This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right wing itself is by far the biggest threat to the 2nd, with their policy of no regulations on Firearms. That above anything else will get it dumped because people who have brains knows that guns have to be regulated and will get in power and do just that, to shut stupid remarks from the Gun Bubbas.

So, the policy of no regulation is a greater threat to the no-regulation language of the 2A than the gun grabbers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

No, my only point is that the United States spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we are only mediocre in results to show for it.

So tell me, where is this lack of education you speak of? Because if you took an entire school of low income kids, sent them to a suburban school, and did the reverse with the suburban school kids, you wouldn't see much of a change.

It's less the education than it is the people there for the education. When our suburb was white, we had the highest performance results in the county, now that it's black, we have one of the lowest.

So what changed? What changed is the family structure. The school buildings are not the same, in fact, we built all new schools several years ago. Our teachers are still paid well. Every levy passes. It's not the educational system.

Like I said, families play a part, but you can’t legislate the ways families act. We can improve our education and community programs, those also play a role.

And what do you mean by "improve" our education? Such as what????

If you mean keep throwing more money at the problem, that's been a proven failure.

We've seen this huge public push (mostly by the Democrats) to stop bullying, to accept gays, to stop smoking, stop taking drugs, to eat more healthy, yet we've never seen any push by the Democrats that promote the family unit; to stress the importance of a two-parent family.

Correct, we cannot force personal decisions on people, but we can constantly remind people of the failures single-parent families experience all the time. Because if we can make improvements there, it will do ten times more good than improving community programs or throwing more money into schools.

The government should provide free reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver" to every school in the nation, and require testing of students as to whether or not Harriet should serve chocolate, or vanilla ice cream after dinner, and whether or not June should vacuum in high heels or flats.

Correct, because Ozzie and Harriet was such a bad example for our kids. No wonder they were so wild back then.

Hey! I got a local video today of a high-speed police chase with a 10 year old kid that stole a car. Do you think there are any episodes of that on Ozzie?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

 

[Vandalshandle]

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

No, my only point is that the United States spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we are only mediocre in results to show for it.

So tell me, where is this lack of education you speak of? Because if you took an entire school of low income kids, sent them to a suburban school, and did the reverse with the suburban school kids, you wouldn't see much of a change.

It's less the education than it is the people there for the education. When our suburb was white, we had the highest performance results in the county, now that it's black, we have one of the lowest.

So what changed? What changed is the family structure. The school buildings are not the same, in fact, we built all new schools several years ago. Our teachers are still paid well. Every levy passes. It's not the educational system.

Like I said, families play a part, but you can’t legislate the ways families act. We can improve our education and community programs, those also play a role.

And what do you mean by "improve" our education? Such as what????

If you mean keep throwing more money at the problem, that's been a proven failure.

We've seen this huge public push (mostly by the Democrats) to stop bullying, to accept gays, to stop smoking, stop taking drugs, to eat more healthy, yet we've never seen any push by the Democrats that promote the family unit; to stress the importance of a two-parent family.

Correct, we cannot force personal decisions on people, but we can constantly remind people of the failures single-parent families experience all the time. Because if we can make improvements there, it will do ten times more good than improving community programs or throwing more money into schools.

The government should provide free reruns of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver" to every school in the nation, and require testing of students as to whether or not Harriet should serve chocolate, or vanilla ice cream after dinner, and whether or not June should vacuum in high heels or flats.

Correct, because Ozzie and Harriet was such a bad example for our kids. No wonder they were so wild back then.

Hey! I got a local video today of a high-speed police chase with a 10 year old kid that stole a car. Do you think there are any episodes of that on Ozzie?

And those shows were so realistic, too!!

But, while we are on the subject, the REAL Ozzie was a tyrant and workaholic, who was so controlling of his family that Ricki was never allowed by Ozzie to make a public appearance as a singer as long as he appeared on Ozzie's show. Ricki was a druggy by the time he was 23, and was unable to hold his own wife and kids together in real life. Their divorce was especially messy, and involved trickle down grief to ozzie's grandkids. as for ozzie, he worked himself to death, writing, producing, directing, and starring in the show. Harriett was not allowed to play any significant role in the show, other than ask if the family wanted ice cream after dinner. David bailed out as soon as he was old enough to escape. Ricki got his first piece of ass in a French whorehouse when he was 15 or 16.

 

[2aguy]

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

like i said - top down changes of things. and how is getting a CHL type permit taking away your right? you can get as many guns as you want, this is just a way to do background checks and if you don't pass, make sure you know why and can work through it.

we can't keep things the way they are and standard MY RIGHT isn't going to keep flying very well in the face of such abuse by people who shouldn't be having guns in the first place. you can either create a better system that still provides said rights and also ensures those utilizing those rights are not a danger to others, as best we can.

like i said - a lot of people bitch, but so few even TRY to offer solutions or a better way. you gonna just bitch at this, or help think of a better way than we have today?

or - are you ok with how things are today?

