CNN? a bump stock makes the AR look like a horney teenager AND suddenly it has a rocket launcher on it? would you trust a media who does this far too often and every chance they get?

so you tell me - as long as the left is in a I DON'T CARE mentality, is "common sense" possible? as long as ANY admin is willing to flat out lie about bullets would you trust them to define things "loosely" and in good faith - of which you'd require in order to write up any form of regulation and get them to agree. would you agree they would limit these definitions of "no high capacity" to only 223's and .308s in military style rifles? you don't think they'd then go for the 22's out there next?

for the left, it's not about gun control, it's just about control. and as long as they don't care how they get it you can't meet in the middle to solve this issue and any $$$ spent to try *i* feel should be put into looking into our background checks and improving that system. not much no, but it's a start. then what when the military forgets to tag someone as "no" when it comes to rifles? we can't eliminate human error either but anything done would need due process to be a part of it.

and our last admin would have nothing to do with that.

Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

you tell me how you can be reasonable with a mindset that doesn't even care if you get due process.

once we figure out that THEN we can start trying to define any additional form of regulation on guns. any chance you see of that happening or will we have frigginweirdos out there demanding all people turn them in and everything is cool.

You make a very fair point which I haven't considered in this argument which is that you have a large group of people who don't own guns and don't know much about them speaking out against them and trying to legislate. Coming from an area of ignorance is never acceptable for ANY issue and unfortunately we have too many of those types in our media and leadership. With that said, Lets just break it down very simply.

If a guy who has a violent history such as the church shooter can just walk into Academy and buy a weapon that allowed him to walk into a church and shoot nearly 50 people. A semi-auto riffle capable of shooting 30 rounds without reload is a very dangerous thing and should not be a quick and easy purchase, imo, especially given the carnage similar weapons have produced in the past. Vegas, Pulse, Schools, and now this church all killing over 25 people in each instance. Its ok to look at these tragedies and ask what we can do better, without the immediate attack of politicizing. I think all of our hearts break for these people and I hope we all want to do better.

If he had a pair of six shooters and tried to do the same thing there would have been opportunity to get him during a reload or there could have been time to run away, or perhaps not as many would have been hit. Sure if he tried real hard be probably could have tracked down the same weapon on the black market. But if he was walking into Academy like he did to get his weapons and our restrictions would have been a little tighter then the same incident may have resulted in a few more people being alive today.

Like I said before, I think we are pretty close on this topic if we stick to specific issues. Of course there are some in the "gun" crew that want guns handed out to everybody, even those leaving the insane asylum and jails because it is a god given right... And there are those on the other side that want all guns banned and destroyed. We can't let the wingnuts hijack the conversation. We can't let the divisive rhetoric dominate the conversation. The Left will push for tighter regulations that the Right is comfortable with and the Right will not want to do nearly enough for the Left to be satisfied, that is the nature of our politics but it also allows for a system of checks and balance that can be good and useful if we were only able to negotiate, compromise, and debate in a respectful and honest way.

 

[Slade3200]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

 

[BluesLegend]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

Good grief...crazy insane nut jobs are going to obey your gun laws? The next nut job will just use a truck bomb and kill everyone.

 

[iceberg]

Great. Give me the specs to manage to. 30? 15? 10?

All semi auto or just the military style? Even 22s? Semi pistols?

Thats all part of the conversation. Do you think it is a good conversation to have. Do you agree with the spirit of my argument or do you believe it is a moot point? I'm happy to engage further into it, just curious about where you stand on it.

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

ok, waking up and work hasn't started yet. let me answer better.

we already regulate them so that question isn't really relevant. the question becomes how deeply we regulate them.

semi-auto. by definition this is a gun that will kick the bullet out of the chamber and move a new one into it after firing.

seems simple, only that definition applies to anything from a revolver to an AR-15 "style" weapon. a dual action revolver will reload and you just keep pulling the trigger. so we now range from said revolver, to handguns to ruger 22's to just about anything else "semi-automatic". the next point is usually "we're only after the military rifles!"

great. define something that applies to ONLY the military rifles in question.

good luck with that one.

collapsable stock? shotguns have 'em. hell you can get kits to put 'em on a 22. those banned too now in the "Crossfire" here? even then many AR-15 style rifles have full stocks so they'd not be included and now you have to define that vs. any other normal semi-auto rifle. now, other than the deadly looks, what makes an AR-15 different than a remington .308 semi-auto? capacity is the big one i suppose so we're back to that.

