New methods have to be adopted, the paradigm must change.
So then you agree with liberals.....and there's only one group refusing new methods.
Please.... Enlighten us. Exactly what NEW methods and ideas is the Left offering up?
Please.... Enlighten us. Exactly what NEW methods and ideas is the Left offering up?
I'll answer your questions even though you ran from mine. You agree with liberals because liberals would agree in a heartbeat to any new methods and paradigms that will help keep guns out of the hands of the deranged and incompetent. Whatever you suggest I bet liberals would support.
What NEW methods and ideas is the Left offering up?
2nd time
Liberals also want a new paradigm, right?
Tough question?
What NEW methods and ideas is the Left offering up?
We can not as a society continue to place yet another band-aid on a wound requiring an amputation
In your gun control analogy, what is the wound that needs amputation?
What NEW methods and ideas is the Left offering up?
What NEW methods and ideas is the Left offering up?
My only point is that you and liberals both want a new paradigm - if you need to explore that further with somebody, good luck.
Your only point is that like all on the left, you have zero NEW ideas on how to "fix" this. If it does not pertain to some sort of new step in making the purchase of legal firearms a wee bit more lengthy, you have nothing. How about this for a change in the paradigm? Found in possession of a firearm that is not registered?...Lose your vehicle. 2nd time?...Lose your home.
Build facilities that incarcerate those who defy this a 3rd time or have no home or car to lose.
"But what about their livelihoods and families the left will more than likely counter"?
"YOU made the choice, here is the price society has deemed you shall pay"
It is time to start protecting the law abiding citizen and beating the you know what out of those who CHOOSE to circumvent the system.
Your only point is that like all on the left, you have zero NEW ideas on how to "fix" this. If it does not pertain to some sort of new step in making the purchase of legal firearms a wee bit more lengthy, you have nothing. How about this for a change in the paradigm? Found in possession of a firearm that is not registered?...Lose your vehicle. 2nd time?...Lose your home.
Build facilities that incarcerate those who defy this a 3rd time or have no home or car to lose.
Build new facilities and revoke unrelated rights? Sounds downright fascist, not to mention incredibly expensive - prisons and legal proceedings cost the public far more than a background check. Most states have repeat felony laws already, expanding punishment would not be much of a deterrent (and how many repeat felons own their own home? Not having stuff is usually why they are using illegal firearms in the first place).
When it comes to an issue that involves fatalities, typically you try to use preventative measures first. Unless, of course, you're the gun manufacturer who is only concerned with completing the sale, regardless of the result. When Reagan implemented such a preventative bill, most gun owners agreed they didn't mind waiting another week or two for public safety's sake. If someone can't wait a week for a gun, I'd say that's a pretty big red flag.
It makes a whole lot more sense than the insulting 12:48 pm reply - unfortunately, politics, not common sense, will always drive gun control debate, rendering it unsolvable - how many times have we seen that, most recently today in Richmond Ba
It’s a rampant epidemic, the graph posted here by adhill58 shows that
So, more extreme/exacting measures such as the one outlined by BigV, can’t be dismissed
[Edited on 1/20/2020 by Stephen]
Still didn't answer my question since you again skirt the subject and misread what was written.
1) Did you read the post?
2) Did you watch the video?
3) Did you take the test?Simple questions. A yes or no would be sufficient.
Yes, I read your post. I watched as much of the video as I could stomach, and I went to the website. Do you have a point?
Then you agree that people who don't know about, or take time to learn about items they are trying to make legislation on should not be allowed to vote on that legislation?
Do you also agree that trying to pass the same laws over and over again, or try to make a platform on passing laws that are already on the books makes no sense?
Are you starting to get the point? Would you trust those in the video to make your health plan legislation if they show the same amount of knowledge on the subject as they do firearms?
unfortunately, politics, not common sense, will always drive gun control debate, rendering it unsolvable - how many times have we seen that, most recently today in Richmond Ba [sic]
Oh are you referring to all of the white people walking around the former Capital of the Confederacy with sniper rifles on the day we celebrate MLK, Jr, a black leader who was killed by a racist with a sniper rifle? Yeah, I agree, they are not helping solve anything.
and beating the you know what out of those who CHOOSE to circumvent the system.