Requiring training or a fee is essentially the same thing as "literacy test," and a "poll tax" for voting......that is why it is wrong. You can essentially increase the training requirements to the point only the rich can afford the time and money to get through them...this is what they do in Europe for the hunting shotguns they let the rich people use....

My solution...if you commit a crime with a gun, rape, robbery or murder...you go to prison for 30 years. For the use of the gun, then you add in the time for the other crime.

If you are a violent felon...and you are caught with an illegal gun..again, you go to prison for 30 years.

This is the thing between my solution and yours.....my solution works, and is targeted at actual criminals, and on top of that, notice how much less paperwork, time and money is put on law abiding gun owners?

 

[2aguy]

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

I noticed you didn't post the actual list of most dangerous states : from the FBI STATS you love.


10- Arkansas
Florida
Maryland
Delaware
South Carolina
Louisiana
Tennessee
Nevada
New Mexico
1- Alaska .

All gun nut states , except for Maryland .

The Most Dangerous States in America

Hmmm - 8 red states and a couple of purples. Tells me that Goobers perhaps should not own guns.

Wrong....the cities in those Red states are run by democrats.....that is the issue. They let violent criminals back on the streets and attack police....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

like i said - top down changes of things. and how is getting a CHL type permit taking away your right? you can get as many guns as you want, this is just a way to do background checks and if you don't pass, make sure you know why and can work through it.

we can't keep things the way they are and standard MY RIGHT isn't going to keep flying very well in the face of such abuse by people who shouldn't be having guns in the first place. you can either create a better system that still provides said rights and also ensures those utilizing those rights are not a danger to others, as best we can.

like i said - a lot of people bitch, but so few even TRY to offer solutions or a better way. you gonna just bitch at this, or help think of a better way than we have today?

or - are you ok with how things are today?

Requiring training or a fee is essentially the same thing as "literacy test," and a "poll tax" for voting......that is why it is wrong. You can essentially increase the training requirements to the point only the rich can afford the time and money to get through them...this is what they do in Europe for the hunting shotguns they let the rich people use....

My solution...if you commit a crime with a gun, rape, robbery or murder...you go to prison for 30 years. For the use of the gun, then you add in the time for the other crime.

If you are a violent felon...and you are caught with an illegal gun..again, you go to prison for 30 years.

This is the thing between my solution and yours.....my solution works, and is targeted at actual criminals, and on top of that, notice how much less paperwork, time and money is put on law abiding gun owners?

Florida has 10-20-Life. It works!

10-20-Life - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

And yet poor white people are only responsible for 5 percent of crime. Probably less.

Liar !

Seriously , you righties are so disingenuous. Wyo has 5 people per square mile . No one lives there!

Another one who agrees it's not the guns fault. Thanks for playing.

Right . It's the easy access that's the problem. Gun control states still have guns . There's just better vetting that keeps them out of bad guys hands .

Is that so? And what states would you be talking about here?

I believe the toughest gun laws are in. Mass , NY,Cali, conn , Hawaii .

I believe gun incidents would be higher, without them.

 

[2aguy]

And yet you still incorrectly think you have a right to drive a car on publicly owned roads.

where did i say this?

Cut the shit.

You just wrote this

you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

did i say where? but then again if on private land no i don't need a license so that wouldn't work either.

before we start wordsmtihing around, no. the "right" to drive a car, fly in a plane, and may other things also *NOT* specified in the constitution are still rights we share by paying taxes on these services.

if you are *only* going to say the rights spelled out in the constitution are all we have great. we can get literal there as well and pretend that we still live in 1776 and only go by what was said at the time.

wanna go there next?

Words mean things.

Most people know this already.

So no you do not have a right to drive. You do not have the right to do many things you are simply permitted to do them if you meet certain requirements and your ability to to any of those things can be taken away from you at any time for any reason.

so again - shall we use only the constitution as it sits now, and with the environment of 1776, to determine what rights we enjoy today.

yes words mean something but don't expect me to get literal when it suits you then vague at the same time. define your criteria and let's go. if your criteria is "changing to suit the situation" then i don't see a point in playing anymore.

No...but there is a process to change the Constitution.....you can add or subtract Rights using that method.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong....the cities in those Red states are run by democrats.....that is the issue. They let violent criminals back on the streets and attack police....

Funny you should make that comment today. Last night one of our Cleveland police officers who was woking security for a store was mugged for her gun. They still can't find the two guys that attacked her and stole her gun.

 

[2aguy]

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

The only thing we need to do is put gun criminals...actual gun criminals....in jail for 30 years....and violent felons caught with guns should go away for 30 years too.....that is how you solve the actual problem...without bothering law abiding people.

 

[2aguy]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

WhaView attachment 156862 t I get a kick out of is your using this one example to prove a point , so I'll use one example that is by far more powerful then yours to explain what happens with guns around

Yeah nice photo.....where did you get it...Everytown for gun confiscation?

Here ....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

 

[2aguy]

The right wing itself is by far the biggest threat to the 2nd, with their policy of no regulations on Firearms. That above anything else will get it dumped because people who have brains knows that guns have to be regulated and will get in power and do just that, to shut stupid remarks from the Gun Bubbas.