the biggest issue here is coming to an agreement on how you define what is to be regulated and how it is to be done. the trouble is, no one on the gun side trusts people on the "let's use common sense here" side. why?

people say you can't use the AR-15 for defense. then they don't say why not. seems perfect for it. good in tight quarters, accurate and if you're not used to guns, you get 30 tries per a mag. you can also accessorize the hell out of it and defend away. ask the guy who took out the church shooter what he used to do it.

green tipped ammo is armor piercing. we must ban it. these are simply training rounds, nothing more. but obama's gov went after these because he couldn't get the guns but he did it with a lie.

colorado senators want to ban high capacity magazines. when asked about the tons of them already in colorado she simply said once used they will no longer be an issue. so total lack of education even on what she is demanding. would you trust this person to be fair and reasonable in these discussions?

Manipulative Editing Reflects Poorly On Katie Couric, Gun Documentary
really, katie? you want people to listen and trust you and you pull shit like this?

WATCH: CNN Tries To Explain Bump Stocks With Animation, Fails Miserably
really, CNN? a bump stock makes the AR look like a horney teenager AND suddenly it has a rocket launcher on it? would you trust a media who does this far too often and every chance they get?

so you tell me - as long as the left is in a I DON'T CARE mentality, is "common sense" possible? as long as ANY admin is willing to flat out lie about bullets would you trust them to define things "loosely" and in good faith - of which you'd require in order to write up any form of regulation and get them to agree. would you agree they would limit these definitions of "no high capacity" to only 223's and .308s in military style rifles? you don't think they'd then go for the 22's out there next?

for the left, it's not about gun control, it's just about control. and as long as they don't care how they get it you can't meet in the middle to solve this issue and any $$$ spent to try *i* feel should be put into looking into our background checks and improving that system. not much no, but it's a start. then what when the military forgets to tag someone as "no" when it comes to rifles? we can't eliminate human error either but anything done would need due process to be a part of it.

and our last admin would have nothing to do with that.

Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

you tell me how you can be reasonable with a mindset that doesn't even care if you get due process.

once we figure out that THEN we can start trying to define any additional form of regulation on guns. any chance you see of that happening or will we have frigginweirdos out there demanding all people turn them in and everything is cool.

You make a very fair point which I haven't considered in this argument which is that you have a large group of people who don't own guns and don't know much about them speaking out against them and trying to legislate. Coming from an area of ignorance is never acceptable for ANY issue and unfortunately we have too many of those types in our media and leadership. With that said, Lets just break it down very simply.

If a guy who has a violent history such as the church shooter can just walk into Academy and buy a weapon that allowed him to walk into a church and shoot nearly 50 people. A semi-auto riffle capable of shooting 30 rounds without reload is a very dangerous thing and should not be a quick and easy purchase, imo, especially given the carnage similar weapons have produced in the past. Vegas, Pulse, Schools, and now this church all killing over 25 people in each instance. Its ok to look at these tragedies and ask what we can do better, without the immediate attack of politicizing. I think all of our hearts break for these people and I hope we all want to do better.

If he had a pair of six shooters and tried to do the same thing there would have been opportunity to get him during a reload or there could have been time to run away, or perhaps not as many would have been hit. Sure if he tried real hard be probably could have tracked down the same weapon on the black market. But if he was walking into Academy like he did to get his weapons and our restrictions would have been a little tighter then the same incident may have resulted in a few more people being alive today.

Like I said before, I think we are pretty close on this topic if we stick to specific issues. Of course there are some in the "gun" crew that want guns handed out to everybody, even those leaving the insane asylum and jails because it is a god given right... And there are those on the other side that want all guns banned and destroyed. We can't let the wingnuts hijack the conversation. We can't let the divisive rhetoric dominate the conversation. The Left will push for tighter regulations that the Right is comfortable with and the Right will not want to do nearly enough for the Left to be satisfied, that is the nature of our politics but it also allows for a system of checks and balance that can be good and useful if we were only able to negotiate, compromise, and debate in a respectful and honest way.

well defining what you are out to ban *is* the problem. no one will trust "the left" to stick to any definition anyway. give them some leeway they are not happy they made a difference, they're happy you caved in and they're going for more now. we can cite countless examples of this. i see no cause nor reason to think they would be any different here.

i made another LONG ASS POST about what i felt should be done. mass / comprehensive education for anyone on the committee to create gun laws and first, figure out what we have on the books that isn't working and pull them and recreate laws based on trying to better manage who can get guns. if you are not on this committee you can't run around making demands until you're qualified to do so.

