Obama politicizes Texas shootings

[iceberg]

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!

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

 

[BluesLegend]

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??

You're getting tired of hearing common sense? Go ahead tell us how you plan to rid the country of 10's of millions of rifles and high capacity mags. Here have an eye roll Not only is your argument stupid, its dishonest.

 

[Slade3200]

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!

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

 

[jknowgood]

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

Yes, Obama didn't care.

 

[Slade3200]

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??

You're getting tired of hearing common sense? Go ahead tell us how you plan to rid the country of 10's of millions of rifles and high capacity mags. Here have an eye roll Not only is your argument stupid, its dishonest.

Its not common sense, it is a diversion and a lazy argument... I don't plan on ridding the country of 10's of millions of guns. I'd hope that we only sell those guns to responsible people and when we catch unlicensed people with those kind of weapons they are taken away and the owners are punished. Pretty simple.

 

[iceberg]

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!

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

 

[Slade3200]

View attachment 159149

Interesting... So do you think the Obama admin dropped the ball by letting this guy go free? You think he should be in jail?

 

[jknowgood]

View attachment 159149

Interesting... So do you think the Obama admin dropped the ball by letting this guy go free? You think he should be in jail?

By law yes.

 

[Slade3200]

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!

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

 

[iceberg]

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!

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

 

[Slade3200]

View attachment 159149

Interesting... So do you think the Obama admin dropped the ball by letting this guy go free? You think he should be in jail?

By law yes.

Sounds like your issue should be with the Judge, not the DOJ or Obama.... What do you think about this?
----
In giving probation with no jail time to a Milwaukee man charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them without a license, a federal judge delivered a message:

“People kill people,” U.S. District [Judge] Rudolph Randa said, echoing a common gun rights slogan. “Guns don’t kill people.”

Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.

As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.

According to the meme shown above, Mills’ plea bargain was negotiated by the Department of Justice (or in some versions, the Obama administration or President Obama himself). However, Mills’ sentence was seemingly light because he pleaded guilty to only one of the numerous charges against him, and the choice of giving Mills probation rather than jail time was not the result of instructions from the Justice Department (or higher) but rather the personal discretion of Judge Rudolph Randa (who was appointed as a federal district judge by President George H.W. Bush and has a history of making controversial decisions), based on his view of Mills’ contrition and likelihood of re-offending:

Randa said he recognized the seriousness of the offense and acknowledged the problem of guns winding up in the hands of people who use them to commit violence.

But Mills, Randa said, did not come across as a typical defendant because of his good behavior since the charges and his life ambitions, which include becoming a rap musician. While on bail, Mills twice traveled to Los Angeles to work on a film and to pursue his musical aspirations.

Randa said he had seen plenty of people facing similar charges who bought firearms for friends and then took no responsibility for their actions. Mills, he said, has accepted responsibility.
----
FACT CHECK: Barack Obama Plea Bargained Dontray Mills

 

[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

Yes, Obama didn't care.
View attachment 159149

Not quite

FACT CHECK: Barack Obama Plea Bargained Dontray Mills

 

[Slade3200]

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!

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

Its too bad... You had some good ideas, which i'm happy to further discuss, but the thing is I agree with most of them. I brought up registration and it seems that you fell away from talking about the specific issue and are now focused on the Slippery slope or the fact that it is a deal breaker. Well lets talk about why the actual idea of registration is bad! I don't have an ulterior motive to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I just want to make the system better.

You are very pointed at the Left calling them liars with ulterior motives, but think about it from the other side. If you are trying to have a debate and talk about real solutions and the other side keeps avoiding your ideas by using the "Slippery Slope" argument and accusing your solutions as instruments towards a greater goal of disarmament... Then how is anything ever going to get done? You have to be able to see how that tactic is contributing to the ineffective dialogue as well... It is happening right now between you and I!

 

[iceberg]

doesn't matter what i hate - you put that on the table and the gun owners will walk instantly. the only commentary you may get is that the right to "drive" isn't in the constitution so not a comparison. you'll need a 3 level deep answer for that to even play in this part of the playground.