Do us all a favor, and be the first in line to the South side of Chicago and Baltimore to do this, and please videotape your success. Or, if you were referring to having the cops do your dirty work for you, then you don't understand America and belong somewhere else, because our Constitution rejects that 100%.
I was referring to any "Beating" that is to take place being in the criminal justice system, as in a Court of Law.
Why the reference to the South side of Chicago and Baltimore?
Build new facilities and revoke unrelated rights? Sounds downright fascist, not to mention incredibly expensive - prisons and legal proceedings cost the public far more than a background check.
Thanks for making my point. "More background checks"...please. How have "more background checks" done with limiting shootings since their inception?...The Liberal/Democrat answer for everything....More laws. It's obvious that the current means for "stopping" the horrific incidents is not working and yes, "new facilities" exclusively for people who continue to break laws pertaining to the illegal purchasing and possession of guns obtained on the black market. Hem and haw all you want, laugh even louder, but undeniably, weapons purchased / obtained illegally are and will continue be the back breaker in this issue, stop that and the war is that much closer to being won.
Sounds EXACTLY like something some dumberthanaboxofrocks Liberal new world order globalist socialist more laws more govt LOSER would propose as a plank in a doomed platform.
Which post are you replying to?
Then you agree that people who don't know about, or take time to learn about items they are trying to make legislation on should not be allowed to vote on that legislation?
Do you also agree that trying to pass the same laws over and over again, or try to make a platform on passing laws that are already on the books makes no sense?
Are you starting to get the point? Would you trust those in the video to make your health plan legislation if they show the same amount of knowledge on the subject as they do firearms?
Ever see those montage videos that Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert would play, of a bunch of edited snippets from Republicans at various events and discussions, and edit it together to make Republicans look stupid? You are falling for one of those videos. Jerry, Twitter videos are not intended to be sources of honest educational material. I think it's silly to give them any time of day, let alone try to use it as evidence of something. And I don't really respect civilian spectators who act as if they know better than professionals - if you have experience running a municpality on any level, I'll listen to your critcisms of career politicians who have law degrees and experience.
Are you saying that the video is false, that the democrat lawmakers did not say what they said, and did not act like idiots in front of news cameras?
Bloomberg stating that a semi-automatic rifle fires all the cartridges at one pull of the trigger during an interview by ABC News, that "this rifle has a 30 caliber clip magazine that fires 30 bullets in half a second" as said by Senator Kevin Leon in front of news cameras from several different networks, Feinstein saying "yes, it's legal to hunt humans" in front of the Judiciary committee, and you declare this is a joke video?
I don't have to have experience running a municipality, or even a small village to see what doesn't work. Just like you don't have to have a degree in computer science to know your computer isn't working.
If it doesn't work in several cities, what makes you think it would work nationally?
Again, do you agree that people who do not take the time to learn what an item is and how it works should not be allowed to form legislation about that item?
unfortunately, politics, not common sense, will always drive gun control debate, rendering it unsolvable - how many times have we seen that, most recently today in Richmond Ba [sic]
Oh are you referring to all of the white people walking around the former Capital of the Confederacy with sniper rifles on the day we celebrate MLK, Jr, a black leader who was killed by a racist with a sniper rifle? Yeah, I agree, they are not helping solve anything.
What about all the black people at the Lobby Day annual event? You do remember this is held yearly?
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/black-gun-rights-activist-virginia-rally
Click on the video and see what a black man has to say.
If the video Old Town Road is still on after it, watch.
Are you saying that the video is false, that the democrat lawmakers did not say what they said, and did not act like idiots in front of news cameras?
Think whatever you want about those folks, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore uses a snippet from a Charleton Heston interview, and takes it out of context to make him look really really bad. Did Charleton Heston say those words? Well yes. Did Michael Moore take it out of context to further his agenda? Of course. What would you think of a liberal using a Michael Moore movie as their proof and evidence to back some point? Well, you are doing the exact same thing. I don't want you to change your mind on gun control - I want you to show me intelligent evidence or logic to back your position. So far, you've never done that.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you saying that NBC, ABC, CSpan,CBS and other news outlets took their words, as they said them, out of context as did Michael Moore did in Bowling For Columbine?
These are snippets of what they said, as they said them, and is available on the respected websites if you want to look them up.