then i said anyone wanting to own guns "moving forward" would need to go the CHL route with a saturday in class that is both a law review, legal responsibility, and range shooting. background check run and that alone is more comprehensive. anyone denied the right to buy a gun will have due process to tell them why and what would need to be done, if anything, to allow that.

things like felons or EVER committing a gun crime you are perma banned. can re-apply every decade or something but until we have painful laws it will continue. then again, these guys are willing to die when their rampage is over. would never buying a gun or life in jail stop them if they plan on dying there anyway?

anyway - once you have your "license" so to speak, you can then get whatever you want in accordance with that license. no checks and so forth. that will be done automatically on a yearly basis to ensure you've not disqualified yourself from buying guns.

but for ANY of this to work, the left needs to stop the lies about their desires for guns. you can't say "we don't want your guns but you can't have that one" and make arbitrary judgements on what guns someone can have based on their emo-thoughts of the day on them.

the sides simply do not trust each other enough to come to the table and talk, civilly or otherwise. given the left's lies and bullshit entrapment shit, i can't blame them for NOT wanting to talk with them about it. but they would be in the middle regardless and as long as we have people known to lie about guns and misrepresent them, gun owners simply won't budge.

in the end, if someone is willing to kill many people and die in the end of the act, what law is going to stop that? changing laws is at best, a band aid. we need to change our culture, not the guns.

 

[Slade3200]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

Good grief...crazy insane nut jobs are going to obey your gun laws? The next nut job will just use a truck bomb and kill everyone.

This is such a lazy argument, i'm getting tired of hearing it. Yes of course SOME people will go outside the law and still be able to get whatever weapon they want. But there are also people like the Pulse shooter, or the Vegas shooter, or the Church shooter, that walked into a sporting goods store and then walked out with a weapon that ended up being used to kill dozens of people. Had lesser firepower been the only thing available to them then they would likely had had less firepower and that would have created opportunity for less people to die. Get it??

 

[Rustic]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

A bomb would have been far more Destructive...
Your Monday morning quarterbacking is pointless, shit happens.

 

[Slade3200]

Thats all part of the conversation. Do you think it is a good conversation to have. Do you agree with the spirit of my argument or do you believe it is a moot point? I'm happy to engage further into it, just curious about where you stand on it.

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

ok, waking up and work hasn't started yet. let me answer better.

we already regulate them so that question isn't really relevant. the question becomes how deeply we regulate them.

semi-auto. by definition this is a gun that will kick the bullet out of the chamber and move a new one into it after firing.

seems simple, only that definition applies to anything from a revolver to an AR-15 "style" weapon. a dual action revolver will reload and you just keep pulling the trigger. so we now range from said revolver, to handguns to ruger 22's to just about anything else "semi-automatic". the next point is usually "we're only after the military rifles!"

great. define something that applies to ONLY the military rifles in question.

good luck with that one.

collapsable stock? shotguns have 'em. hell you can get kits to put 'em on a 22. those banned too now in the "Crossfire" here? even then many AR-15 style rifles have full stocks so they'd not be included and now you have to define that vs. any other normal semi-auto rifle. now, other than the deadly looks, what makes an AR-15 different than a remington .308 semi-auto? capacity is the big one i suppose so we're back to that.

the biggest issue here is coming to an agreement on how you define what is to be regulated and how it is to be done. the trouble is, no one on the gun side trusts people on the "let's use common sense here" side. why?

people say you can't use the AR-15 for defense. then they don't say why not. seems perfect for it. good in tight quarters, accurate and if you're not used to guns, you get 30 tries per a mag. you can also accessorize the hell out of it and defend away. ask the guy who took out the church shooter what he used to do it.

green tipped ammo is armor piercing. we must ban it. these are simply training rounds, nothing more. but obama's gov went after these because he couldn't get the guns but he did it with a lie.

colorado senators want to ban high capacity magazines. when asked about the tons of them already in colorado she simply said once used they will no longer be an issue. so total lack of education even on what she is demanding. would you trust this person to be fair and reasonable in these discussions?

Manipulative Editing Reflects Poorly On Katie Couric, Gun Documentary
really, katie? you want people to listen and trust you and you pull shit like this?