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

Its too bad... You had some good ideas, which i'm happy to further discuss, but the thing is I agree with most of them. I brought up registration and it seems that you fell away from talking about the specific issue and are now focused on the Slippery slope or the fact that it is a deal breaker. Well lets talk about why the actual idea of registration is bad! I don't have an ulterior motive to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I just want to make the system better.

You are very pointed at the Left calling them liars with ulterior motives, but think about it from the other side. If you are trying to have a debate and talk about real solutions and the other side keeps avoiding your ideas by using the "Slippery Slope" argument and accusing your solutions as instruments towards a greater goal of disarmament... Then how is anything ever going to get done? You have to be able to see how that tactic is contributing to the ineffective dialogue as well... It is happening right now between you and I!

i point at the left because the conversation you and i are having right now - well they are far and few between, unfortunately. it goes straight to BATTLE TIME instantly usually. do i care if i have to register my guns to the local police? not at all. federal? maybe, but if that's what we as a country decide to do, great.

and when i call *them* liars with ulterior motives, i'm talking specifically about obama, couric and clinton and many others. people mouthing off in here have no more say than you or i in this so they can be ignored. unfortunately they are the mouthpieces for this part of the left.

now, while *i* may not care if we end up having to register guns, i'm rare for a gun owner. at least in the bulk of who i have talked to. they don't want change and are happy with it the way it is. but given more and more violence happening, *something* is going to have to give.

if you want to dive into a debate on registering guns - then i'll ask you - would that stop many of the guns crimes? if yes, how? if not, why bring it up?

the goal to me is to lower gun violence. ending it completely is a fools errand and only an idiot would say that is their goal.

the most recent shooter - what action could have taken place in this to be alerted he had guns. would registering guns have stopped him from doing what he did? i don't think so because he was able to buy guns to begin with. what are you going to do with the registry - that will be a huge key in even bringing it up. he never should have been able to buy the guns but the military left a few things off his record. i smell lawsuit soon.

so
- what would we do with a list of gun owners and the guns they own? who is to control this list? in your car example i don't think the gov has the VIN to my car but the dealership and warranty company do.
- how would having this list have stopped any of the past 5 mass shootings?

we can't create a new system because this one sucks w/o ensuring we identify the goals of the changes and stick to it. if it is to lessen gun crime, how will registering guns accomplish that? it may stop some of the basic family stuff but if someone wants to shoot up a crowd, they will find a gun and breaking any law you put in their way, well that won't stop them.

and i know if you put this on the table the gun crowd will get up and leave. has nothing to do with how *i* feel about it but the reaction you'll get. you instantly turn away the very people needed to facilitate these changes. again, i don't care. register and put it somewhere safe. viola.

but they do and they have far less trust or apathy than i do. talked to too many who flat out say they leave if this is part of any changes at all.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

 

[Slade3200]

Well the shitty thing about it is the registration issue actually totally make sense on a regulation and responsibility front. The fear tactic and talking point that "Registration is the first step to disarming" the whole slippery slope argument is what is blocking a rational conversation from happening, and thats all part of the political garbage that we have been talking about.

Without the slippery slope argument, what issues do you have with a registration system?

biggest issue i have is it will stop any form of dialog between the 2 parties. like i say, tell them that is your goal and the conversations end.

the first step is going to have to be a small one of faith. today we can't even do that. when you consider that again there is a segment, and we just had one of that crowd leave the white house, that will lie to control, why should i trust them to help me resolve a common issue?

I'm just looking at a problem and providing thoughts for solutions that make the most sense to me. I'm not big on politics, the actions of both parties make me sick much of the time. I'm a business and systems guy. Identify a problem and work on direct solutions. From that approach registration makes the most sense, and I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment. The only people who should be against registration are those that know they wouldn't qualify to own a gun because of their history. I think if you are going to make the claim that you only want responsible people to own and/or carry guns then you should think really hard about why you wouldn't support registration.

i provided my long detailed analysis on how i thought a compromise would work and it was torn up. the *fear* (earned by the lies of the left) of asking for 1 change then forcing 10 will keep any positive discussion at bay. you can i can talk and it's great but the odds of it ever seeing the light of day are remote at best. the left will push for stupidity and the right will walk away and say "2nd amendment" and be done.