I can't believe that you just agreed that Michael Moore makes propaganda rather than movies by using out of context video and editing.
And yes, I've shown you plenty of evidence, and you just make snide remarks about it since it doesn't fit your narrative.
________________________________________________________________________________________I don't have to have experience running a municipality, or even a small village to see what doesn't work. Just like you don't have to have a degree in computer science to know your computer isn't working.
I don't want to play any straw argument games - I never said anything about acknowledging that our gun laws aren't perfect - I was referring to your arrogant assumption that you know better than people with law degrees and experience running complex organizations, and managing enormous budgets of taxpayer dollars. Observing cracks from afar means absolutely nothing and takes zero skill. It's just complaining, which any kid can do.
________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm glad that you acknowledge that our gun laws are not perfect. I totally agree. Any gun law that restricts access to firearms by law abiding citizens should be changed. There are many gun laws that are needed, and are pretty much already on the books. Those who have been found guilty of domestic violence are already restricted from owning firearms (problem is that those who have been charged with one and found innocent still cannot purchase firearms Question 11h and 11i on Form 4473), those found to be legally insane do not have the right to purchase firearms, those with criminal records cannot own firearms, minors cannot legally own a firearm, aliens (except under specific rules) cannot own or possess a firearm, if you have an excessive amount of traffic tickets you pretty much won't pass the background check.
Laws we don't need are those that are passed to show "see, we did something about those scary guns" kneejerk type law.
Laws that restrict the law abiding citizen from purchasing any type of firearm they want, or how many, or how much ammo they think they need.
Laws that allow celebrities (some that aren't even citizens), politicians, the wealthy, and select few to have licenses to own and carry a firearm while those who aren't of the select few, even if they pass the extra background check, aren't allowed the permits.
Laws that disarm those in areas of economic depression, high violence, and robbery need to be gotten rid of.
Laws that disarm the general population and have only the police and the select few allowed to protect themselves.
Pretty much any law that restricts the Constitutional rights of any citizen that can pass the background check as described in Federal Law should be struck down.
Wait a minute, what about Heller V DC? Didn't that actually strike down most of those laws?
HHHHMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!OH yeah, and we need to quit voting in laws that are already in effect.
Let's talk about that "zero skill" for a moment.
How much skill does it take to see that a city continues to have problems with violence, poverty, poor education, anger issues from citizens about how their city is run, infrastructure not being taken care of, areas of town that police arrive only en mass, areas where ambulances and fire trucks will not go without police protection, parts of the town where whole neighborhoods close down when it gets dark, places where that even when the city has some of the strictest gun laws, people get shot and killed at record paces?
Then ask yourself, when has Jerry been talking about that?
I haven't. Your mind has gotten you confused about where you have tried to change the nature of the threads to fit your narrative.I have been talking about gun laws that keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The ones that you don't want to have access to firearms.
You and I have not in my recollection ever posted back and forth about what is in the first paragraph.
________________________________________________________________________________________Noticing that, wouldn't you say that the policies of the administration isn't working?
If it doesn't work in several cities, what makes you think it would work nationally?
________________________________________________________________________________________
On the firearms laws, yes, I would say that the policies of the administration isn't working, and why anyone would think those policies would work on a national scale is just ridiculous, reckless, and down right dangerous to other citizens. The firearm laws that aren't working should be repealed and the rights of the citizens should be restored in owning firearms. In fact, they never should have been restricted.
________________________________________________________________________________________If what doesn't work in several cities? If you are referring to the Twitter video, don't bother explaining.
________________________________________________________________________________________It doesn't need explaining to people who actually watch the video and ask the question "Are these the people who we want to form legislation on something they have no knowledge on?" Which was the original question, as you know.
Don't keep such a closed mind about how you don't want anyone to own a firearm. If you don't want one, that's fine, don't own one.
Don't keep trying to stop anyone from owning one.
unfortunately, politics, not common sense, will always drive gun control debate, rendering it unsolvable - how many times have we seen that, most recently today in Richmond Ba [sic]
Oh are you referring to all of the white people walking around the former Capital of the Confederacy with sniper rifles on the day we celebrate MLK, Jr, a black leader who was killed by a racist with a sniper rifle? Yeah, I agree, they are not helping solve anything.