WATCH: CNN Tries To Explain Bump Stocks With Animation, Fails Miserably
really, CNN? a bump stock makes the AR look like a horney teenager AND suddenly it has a rocket launcher on it? would you trust a media who does this far too often and every chance they get?

so you tell me - as long as the left is in a I DON'T CARE mentality, is "common sense" possible? as long as ANY admin is willing to flat out lie about bullets would you trust them to define things "loosely" and in good faith - of which you'd require in order to write up any form of regulation and get them to agree. would you agree they would limit these definitions of "no high capacity" to only 223's and .308s in military style rifles? you don't think they'd then go for the 22's out there next?

for the left, it's not about gun control, it's just about control. and as long as they don't care how they get it you can't meet in the middle to solve this issue and any $$$ spent to try *i* feel should be put into looking into our background checks and improving that system. not much no, but it's a start. then what when the military forgets to tag someone as "no" when it comes to rifles? we can't eliminate human error either but anything done would need due process to be a part of it.

and our last admin would have nothing to do with that.

Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

you tell me how you can be reasonable with a mindset that doesn't even care if you get due process.

once we figure out that THEN we can start trying to define any additional form of regulation on guns. any chance you see of that happening or will we have frigginweirdos out there demanding all people turn them in and everything is cool.

You make a very fair point which I haven't considered in this argument which is that you have a large group of people who don't own guns and don't know much about them speaking out against them and trying to legislate. Coming from an area of ignorance is never acceptable for ANY issue and unfortunately we have too many of those types in our media and leadership. With that said, Lets just break it down very simply.

If a guy who has a violent history such as the church shooter can just walk into Academy and buy a weapon that allowed him to walk into a church and shoot nearly 50 people. A semi-auto riffle capable of shooting 30 rounds without reload is a very dangerous thing and should not be a quick and easy purchase, imo, especially given the carnage similar weapons have produced in the past. Vegas, Pulse, Schools, and now this church all killing over 25 people in each instance. Its ok to look at these tragedies and ask what we can do better, without the immediate attack of politicizing. I think all of our hearts break for these people and I hope we all want to do better.

If he had a pair of six shooters and tried to do the same thing there would have been opportunity to get him during a reload or there could have been time to run away, or perhaps not as many would have been hit. Sure if he tried real hard be probably could have tracked down the same weapon on the black market. But if he was walking into Academy like he did to get his weapons and our restrictions would have been a little tighter then the same incident may have resulted in a few more people being alive today.

Like I said before, I think we are pretty close on this topic if we stick to specific issues. Of course there are some in the "gun" crew that want guns handed out to everybody, even those leaving the insane asylum and jails because it is a god given right... And there are those on the other side that want all guns banned and destroyed. We can't let the wingnuts hijack the conversation. We can't let the divisive rhetoric dominate the conversation. The Left will push for tighter regulations that the Right is comfortable with and the Right will not want to do nearly enough for the Left to be satisfied, that is the nature of our politics but it also allows for a system of checks and balance that can be good and useful if we were only able to negotiate, compromise, and debate in a respectful and honest way.

well defining what you are out to ban *is* the problem. no one will trust "the left" to stick to any definition anyway. give them some leeway they are not happy they made a difference, they're happy you caved in and they're going for more now. we can cite countless examples of this. i see no cause nor reason to think they would be any different here.

i made another LONG ASS POST about what i felt should be done. mass / comprehensive education for anyone on the committee to create gun laws and first, figure out what we have on the books that isn't working and pull them and recreate laws based on trying to better manage who can get guns. if you are not on this committee you can't run around making demands until you're qualified to do so.

then i said anyone wanting to own guns "moving forward" would need to go the CHL route with a saturday in class that is both a law review, legal responsibility, and range shooting. background check run and that alone is more comprehensive. anyone denied the right to buy a gun will have due process to tell them why and what would need to be done, if anything, to allow that.

things like felons or EVER committing a gun crime you are perma banned. can re-apply every decade or something but until we have painful laws it will continue. then again, these guys are willing to die when their rampage is over. would never buying a gun or life in jail stop them if they plan on dying there anyway?

anyway - once you have your "license" so to speak, you can then get whatever you want in accordance with that license. no checks and so forth. that will be done automatically on a yearly basis to ensure you've not disqualified yourself from buying guns.

but for ANY of this to work, the left needs to stop the lies about their desires for guns. you can't say "we don't want your guns but you can't have that one" and make arbitrary judgements on what guns someone can have based on their emo-thoughts of the day on them.

the sides simply do not trust each other enough to come to the table and talk, civilly or otherwise. given the left's lies and bullshit entrapment shit, i can't blame them for NOT wanting to talk with them about it. but they would be in the middle regardless and as long as we have people known to lie about guns and misrepresent them, gun owners simply won't budge.

in the end, if someone is willing to kill many people and die in the end of the act, what law is going to stop that? changing laws is at best, a band aid. we need to change our culture, not the guns.

I think those are all good ideas and I'd support that approach. I'm not for banning all guns or taking guns away, but I think we can be way more responsible with how we handle them.

Like I said before, there will always be those on the Left that push for more, some even pushing to abolish the 2nd amendment. But there are many more that respect the second amendment, and its those people on the left that those on the Right should be working with. How great would it be if leadership from each side got together and came out with a BIPARTISAN plan on how to handle this stuff. One that members from both sides could get behind. That is how it is supposed to work.

 

[Slade3200]

When is it not political?

You can't bring it up after repeated massacres. If you bring it up a month later, Republicans have already forgotten.

When is the correct time for Republicans to talk gun legislation?

We are still waiting for Sandy Hook

You need to mind your own business, you know nothing of the issue. Dumbass

Well?

When is the proper time to discuss gun regulations?

It has been a month since Las Vegas.....are Republicans done with their thoughts and prayers yet?

Frivolous gun laws will not save a single person... fact

I don't know why i'm even starting with you but what the hell, i must be bored. Frivolous gun laws wouldn't save a single person you say. So play this out with me.... If the riffle that the church shooter used was restricted and he wasn't able to walk into Academy and purchase it like he did, if he instead had to purchase a weapon with less ammo capacity and less destructive power. Do you still think he would have shot and killed the same amount of people? You honestly don't think that there would have been opportunity for some to run away during a reload, or find a better hiding space, or tackle him, or maybe less shots would have been fired and less people would have died? You really can't admit to that?

A bomb would have been far more Destructive...
Your Monday morning quarterbacking is pointless, shit happens.

Good thing you can't walk into academy and buy a bomb huh? What kind of argument are you trying to make? How about you address the questions I asked you... Stop diverting

 

[iceberg]

Open to talk.

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

ok, waking up and work hasn't started yet. let me answer better.

we already regulate them so that question isn't really relevant. the question becomes how deeply we regulate them.

semi-auto. by definition this is a gun that will kick the bullet out of the chamber and move a new one into it after firing.

seems simple, only that definition applies to anything from a revolver to an AR-15 "style" weapon. a dual action revolver will reload and you just keep pulling the trigger. so we now range from said revolver, to handguns to ruger 22's to just about anything else "semi-automatic". the next point is usually "we're only after the military rifles!"

great. define something that applies to ONLY the military rifles in question.

good luck with that one.

collapsable stock? shotguns have 'em. hell you can get kits to put 'em on a 22. those banned too now in the "Crossfire" here? even then many AR-15 style rifles have full stocks so they'd not be included and now you have to define that vs. any other normal semi-auto rifle. now, other than the deadly looks, what makes an AR-15 different than a remington .308 semi-auto? capacity is the big one i suppose so we're back to that.

the biggest issue here is coming to an agreement on how you define what is to be regulated and how it is to be done. the trouble is, no one on the gun side trusts people on the "let's use common sense here" side. why?

people say you can't use the AR-15 for defense. then they don't say why not. seems perfect for it. good in tight quarters, accurate and if you're not used to guns, you get 30 tries per a mag. you can also accessorize the hell out of it and defend away. ask the guy who took out the church shooter what he used to do it.

green tipped ammo is armor piercing. we must ban it. these are simply training rounds, nothing more. but obama's gov went after these because he couldn't get the guns but he did it with a lie.

colorado senators want to ban high capacity magazines. when asked about the tons of them already in colorado she simply said once used they will no longer be an issue. so total lack of education even on what she is demanding. would you trust this person to be fair and reasonable in these discussions?

Manipulative Editing Reflects Poorly On Katie Couric, Gun Documentary
really, katie? you want people to listen and trust you and you pull shit like this?