Its too bad... You had some good ideas, which i'm happy to further discuss, but the thing is I agree with most of them. I brought up registration and it seems that you fell away from talking about the specific issue and are now focused on the Slippery slope or the fact that it is a deal breaker. Well lets talk about why the actual idea of registration is bad! I don't have an ulterior motive to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I just want to make the system better.

You are very pointed at the Left calling them liars with ulterior motives, but think about it from the other side. If you are trying to have a debate and talk about real solutions and the other side keeps avoiding your ideas by using the "Slippery Slope" argument and accusing your solutions as instruments towards a greater goal of disarmament... Then how is anything ever going to get done? You have to be able to see how that tactic is contributing to the ineffective dialogue as well... It is happening right now between you and I!

i point at the left because the conversation you and i are having right now - well they are far and few between, unfortunately. it goes straight to BATTLE TIME instantly usually. do i care if i have to register my guns to the local police? not at all. federal? maybe, but if that's what we as a country decide to do, great.

and when i call *them* liars with ulterior motives, i'm talking specifically about obama, couric and clinton and many others. people mouthing off in here have no more say than you or i in this so they can be ignored. unfortunately they are the mouthpieces for this part of the left.

now, while *i* may not care if we end up having to register guns, i'm rare for a gun owner. at least in the bulk of who i have talked to. they don't want change and are happy with it the way it is. but given more and more violence happening, *something* is going to have to give.

if you want to dive into a debate on registering guns - then i'll ask you - would that stop many of the guns crimes? if yes, how? if not, why bring it up?

the goal to me is to lower gun violence. ending it completely is a fools errand and only an idiot would say that is their goal.

the most recent shooter - what action could have taken place in this to be alerted he had guns. would registering guns have stopped him from doing what he did? i don't think so because he was able to buy guns to begin with. what are you going to do with the registry - that will be a huge key in even bringing it up. he never should have been able to buy the guns but the military left a few things off his record. i smell lawsuit soon.

so
- what would we do with a list of gun owners and the guns they own? who is to control this list? in your car example i don't think the gov has the VIN to my car but the dealership and warranty company do.
- how would having this list have stopped any of the past 5 mass shootings?

we can't create a new system because this one sucks w/o ensuring we identify the goals of the changes and stick to it. if it is to lessen gun crime, how will registering guns accomplish that? it may stop some of the basic family stuff but if someone wants to shoot up a crowd, they will find a gun and breaking any law you put in their way, well that won't stop them.

and i know if you put this on the table the gun crowd will get up and leave. has nothing to do with how *i* feel about it but the reaction you'll get. you instantly turn away the very people needed to facilitate these changes. again, i don't care. register and put it somewhere safe. viola.

but they do and they have far less trust or apathy than i do. talked to too many who flat out say they leave if this is part of any changes at all.

All good questions and valid concerns. I'm glad we are getting past the generalized talking points and digging into details. One thing I respect about having discussions with you.

To me a registration is the easiest way of tracking and enforcing who has which weapons. If I am going to sell a gun to a friend or neighbor then I do a transfer of ownership like I do with a car. I'd love to see a quick and easy system that can be done online or at local gun shops as creating another "DMV" seems too extreme and expensive.

If there is a registry and somebody is involved in domestic violence or assault or any other crime that would disqualify them from owning certain types of weapons then it makes it much easier for law enforcement to confiscate the weapons. If an unregistered gun is found on a person who shouldn't have it then it is taken away, we already have conceal and carry laws and permit laws in many cities based on these ideas.

The goal you ask about, is to make our system more conducive towards responsible people owning guns and taking guns away / or blocking the legal sale of weapons to those who are not responsible (criminals/mentally ill). I'd think this would be a common goal no matter the ideology.

Per your question about whether registration would have prevented the recent church shooting. No, I don't think any law is going to eradicate gun violence or mass shootings. If somebody has a mental breakdown and decides to go kill a bunch of people and they don't have a gun or can't easily go buy one then maybe they use their car/or truck or a knife to try and take people out, either way violence is likely going to happen. All scenarios are tragic and unfortunate but I'd rather try and dodge a truck or a knife than a bullet or a spray of bullets, wouldn't you? I'd rather face a guy with a 6 shooter over a guy with a semi-auto carrying 30 round magazines. wouldn't you?