What about all the black people at the Lobby Day annual event? You do remember this is held yearly?
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/black-gun-rights-activist-virginia-rallyClick on the video and see what a black man has to say.
If the video Old Town Road is still on after it, watch.
The blog doesn't refute anything I wrote, manages to get its bias across pretty thick. Glad the militia cosplayers carried out their rally peacefully this time.
The Liberal/Democrat answer for everything....More laws.
Wait a sec, you were just calling for more laws with that house seizure and incarceration facility thing.
Yeah, I suggested expanding/enforcing an existing bipartisan law (which has denied over 1 million potential purchasers), and somehow that's "more laws" than a redundant, Kafka-esque gun enforcement facility with additional statutes. It's what happens when someone only reads the parts they want.
Don't keep trying to stop anyone from owning one.
No one is. If you believe this, you're part of the problem. Liberals own guns, too.
Don't keep such a closed mind about how you don't want anyone to own a firearm. If you don't want one, that's fine, don't own one.
Don't keep trying to stop anyone from owning one.This is beyond stupid, and all emotion, like a kid.
But on the other side of the coin..."If you don't believe in Abortion, don't have one" is OK?
Don't keep such a closed mind about how you don't want anyone to own a firearm. If you don't want one, that's fine, don't own one.
Don't keep trying to stop anyone from owning one.This is beyond stupid, and all emotion, like a kid.
But on the other side of the coin..."If you don't believe in Abortion, don't have one" is OK?
Except a firearm is not a part of your body and a woman never killed a crowd of people with an abortion. This is a false equivalency. Just because the sentences sound the same, doesn't mean they mean the same thing.
But on the other side of the coin..."If you don't believe in Abortion, don't have one" is OK?
boy, you are the king of straw arguments. there’s more straw in you than the scarecrow. I don’t know if it’s a game you enjoy playing or just a lack of debate skills, but that gig is up. Let me explain. the abortion debate centers around the Republican attempt to ban it outright in states, denying people the right to choose, and we even had a Supreme Court case that deemed the ban unconstitutional.
Nope. The abortion "debate" has everything to do with the lack of agreement as to where life begins. You raise only the legal argument. You referred to a post as being "Beyond stupid" because of an opinion expressed you disagreed with, nothing more, no less. My statement about abortion had zero to do with changing the course of this thread; only shared to show how one's opinion is about as meaningful...as you know what.
I won’t expect an answer since you run and hide when challenged.
You...are a riot. Similar to the question I posed to you no fewer than three times concerning NEW ideas pertaining to the acquisition of black market firearms.
I don’t have any issue with Jerry telling me not to own one if I don’t like guns (even though I have three). But the conclusion that an agreed upon screening process is “not wanting anyone to own guns”, is beyond stupid and immature, especially with what’s at stake. People need to step up and do better.
Is there a "screening process" in place today when purchasing a firearm?
Don't keep such a closed mind about how you don't want anyone to own a firearm. If you don't want one, that's fine, don't own one.
Don't keep trying to stop anyone from owning one.This is beyond stupid, and all emotion, like a kid.
But on the other side of the coin..."If you don't believe in Abortion, don't have one" is OK?
Except a firearm is not a part of your body and a woman never killed a crowd of people with an abortion. This is a false equivalency. Just because the sentences sound the same, doesn't mean they mean the same thing.
The question directly to personal responsibility and how easily people can stand behind both sides of the same curtain. So enough with the "False equivalency" B.S.
The states want to disarm their citizens. You are aware of the demonstrations in Richmond, Virginia aren't you?They are due to laws that state wants to pass.
Abortion should be decided between the woman and her Doctor. There could be reasons why she needs one. It is not just financial/convenience reasons. It has to be between the woman and her Doctor. I think adoption is a better idea if the reasons for wanting one are financial/convenience/job related [ie. can't work if pregnant etc.].
2 dead, 5 injured in shooting in San Antonio bar - commonplace, people are used to it etc etc
What happened in Bloomington Indiana Sunday, however, is sheer stupidity -
a father decided to play-wrestle with his 4 year old son
While in possession of a loaded gun
Where are peoples’ brains anyway
Gun accidentally fell out of his pocket, discharged - and his son is in critical condition after being shot in the head -
Know this doesn’t connect to the current conversation & only indirectly to the thread
The question directly to personal responsibility and how easily people can stand behind both sides of the same curtain. So enough with the "False equivalency" B.S.