What do you mean? No regulations on firearms...there are close to 20-40,000 regulations on guns in this country...what we don't have is a justice system that will keep violent gun offenders in jail for 30 years....

 

[danielpalos]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

This a a joke, right? What is the punch line? It is also a fact that fewer ocean going boats sink in Wyoming than in the coastal waters of California?

Except your analogy doesn't hold water.....both California and Wyoming have access to guns...and the core belief of you anti gun extremists is that more guns = more gun crime....Wyoming has more guns, so no matter their population number, their people should be shooting each other more than those in California....

As the last 21 years has shown, your core belief is wrong....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

How many new gun laws since then?

Are we on the other side of the Laffer Curve; of course lowering gun use helps Commerce just like lowering taxes helps our economy!

Lower taxes and lower the amount of available guns!

 

[jon_berzerk]

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

I can check out a book with a library card but that is they know I will return the book. I am not borrowing a gun.

Yes, they tested me to drive when I was 16 and haven't tested me since.

As I said before, I like it the way it is now. Change for change's sake is nonsense.

except that if we keep going the way we are, we may not have a choice in the matter. and if you let your license expire yes, you will be tested again. forgive me that some analogies don't become all encompassing.

like i said, i'm 100% against more laws. we know they do nothing to stop the crime. but i'm not for sitting around waiting for people to get tired of killing each other. this is a potential option, not an end all be all and certainly i've never said WE MUST DO THIS. it's just an idea to try and address what does happen to be a problem, whether you like it or not.

in the end we do need to overhaul the background check system at a minimum. i'd also love to see education become a part of the process but no, i can't force that. no one *should* be able to. but then what?

i miss the times you could carry a shotgun on a rack in the back window of your truck and no one looked twice. something changed along the way and doing nothing is becoming less and less of an option despite many people wanting just that.

The only thing we need to do is put gun criminals...actual gun criminals....in jail for 30 years....and violent felons caught with guns should go away for 30 years too.....that is how you solve the actual problem...without bothering law abiding people.

violent felons caught with guns should go away for 30 years

violent criminals period should be put away for 30 years

with or without the use of a firearm

violent criminals are violent no matter what

 

[iceberg]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

 

[iceberg]

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

like i said - top down changes of things. and how is getting a CHL type permit taking away your right? you can get as many guns as you want, this is just a way to do background checks and if you don't pass, make sure you know why and can work through it.

we can't keep things the way they are and standard MY RIGHT isn't going to keep flying very well in the face of such abuse by people who shouldn't be having guns in the first place. you can either create a better system that still provides said rights and also ensures those utilizing those rights are not a danger to others, as best we can.

like i said - a lot of people bitch, but so few even TRY to offer solutions or a better way. you gonna just bitch at this, or help think of a better way than we have today?

or - are you ok with how things are today?

Requiring training or a fee is essentially the same thing as "literacy test," and a "poll tax" for voting......that is why it is wrong. You can essentially increase the training requirements to the point only the rich can afford the time and money to get through them...this is what they do in Europe for the hunting shotguns they let the rich people use....

My solution...if you commit a crime with a gun, rape, robbery or murder...you go to prison for 30 years. For the use of the gun, then you add in the time for the other crime.

If you are a violent felon...and you are caught with an illegal gun..again, you go to prison for 30 years.

This is the thing between my solution and yours.....my solution works, and is targeted at actual criminals, and on top of that, notice how much less paperwork, time and money is put on law abiding gun owners?

except i never said you had to pass the test. i never said there would be a test. i just said you had to take training.

and what you are saying in being harder on gun crimes is a HUGE part of what i'd love to see changed. we dont need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have and work on the punishment so they don't keep doing it.

 

[2aguy]

i do think the background check system needs an enema and nothing should be done w/o due process as well.
i also believe that the ones passing these laws should be qualified to do so.

What's wrong with our background check system as it is now?

cause all i have to do is answer no to all but 1 question here in texas so no idea what that's about. then they run my SS# - just what are they looking for?

why are people opposed to looking into how we do background checks?

The main reason is the call for universal background checks...the anti gunners want that so bad they can taste it...why? Because it would give them the excuse they need to demand gun registration..which is what they really want. Then, once they have gun registration, when they get enough political power, they will be able to ban and cofiscate any type of gun they want...

 

[iceberg]

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

can you check out a book w/o a permit?
as a responsible gun owner, would you just tell people to go buy what they want w/o any education or validation?

pretty sure you've got a license for the right to drive that car.

and last i saw, no one has ever killed 60 people and wounded 500 by shouting at them with words.

like i said - offer some solutions or better ways.

They have murdered 89 people and wounded 450 with a rental truck.....which only required a french drivers license and some cash.....

A license is a Literacy Test on the Right to self defense, and any fee to own or carry a gun is the equivalent of a Poll Tax....and both of those were unConstitutional for voting...and should be ruled the same for the 2nd Amendment.

and this would be why it will never change.

people are not even open to it.

now all the PRO GUN people think i'm out to get guns.