Now on the flip side I can bring some ideas to further the ones that you brought up. I don't want to put too much in one post so I'll let you respond to these comments and then we can move on to some others if you'd like.

 

[Slade3200]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Fair ideas, I would push back a little on the "more armed citizens" argument and say that I would agree if those citizens are good responsible people. I'm all for that. I feel much safer when there is an armed police officer or security guard around. Now, just arming more citizens is a different story. I go out all the time and run into complete dipshits. Go out to restaurants and bars and see guys talking shit and trying to get in fights all the time. I think damn, if these guys were armed what would it take for them to freak out and pull their piece? How many more shots of booze till they wake up tomorrow with no memory of what they did last night? That is a real concern.

As for the mass shootings, I don't think those guys are going to be detoured by other people being armed. Most go into it knowing they are going to die. Most even are the ones that take their own life. The only thing that is going to effect SOME mass shootings is limiting their access to weapons and firepower as much as possible. The ones who are adamant in their planning will likely get whatever weapon they want but those who act on impulse may just go at it with a weaker arsenal and less firepower.

I did push back on a few of your ideas but for the most part I agree with your post and commend you for making it and not just sticking to the party line talking points

 

[rightwinger]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Texas is the most armed state in the union

Why do they have so many massacres?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Texas is the most armed state in the union

Why do they have so many massacres?

Look at the difference between your post and Slade's, and look at the difference in how I'm going to respond to him. Then try again.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Obama didn't say anything in particular about gun control here.

"“We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover,” Obama wrote on Twitter. “May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”"

For the record I'm a Trump supporter and believe that more armed citizens would virtually eliminate mass shootings by discouraging them and nipping them in bud (like in Texas) when they actually commence.

The concrete step that I advocate is more guns based on the Texas shooting and Oregon Mall (attempted) mass shooting that were both impeded by private gun owning citizens.

Also, although I do not agree with a national gun registry, as that provides an easy list for future confiscation, I do agree with a national background database that prevent mentally disturbed fucks (like this texas shooter) from gaining access to weapons to begin with. Although such a database can not prevent all these attacks, it too would greatly reduce them, just as more armed citizens would.

Fair ideas, I would push back a little on the "more armed citizens" argument and say that I would agree if those citizens are good responsible people. I'm all for that. I feel much safer when there is an armed police officer or security guard around. Now, just arming more citizens is a different story. I go out all the time and run into complete dipshits. Go out to restaurants and bars and see guys talking shit and trying to get in fights all the time. I think damn, if these guys were armed what would it take for them to freak out and pull their piece? How many more shots of booze till they wake up tomorrow with no memory of what they did last night? That is a real concern.

As for the mass shootings, I don't think those guys are going to be detoured by other people being armed. Most go into it knowing they are going to die. Most even are the ones that take their own life. The only thing that is going to effect SOME mass shootings is limiting their access to weapons and firepower as much as possible. The ones who are adamant in their planning will likely get whatever weapon they want but those who act on impulse may just go at it with a weaker arsenal and less firepower.

I did push back on a few of your ideas but for the most part I agree with your post and commend you for making it and not just sticking to the party line talking points

The presence of armed law enforcement and security most definitely deters mass shooting. This is why you don't see mass murder in NYC and Boston being committed by gunmen, but by truck drivers and bombers. The ability of law enforcement to rapidly neutralize a gunman in an urban environment and shut them down prevents these shooters from getting their 15 minutes of national infamy, and thus they do not use guns to commit mass murder in urban enivronements.

The same can not be said of rural and suburban communites, where the police are 10-60 minutes away in their ability to respond (to no fault of their own), and thus only an armed citizenry can deter these gunmen. The gunmen rely on not being neutralized by another gunman in order to kill as many as possible to achieve their 15 minutes of media infamy (in most cases 24/7 media infamy if they manage to kill more than 10).