WATCH: CNN Tries To Explain Bump Stocks With Animation, Fails Miserably
really, CNN? a bump stock makes the AR look like a horney teenager AND suddenly it has a rocket launcher on it? would you trust a media who does this far too often and every chance they get?

so you tell me - as long as the left is in a I DON'T CARE mentality, is "common sense" possible? as long as ANY admin is willing to flat out lie about bullets would you trust them to define things "loosely" and in good faith - of which you'd require in order to write up any form of regulation and get them to agree. would you agree they would limit these definitions of "no high capacity" to only 223's and .308s in military style rifles? you don't think they'd then go for the 22's out there next?

for the left, it's not about gun control, it's just about control. and as long as they don't care how they get it you can't meet in the middle to solve this issue and any $$$ spent to try *i* feel should be put into looking into our background checks and improving that system. not much no, but it's a start. then what when the military forgets to tag someone as "no" when it comes to rifles? we can't eliminate human error either but anything done would need due process to be a part of it.

and our last admin would have nothing to do with that.

Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

you tell me how you can be reasonable with a mindset that doesn't even care if you get due process.

once we figure out that THEN we can start trying to define any additional form of regulation on guns. any chance you see of that happening or will we have frigginweirdos out there demanding all people turn them in and everything is cool.

You make a very fair point which I haven't considered in this argument which is that you have a large group of people who don't own guns and don't know much about them speaking out against them and trying to legislate. Coming from an area of ignorance is never acceptable for ANY issue and unfortunately we have too many of those types in our media and leadership. With that said, Lets just break it down very simply.

If a guy who has a violent history such as the church shooter can just walk into Academy and buy a weapon that allowed him to walk into a church and shoot nearly 50 people. A semi-auto riffle capable of shooting 30 rounds without reload is a very dangerous thing and should not be a quick and easy purchase, imo, especially given the carnage similar weapons have produced in the past. Vegas, Pulse, Schools, and now this church all killing over 25 people in each instance. Its ok to look at these tragedies and ask what we can do better, without the immediate attack of politicizing. I think all of our hearts break for these people and I hope we all want to do better.

If he had a pair of six shooters and tried to do the same thing there would have been opportunity to get him during a reload or there could have been time to run away, or perhaps not as many would have been hit. Sure if he tried real hard be probably could have tracked down the same weapon on the black market. But if he was walking into Academy like he did to get his weapons and our restrictions would have been a little tighter then the same incident may have resulted in a few more people being alive today.

Like I said before, I think we are pretty close on this topic if we stick to specific issues. Of course there are some in the "gun" crew that want guns handed out to everybody, even those leaving the insane asylum and jails because it is a god given right... And there are those on the other side that want all guns banned and destroyed. We can't let the wingnuts hijack the conversation. We can't let the divisive rhetoric dominate the conversation. The Left will push for tighter regulations that the Right is comfortable with and the Right will not want to do nearly enough for the Left to be satisfied, that is the nature of our politics but it also allows for a system of checks and balance that can be good and useful if we were only able to negotiate, compromise, and debate in a respectful and honest way.

well defining what you are out to ban *is* the problem. no one will trust "the left" to stick to any definition anyway. give them some leeway they are not happy they made a difference, they're happy you caved in and they're going for more now. we can cite countless examples of this. i see no cause nor reason to think they would be any different here.

i made another LONG ASS POST about what i felt should be done. mass / comprehensive education for anyone on the committee to create gun laws and first, figure out what we have on the books that isn't working and pull them and recreate laws based on trying to better manage who can get guns. if you are not on this committee you can't run around making demands until you're qualified to do so.

then i said anyone wanting to own guns "moving forward" would need to go the CHL route with a saturday in class that is both a law review, legal responsibility, and range shooting. background check run and that alone is more comprehensive. anyone denied the right to buy a gun will have due process to tell them why and what would need to be done, if anything, to allow that.

things like felons or EVER committing a gun crime you are perma banned. can re-apply every decade or something but until we have painful laws it will continue. then again, these guys are willing to die when their rampage is over. would never buying a gun or life in jail stop them if they plan on dying there anyway?

anyway - once you have your "license" so to speak, you can then get whatever you want in accordance with that license. no checks and so forth. that will be done automatically on a yearly basis to ensure you've not disqualified yourself from buying guns.

but for ANY of this to work, the left needs to stop the lies about their desires for guns. you can't say "we don't want your guns but you can't have that one" and make arbitrary judgements on what guns someone can have based on their emo-thoughts of the day on them.

the sides simply do not trust each other enough to come to the table and talk, civilly or otherwise. given the left's lies and bullshit entrapment shit, i can't blame them for NOT wanting to talk with them about it. but they would be in the middle regardless and as long as we have people known to lie about guns and misrepresent them, gun owners simply won't budge.

in the end, if someone is willing to kill many people and die in the end of the act, what law is going to stop that? changing laws is at best, a band aid. we need to change our culture, not the guns.