Except it’s not the same curtain in any way. Like how some people think prevention for gun violence is pointless because people are going to get guns illegally, yet people want to build a wall to prevent illegal immigration even though people will still attempt to get here illegally. By your logic, you’d have to believe in prevention OR punishment. Take your pick if you think all issues are so black and white.
I gave a 22 mag to a navajo in 89 to kill coyotes - no papers with it. If that gun kills someone and traced back to me I should lose my property? Go away.
[Edited on 1/22/2020 by BrerRabbit]
Agree wholeheartedly Brer - however that was 30 years ago - things are different now
Example, the gun was located yesterday & identified as the one used in the most recent school shooting in which a student was murdered last week by a 16 year old fellow student at a Houston area high school
Who owns the gun, is still unclear -
Once the owner is ID’d, am guessing he’ll be in trouble - hopefully not to the point of having his property confiscated or other unreasonable extremes -
but still, a minor committing murder with his, the owner’s, gun -
Reasonable or unreasonable, the law will not like this
That there’s no end to gun violence proves IMO there’s no solution to it
Haha! That’s for sure
Btw did ya see that vid posted yesterday of the father of of a high school wrestler rushing onto the mat and blindsiding his son’s opponent after the opponent took down his son - crazy bro
apparently the move his son’s opponent used was an illegal one
....yet the son’s teammates wrote a letter to the other wrestler & his school apologizing for what the father did, citing shame & embarrassment
Some people defended the father’s actions too, saying the tactic was dangerous
So, one just never knows - the other kid could’ve been injured too, blindsided like he was
Sorry man, I go off on tangents too easy - all good
Does a homemade blunderbuss need to be registered?
Not that I know of. I'll check it out for you.
I apologize for being hostile towards some in this thread. the gun debate should never be politicized considering innocent loved ones are being slaughtered in schools and stores. crazy people go undetected and purchase guns legally to commit these atrocities, and some people can only think about themselves. new ideas won’t work? put your money where your mouth is. how about we try and see the results before assuming? the refusal to try speaks volumes. if all of these mass shootings were committed by black people, we’d have the toughest laws in the world to purchase. rejecting common sense laws demonstrates no concern for the victims whatsoever.
[Edited on 1/22/2020 by Skydog32103]
Sorry, but the Dems in general have politicized it for years, sometimes with GOP support. They campaign on passing gun laws, pass laws already on the books, and then strut around saying "see i did something".
There needs to be something done to help prevent violence, not just gun violence, in places where it is rampant.
Your phrase:" If all these mass shootings were committed by black people, we'd have the toughest laws in the world to purchase."
Is this your manifesto on the black race, that you think blacks with guns are the scourge of the nation?
Why are you afraid of blacks with firearms?
If you haven't gotten the drift, I think that phrase was exceptionally RACIST.
Show me a "common sense law" that doesn't restrict the rights of the law abiding citizens, doesn't call for more bans, doesn't call "buy backs" (how you buy back something you didn't sell confuses me) for firearms, doesn't call for illegal acts like the Virginia governor wants to use the National Guard to do weapons searches to "find" those who don't like the laws he is proposing, and I'll back you. I'll help you campaign for it, I'll even give financial support.
Now, here's the challenge. Try to talk a modern day Democrat to help you form that legislation.
See, there is no refusal to try, there is a refusal to lay down and give up our rights.
“A 43 year old Okla City man was sentenced Wednesday to 42 months in prison after admitting to making a hoax threat of a mass shooting at a community college
“In March 2017 he sent false information to police and local news outlets about s pending mass shooting at Redlands Comm. College in the OKC suburb of El Reno”
Remarks, this is a just sentence that sends a message to potential mass shooters what their actions will bring them - a lengthy stay at a maximum-security prison
I see it that the awareness of the epidemic is there & is being treated with the most exacting standards allowed under law - as it is the investigation into the phony threats cost $30,000
It’s a screwy world alright
Does a homemade blunderbuss need to be registered?
Not that I know of. I'll check it out for you.
Here's something from Criminal Defense lawyer:
