Proud of our Youth !

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

What’s frustrating about debating are arguments that A. Make such broad generalizations and B. Are done mainly to denigrate the opposite view.

If you do want to have honest debate, a little respect helps. And please, if somebody on the other side is misinformed, HELPING them works a lot better than aggressive condescension.

I have a great deal of respect for Leon allowing this discussion to take place, because while people here may come from all over the political landscape, we share a common interest. I had hoped that would foster constructive discussion, but that is not the case in many responses.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

With all due respect, This is the part I disagree with and don't think is going on generally. That side of the argument doesn't want to abolish all of gun ownership rights. I lean to more gun ownership for protection. But the left is ok with guns just not assault guns, I think. And I think they want a lot more common sense things too which we should all be able to agree on.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false. And how can you complain that we are not interested in the facts when you have the facts all wrong yourself? And you complain we don't listen to you, but you surely don't listen to our concerns, you just preach.

Sounds to be like both sides are equally culpable.

[packs]

I find it surprising that some people could think of protests as not adding up to much. Women were granted the right to vote, we passed the Civil Rights Act and desegregated our schools and public spaces because of protests. We pulled out of the Vietnam War due in large part to the pressure of public opinion as well. They are extremely powerful statements and the solidarity needed to pull them off is what brings people together for change.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false.

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

[barrysloate]

David- that's a very fair question and you know what? I don't have an answer. You are correct that the gun control people can be vague.

But you know what I would like? To have a reasonable discussion with gun rights people like yourself- and I know you know a whole lot more about guns than I do- and not have insults thrown at me. Calling me a snowflake won't get the job done.

All either side wants is for the other side to listen.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

As a law abiding gun owner, I wouldn't have an objection that, but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes?

To me, it would be just about as effective as a so-called background check.

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

As a law abiding gun owner, I wouldn't have an objection that, but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes?

To me, it would be just about as effective as a so-called background check.

I can think of several law enforcement applications. One is simple in that if I shoot you in Texas with my gun that I bought in Illinois, local law enforcement is going to be severely handicapped in solving the crime. Even if I left the gun at the scene, they'd have no way to trace it back to me unless they knew where I purchased it, and even then the state I purchased the gun in may protect me even further. It is unlawful to have any type of database in some states.

[clydepepper]

Specifics?

Okay. Let's have some! PLEASE!!!

Everyone who has a suggestion, speak up?


The question is this:

WHAT actions will work, in your opinion, to decrease the growing number of mass shootings?


Take any stance you want, just say something that YOU think will work!


I will start us off by believing that thorough background checks could eliminate folks with mental issues from being eligible to own a firearm of any kind.


Their absolute right to bare arms should be usurped by the need to keep others safe from attacks like the kinds we have been experiencing.


To paraphrase what I have stated in my post signature, ALL of our rights as Americans come with an understood equal hand of responsibility and accountability.


Those are words I have lived by all my live and I find it difficult for imagine anyone could make a valid argument against them.



.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

yeah, that's great this way a tyrannical govt will have a nice list in which to round up all those they oppose.. How very Stalin of you....

[packs]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

yeah, that's great this way a tyrannical govt will have a nice list in which to round up all those they oppose.. How very Stalin of you....

That's a paranoid view of the government, no? You have to register benign things like your car, your property, even drones and dogs. But you don't think you should register a firearm?

There are 37 states where you can privately purchase a gun without any form of registration or back ground check at all. Those 37 states should, in my opinion, compel people who purchase a firearm to alert some type of regulatory agency to the fact that they've purchased a gun.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

That's a paranoid view of the government, no? You have to register benign things like your car, your property, even drones and dogs. But you don't think you should register a firearm?

There are 37 states where you can privately purchase a gun without any form of registration or back ground check at all. Those 37 states should, in my opinion, compel people who purchase a firearm to alert some type of regulatory agency to the fact that they've purchased a gun.

anyone who would give up their liberty for the sake of safety deserves neither.

what right does govt have to keep tabs on LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS?

none

what right do you have to have a list to keep tabs on you neighbors?

I believe you have no inalienable right to own a car, do you? you do to protect yourself.

not to mention that background checks, do nothing to stop crime, gun bans do nothing to stop crime

burden of proof lies on the gun grabbers, btw, I have the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment on my side.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

I don't know if I'm right or left anymore. I am registered as a Republican, although I never vote that way because I think that, at least in my state, they have moved too far right. I consider myself to be a moderate and here, that means you vote Dem and know that you are going to lose. It is what it is. Leon, that isn't really political. It's just a statement of how I view things.

I have guns, although not so many as I used to since I don' do much but bird hunt any more, Don't even own a handgun anymore. Just a couple of shotguns and deer rifles, I can tell you one thing I want though. I want the gun show loophole to be closed. I don't think anyone should be able to walk in to a gun show, buy a gun, and walk out with it right then without any scrutiny. That is ridiculous in my opinion So are bump stocks and banana clips. That isn't for self-defense and it isn't for hunting. That's just for killing folks. There is no other reason than to shoot faster and with more bullets.

Irrespective of party or viewpoint on guns, it is a fact that our kids are getting killed in the schools they go to. As of today, 22 school shootings in 20 weeks. That is way fucked up. Kids, and parents, should be able to expect that when they leave for school, they will actually be able to come back alive. That isn't happening. Then we offer our prayers and forget about it two days later. That is simply wrong. Period. I get that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Right, But people with guns can kill other people far more quickly and far more effectively. Therein lies the problem.

Just like every constitutional provision, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you absolute right to own any weapon you want. For example, you don't get to own nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. Explain how your second amendment rights guarantee you that right as you are being cuffed and carted off to jail by the FBI or ATF. I don't think you can. Nor do I think you will be exonerated. Why do you need an AR? I have hunted all my life and have never owned, used, or felt I needed, an AR. Obviously I'm missing something.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be repealed, although if you look at the historical basis for its passage, it seems pretty clear that the primary reason it was passed no longer exists . Be that as it may, I'm certainly not advocating that. I am advocating that we do stuff, like serious background checks, getting rid of the gun show loophole, and that we restrict bump stocks and huge clips. Unlike the NRA, I don't think that's unreasonable. I just want my kids to be safe.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Even the NRA wasn't always anti gun-control. In most of our lifetimes the NRA advocated FOR gun control.

In the 1930s, the NRA helped pass bills that regulated submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, banned some gun buyers and made gun dealers register with the government. Its cooperation continued following the political and racial assassinations of the 1960s.

In the 1970s, the NRA’s public image began to change after a law-breaking member was killed by an ATF agent. In 1977, it adopted a policy opposing all forms of gun control. Despite this, after the attempt on NRA member President Ronald Reagan’s life, the NRA reluctantly supported the 1994 Brady Bill, which required a waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases. The bill included a 10-year ban on assault weapons. When the ban expired in 2004, the NRA had gained enough political clout to prevent its renewal.

Do a search on the worst mass shootings in US history. Take note of how many occurred after those key dates. Namely 1977 and 2004 the results might or might not shock you.

The NRA being bought and paid for by big business, which is in turn buying and paying for our politicians is the problem, and frankly I don't see that as a political opinion, but maybe I'm being naive.

I'll leave you with this thought, from a former president of the NRA Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

So where does the modern NRA attitude come from???

Probably a dumb post to make for someone in business, and my intent isn't to piss off one side or please the other. Merely to call attention to the fact that games are being played and our children are apparently the expendable pawns on the board.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don’t understand what the NRA has to do with any of this? Until the REAL problem is addressed, these mass shootings – at schools, at movie theaters, at malls, wherever – will continue to happen.

The REAL problem is the individuals involved – not the guns. Reasonable gun owners like myself have been saying for a long time that you don’t need to have an assault rifle to carry out these types of horrific tragedies. The kid yesterday didn’t have an assault rifle. He had a shotgun (just like Kenny has, just like I have) and a .38 revolver (the SAME gun my 89 year old grandmother has for home defense - seriously).

Drunk drivers kill way more people than mass shooters. But when we hear about a drunk driver killing an entire family, we don’t blame the alcohol, we blame the driver. We don’t try and put restrictions on the alcohol, we make the DWI penalties more strict to try and prevent it.

So what’s next? Ban shotguns and .38 revolvers too? Blame the NRA some more? Like I said, these things will keep happening and we’ll all send our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families over and over and over again. Flags will be lowered to half staff for a few days and then people will forget about it until the next time. Nothing will change. The change will only come when we stop trying to blame the guns and start blaming the individuals who commit these tragedies

Y’all can just keep making your same old talking points, blame the NRA, ban this or that and one day you may even get your way. But that doesn’t get rid of the 300 million guns that are already out there. People who want to commit these types of tragedies will find a way. Again, until the REAL problem is addressed, nothing will change no matter what guns laws are imposed.

Deal with the ones that have mental health issues. They're the REAL problem. When the cops are called to a house 30+ times, there is a mental health issue there. When some kid posts a “Born to Kill” t-shirt on Facebook (the kid yesterday), there is a mental health issue there. These people aren’t hard to spot. They’re quite easy. The problem is nobody wants to do anything about it because we’re too afraid we'll infringe on their rights. Bull crap! Find the ones with mental health issues – no treatment facilities – just lock them up until the day the die.

[Kenny Cole]

David,

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but I sure disagree with some of it. I disagree about the NRA not having anything to do with what's going on. It has a lot to do with it IMO. The NRA leads the charge against closing the gun show loophole, which is the exception that swallows the rule. You go to the right gun dealer at a gun show and you can be a felon, convicted of murder or any other heinous crime, and walk away with a gun THAT DAY. You can be crazy as a run over dog and get a gun that day too. And, of course, anytime that someone who is viewed as a "liberal" gets elected, gun sales go up because the NRA and the gun dealers do their best to exploit what I view as the irrational fear that the government is going to come take all the guns away. None of that makes any sense at all to me.

If you allow your underage kid and his friends to drink at your house and one of those drunk kids leaves your house and kills a family on the way home, its your ass. And it should be. However, if you leave your guns accessible to your kids or their friends, even if you know that they may have mental heath issues, its OK. You are good to go. The NRA is instrumental in letting negligent gun owners get off without repercussions. Legislation can't get passed because the NRA gets it killed. Nothing happens. That doesn't make sense to me either.

I agree that mental illness is a huge problem. Its a problem that we as a society have never addressed very well. In nearly every state, the mental health agencies are among the most underfunded. They don't have the resources or the capacity to address the problem. Here, the "solution" is to dump them out on the street in some city other than the one they came from and let someone else deal with them. That isn't much of a solution.

I disagree that those with a mental illness are always easy to spot. The shooter yesterday had no past history that would put him on the radar screen of either mental health professionals or law enforcement He was part of a church dance group for goodness sake. Sometimes you can spot someone with a problem, but not always. Even the friends of yesterday's shooter didn't see the signs. And if the government overtly starts monitoring everyone's social media posts (which I suspect it already does covertly) and then tries to take action against those who it deems problematic, you have very big First Amendment and Second Amendment issue. Do you or should you lose your right to own a gun because you make disturbing social media posts?

I don't have the answers. But something has to be done. We have to do better by our kids. They shouldn't have to worry about dying when they go to school. The very fact that our kids now have to go through active shooter drills at school is nearly beyond my ability to comprehend.

We can't outlaw cars because they are necessary in nearly every facet of life. But we regulate them. If you speed and get caught you get a ticket. If you don't belt up and get caught, you get a ticket. If you drive drunk and get caught you go to jail. In fact, unlike years past, there is now a great emphasis on publicizing and preventing drunk driving precisely because we, as a society, finally got to the point where we said enough is enough. Do those regulations infringe on my rights? Maybe. But they also make a lot of sense. They hopefully remind not to be a dumbass when I drive and help protect both me and the other drivers on the road. I'm OK with that.

I'm not advocating outlawing guns. Never have, never would. But for God's sake, there is no reason I can think of why we shouldn't at least try to do a better job of regulating both them and the people who own them. Just like voting, I have always thought that gun ownership was both a right AND a responsibility. Particularly now, I feel like the argument about the right to own guns far outweighs the responsibility part. In my estimation, it should be the other way around.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false. And how can you complain that we are not interested in the facts when you have the facts all wrong yourself? And you complain we don't listen to you, but you surely don't listen to our concerns, you just preach.

Sounds to be like both sides are equally culpable.

this is all just not true.

death by 1000 cuts against our inalienable rights is abolition over time.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


and anyone who says "assault weapons" in regards to the AR-15 is either ignorant to the reality of firearms, or purposely lying to garner sympathy.

pick one.


I do not own a single firearm, but i am a veteran and i joined to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe this duty continues to this day. If you try to take away my rights, I will fight you with my entire being

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is all just not true.

death by 1000 cuts against our inalienable rights is abolition over time.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


and anyone who says "assault weapons" in regards to the AR-15 is either ignorant to the reality of firearms, or purposely lying to garner sympathy.

pick one.


I do not own a single firearm, but i am a veteran and i joined to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe this duty continues to this day. If you try to take away my rights, I will fight you with my entire being

Nick- nobody is going to take your firearms away (ironic to say since you don't own any). All we are looking for is some common sense ways to make Americans safer.

Now that's easier said than done. Certainly strict background checks would help. Changing the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21, on the other hand, is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. And I've long been for a ban against owning assault weapons, but I realize that the bad guys will still own them so that won't work either.

The thing that gets me the angriest is that gun owners are so sure they've got it right that they tune out anyone who even hints at making small changes. Nobody can say for sure that some changes in the laws will make us safer, but I bet a whole lot of Americans would at least be willing to try.

Maybe at the end of the day nothing can be done to stop a crazed shooter from lighting up a school or church, but I hate to think we've given up trying.

The survivors of Parkland HS are at the forefront of a new movement, energizing young people across the country to take a stand and to register to vote as soon as they turn 18. And what does the NRA do? Vilify them and call them a group of radicals. Now that really pisses me off.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Nick- nobody is going to take your firearms away (ironic to say since you don't own any). All we are looking for is some common sense ways to make Americans safer.

Now that's easier said than done. Certainly strict background checks would help. Changing the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21, on the other hand, is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. And I've long been for a ban against owning assault weapons, but I realize that the bad guys will still own them so that won't work either.

The thing that gets me the angriest is that gun owners are so sure they've got it right that they tune out anyone who even hints at making small changes. Nobody can say for sure that some changes in the laws will make us safer, but I bet a whole lot of Americans would at least be willing to try.

Maybe at the end of the day nothing can be done to stop a crazed shooter from lighting up a school or church, but I hate to think we've given up trying.

The survivors of Parkland HS are at the forefront of a new movement, energizing young people across the country to take a stand and to register to vote as soon as they turn 18. And what does the NRA do? Vilify them and call them a group of radicals. Now that really pisses me off.

maybe enforcing the gun laws we already have?

maybe actually following through when agencies get reports of strange and dangerous behavior ?

maybe securing schools and eliminating "gun free zones?"

why is a courthouse and other govt buildings riddled with armed security (and our politicians) but not schools?

why not deal with the problems instead of trying to take away the rights of citizens.

you may not believe that this is the goal, but it's obvious to any defender of our constitution that abolition is the long term goal of those who oppose the 2nd amendment.


ETA: once again you use the word "assault weapon" please define what it is, in detail

ETTA: why is it surprising that I don't own guns yet defend the rights of my fellow americans? are you only interested in the bill of rights when it applies to you?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

maybe enforcing the gun laws we already have?

maybe actually following through when agencies get reports of strange and dangerous behavior ?

maybe securing schools and eliminating "gun free zones?"

why is a courthouse and other govt buildings riddled with armed security (and our politicians) but not schools?

why not deal with the problems instead of trying to take away the rights of citizens.

you may not believe that this is the goal, but it's obvious to any defender of our constitution that abolition is the long term goal of those who oppose the 2nd amendment.


ETA: once again you use the word "assault weapon" please define what it is, in detail

ETTA: why is it surprising that I don't own guns yet defend the rights of my fellow americans? are you only interested in the bill of rights when it applies to you?

Nick- I totally agree with you on the need to enforce existing laws. There is a possibility that doing so would, by itself, resolve the problem...yes, there is a chance.

This is why it is important that more people registered to vote. With incumbents being so tied to Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists, it is going to take a great deal of folks interested in the common good to even get existing laws enforced, the prospect of passing more enforceable versions of those laws would be even harder.

Your second point is a very important one...everyone should be alert to any strange or dangerous activities. Any follow-up on such reports, IMO, should be tempered with the fact that those folks being observed could still be completely innocent of what is 'perceived' to be dangerous and strange, in itself, is not a threat.


The time has come for a new generation to select leaders and representatives who are not only sincerely interested in their needs, but are actually tied to them, body and soul.


Thanks, Nick - for expressing yourself...I hope we are producing something here.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Nick- I totally agree with you on the need to enforce existing laws. There is a possibility that doing so would, by itself, resolve the problem...yes, there is a chance.

This is why it is important that more people registered to vote. With incumbents being so tied to Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists, it is going to take a great deal of folks interested in the common good to even get existing laws enforced, the prospect of passing more enforceable versions of those laws would be even harder.

Your second point is a very important one...everyone should be alert to any strange or dangerous activities. Any follow-up on such reports, IMO, should be tempered with the fact that those folks being observed could still be completely innocent of what is 'perceived' to be dangerous and strange, in itself, is not a threat.


The time has come for a new generation to select leaders and representatives who are not only sincerely interested in their needs, but are actually tied to them, body and soul.


Thanks, Nick - for expressing yourself...I hope we are producing something here.

term limits would help, no reason that federal politician should be a career


enforcing the laws,as I said, including follow ups on felons, harsh penalties for prior felons caught with guns and being firm on "straw purchases" (when a non-felon buys a gun for a felon to subvert the law)

when law enforcement gets told about troubled people, maybe they should look into it. not use it as a catch all to strip gun rights without due process or anything, but at least take a gander? maybe?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false.

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-repealed.html

[barrysloate]

David- you can always find one person to say anything. The second amendment will not be repealed.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-repealed.html

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Leon

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

bolded mine


Gun owners, and 2nd amendment advocates, have given and given on this issue, from 1934 to the stupid assault weapons ban of 1994 (that was dropped because they discovered it did zero to stop gun violence) and we are not giving one more inch without a fight.

The problem is, if you give up one thing, then it becomes the foundation for them to move on to the next thing, and the next thing. If you don't think the agenda of the "gun control" movement is abolition then you are either delusional or in cahoots with them. (and the "you" is rhetorical not directed at you Leon personally)


"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


not to mention that these people know zero about guns, what right do they have to attempt to take away the rights of law abiding citizens when they aren't even willing to take the time to understand what they are fighting against?

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by Leon

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.145a78c0fb93

Sorry Leon, but you need to get out and talk to more liberals.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.145a78c0fb93

Sorry Leon, but you need to get out and talk to more liberals.

I was being nice, no thanks.

ps..I should add that many of my best hobby friends are very left and we get along great. I will compromise so we both win!!

and from the article, even though it says the percent might have decreased...

In 1999, for instance, a Hearst Newspapers poll found that 59 percent of respondents said they did not know the purpose of the Second Amendment.

lastly I am a giving myself an informal infraction as there shouldn't be politics talk on the board. The gun debate shouldn't be politicized, as said many times.
.

[Snapolit1]

I won't take a position here . . . having stupidly interjected politics into a few posts out of frustrations and immediately regretted it. . . . .

but I will say I have ZERO respect for anyone who criticizes anyone, young or old, black or white, smart or not so smart, from getting off their azzes and turning the TV set off and protesting something they are not happy about. Citizens of the US should be involved and actively voicing their views. That's what people have fought for. Freedom of speech, expression, and association. If you have a problem with PEACEFUL protests, I'd be happy to send you a one way ticket to Cuba or Iran.

Originally Posted by Leon

I was being nice, no thanks.

ps..I should add that many of my best hobby friends are very left and we get along great. I will compromise so we both win!!

and from the article, even though it says the percent might have decreased...

In 1999, for instance, a Hearst Newspapers poll found that 59 percent of respondents said they did not know the purpose of the Second Amendment.

lastly I am a giving myself an informal infraction as there shouldn't be politics talk on the board. The gun debate shouldn't be politicized, as said many times.
.

[mikemb]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-repealed.html

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

[barrysloate]

Well Leon, I'm a liberal and I fully support the right of responsible Americans to own guns. I have absolutely no issue with it.

But it angers me to no end that the Parkland shooter (I can't even remember his name) can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 the same way I can buy a quart of milk. Why isn't there a system in place that can prevent an unhinged lunatic from so easily buying one?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

But it angers me to no end that the Parkland shooter (I can't even remember his name) can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 the same way I can buy a quart of milk.

Barry,

Hyperbole, because he couldn't and didn't. Although there could be a more effective process.

[tschock]

As far as discussing solutions, two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by mikemb

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

Are you saying that Justice Stephens didn't say that just because of the news source?

Would it give you a nice warm, fuzzy feeling inside if it came from MSNBC?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ndments-repeal

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mikemb

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

And CNN.... Any better?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html

[steve B]

We do in fact have background checks, and have for a few years.

Without the "semantics" I can only assume the 37 states mentioned don't require then for intrastate transfers. Interstate transfers have to go through a federally licensed dealer, and that dealer has to file the proper forms and get the background check done.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

[clydepepper]

HEY!!!!!

Let's stop all this garbage and go back to the original request:


What idea do you support that could reduce the number of mass shootings?

GETTING SUGGESTIONS AND SHARING REAL IDEAS IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REQUEST.

Please stop all this other @#$%& and try to contribute possible life-saving ideas!

So far, this is a microcosm of why nothing this important gets changed!






.