I think those are all good ideas and I'd support that approach. I'm not for banning all guns or taking guns away, but I think we can be way more responsible with how we handle them.

Like I said before, there will always be those on the Left that push for more, some even pushing to abolish the 2nd amendment. But there are many more that respect the second amendment, and its those people on the left that those on the Right should be working with. How great would it be if leadership from each side got together and came out with a BIPARTISAN plan on how to handle this stuff. One that members from both sides could get behind. That is how it is supposed to work.

then the issue becomes:

get the idiots out of the room while adults figure this out.

they won't do that cause they don't see themselves as asking for anything wrong. they just see OPPORTUNITY and will dive in to make their own demands and derail things again.

 

[Slade3200]

Ha, you always are... so let’s start simple, do you think it’s appropriate to regulate the level of firepower contained in the weapons that are sold to our public?

ok, waking up and work hasn't started yet. let me answer better.

we already regulate them so that question isn't really relevant. the question becomes how deeply we regulate them.

semi-auto. by definition this is a gun that will kick the bullet out of the chamber and move a new one into it after firing.

seems simple, only that definition applies to anything from a revolver to an AR-15 "style" weapon. a dual action revolver will reload and you just keep pulling the trigger. so we now range from said revolver, to handguns to ruger 22's to just about anything else "semi-automatic". the next point is usually "we're only after the military rifles!"

great. define something that applies to ONLY the military rifles in question.

good luck with that one.

collapsable stock? shotguns have 'em. hell you can get kits to put 'em on a 22. those banned too now in the "Crossfire" here? even then many AR-15 style rifles have full stocks so they'd not be included and now you have to define that vs. any other normal semi-auto rifle. now, other than the deadly looks, what makes an AR-15 different than a remington .308 semi-auto? capacity is the big one i suppose so we're back to that.

the biggest issue here is coming to an agreement on how you define what is to be regulated and how it is to be done. the trouble is, no one on the gun side trusts people on the "let's use common sense here" side. why?

people say you can't use the AR-15 for defense. then they don't say why not. seems perfect for it. good in tight quarters, accurate and if you're not used to guns, you get 30 tries per a mag. you can also accessorize the hell out of it and defend away. ask the guy who took out the church shooter what he used to do it.

green tipped ammo is armor piercing. we must ban it. these are simply training rounds, nothing more. but obama's gov went after these because he couldn't get the guns but he did it with a lie.

colorado senators want to ban high capacity magazines. when asked about the tons of them already in colorado she simply said once used they will no longer be an issue. so total lack of education even on what she is demanding. would you trust this person to be fair and reasonable in these discussions?

Manipulative Editing Reflects Poorly On Katie Couric, Gun Documentary
really, katie? you want people to listen and trust you and you pull shit like this?

WATCH: CNN Tries To Explain Bump Stocks With Animation, Fails Miserably
really, CNN? a bump stock makes the AR look like a horney teenager AND suddenly it has a rocket launcher on it? would you trust a media who does this far too often and every chance they get?

so you tell me - as long as the left is in a I DON'T CARE mentality, is "common sense" possible? as long as ANY admin is willing to flat out lie about bullets would you trust them to define things "loosely" and in good faith - of which you'd require in order to write up any form of regulation and get them to agree. would you agree they would limit these definitions of "no high capacity" to only 223's and .308s in military style rifles? you don't think they'd then go for the 22's out there next?

for the left, it's not about gun control, it's just about control. and as long as they don't care how they get it you can't meet in the middle to solve this issue and any $$$ spent to try *i* feel should be put into looking into our background checks and improving that system. not much no, but it's a start. then what when the military forgets to tag someone as "no" when it comes to rifles? we can't eliminate human error either but anything done would need due process to be a part of it.

and our last admin would have nothing to do with that.

Pro-gun control senator: 'Due process is killing us right now'

you tell me how you can be reasonable with a mindset that doesn't even care if you get due process.

once we figure out that THEN we can start trying to define any additional form of regulation on guns. any chance you see of that happening or will we have frigginweirdos out there demanding all people turn them in and everything is cool.

You make a very fair point which I haven't considered in this argument which is that you have a large group of people who don't own guns and don't know much about them speaking out against them and trying to legislate. Coming from an area of ignorance is never acceptable for ANY issue and unfortunately we have too many of those types in our media and leadership. With that said, Lets just break it down very simply.

If a guy who has a violent history such as the church shooter can just walk into Academy and buy a weapon that allowed him to walk into a church and shoot nearly 50 people. A semi-auto riffle capable of shooting 30 rounds without reload is a very dangerous thing and should not be a quick and easy purchase, imo, especially given the carnage similar weapons have produced in the past. Vegas, Pulse, Schools, and now this church all killing over 25 people in each instance. Its ok to look at these tragedies and ask what we can do better, without the immediate attack of politicizing. I think all of our hearts break for these people and I hope we all want to do better.

If he had a pair of six shooters and tried to do the same thing there would have been opportunity to get him during a reload or there could have been time to run away, or perhaps not as many would have been hit. Sure if he tried real hard be probably could have tracked down the same weapon on the black market. But if he was walking into Academy like he did to get his weapons and our restrictions would have been a little tighter then the same incident may have resulted in a few more people being alive today.

Like I said before, I think we are pretty close on this topic if we stick to specific issues. Of course there are some in the "gun" crew that want guns handed out to everybody, even those leaving the insane asylum and jails because it is a god given right... And there are those on the other side that want all guns banned and destroyed. We can't let the wingnuts hijack the conversation. We can't let the divisive rhetoric dominate the conversation. The Left will push for tighter regulations that the Right is comfortable with and the Right will not want to do nearly enough for the Left to be satisfied, that is the nature of our politics but it also allows for a system of checks and balance that can be good and useful if we were only able to negotiate, compromise, and debate in a respectful and honest way.

well defining what you are out to ban *is* the problem. no one will trust "the left" to stick to any definition anyway. give them some leeway they are not happy they made a difference, they're happy you caved in and they're going for more now. we can cite countless examples of this. i see no cause nor reason to think they would be any different here.

i made another LONG ASS POST about what i felt should be done. mass / comprehensive education for anyone on the committee to create gun laws and first, figure out what we have on the books that isn't working and pull them and recreate laws based on trying to better manage who can get guns. if you are not on this committee you can't run around making demands until you're qualified to do so.

then i said anyone wanting to own guns "moving forward" would need to go the CHL route with a saturday in class that is both a law review, legal responsibility, and range shooting. background check run and that alone is more comprehensive. anyone denied the right to buy a gun will have due process to tell them why and what would need to be done, if anything, to allow that.

things like felons or EVER committing a gun crime you are perma banned. can re-apply every decade or something but until we have painful laws it will continue. then again, these guys are willing to die when their rampage is over. would never buying a gun or life in jail stop them if they plan on dying there anyway?

anyway - once you have your "license" so to speak, you can then get whatever you want in accordance with that license. no checks and so forth. that will be done automatically on a yearly basis to ensure you've not disqualified yourself from buying guns.

but for ANY of this to work, the left needs to stop the lies about their desires for guns. you can't say "we don't want your guns but you can't have that one" and make arbitrary judgements on what guns someone can have based on their emo-thoughts of the day on them.

the sides simply do not trust each other enough to come to the table and talk, civilly or otherwise. given the left's lies and bullshit entrapment shit, i can't blame them for NOT wanting to talk with them about it. but they would be in the middle regardless and as long as we have people known to lie about guns and misrepresent them, gun owners simply won't budge.

in the end, if someone is willing to kill many people and die in the end of the act, what law is going to stop that? changing laws is at best, a band aid. we need to change our culture, not the guns.

I think those are all good ideas and I'd support that approach. I'm not for banning all guns or taking guns away, but I think we can be way more responsible with how we handle them.

Like I said before, there will always be those on the Left that push for more, some even pushing to abolish the 2nd amendment. But there are many more that respect the second amendment, and its those people on the left that those on the Right should be working with. How great would it be if leadership from each side got together and came out with a BIPARTISAN plan on how to handle this stuff. One that members from both sides could get behind. That is how it is supposed to work.

then the issue becomes:

get the idiots out of the room while adults figure this out.

they won't do that cause they don't see themselves as asking for anything wrong. they just see OPPORTUNITY and will dive in to make their own demands and derail things again.

I agree, let the adults do the talking and shame those that lie, manipulate and derail the conversation by politicizing it. We should be able to respect gun owners and our second amendment rights while regulating safeguards that help limit the destructive power we allow people to legally obtain.

I know you are probably going to hate this but the solution that makes the most sense to me is instituting a registration system that is tied into the BG check system. Similar to how the DMV regulates drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. Of course the system must work much much better than the DMV... I hate that place!