tommie317;842106969 said:

---

Right it doesn't matter if guns were purchased legally or illegally, the problem is there is a large supply of guns that are used by those who like to kill other people. Let's focus on what we can do:

- Background Checks for all
- Ban Gun Shows that can't enforce this
- Mental Health Check
- Limit Gun Capacity
- Traceability of bullets by unique identification
- Liability of previous owner if guns were sold to someone that did not go through all the checks and they were used in a crime.
- Limit to # of guns that can be owned
- Limit exposure of violent games/movies/etc to those under 18

These are all common sense types of actions we can take yet are blocked by gun huggers who think newton is some conspiracy or we are on some road towards fascism/socialism. Doesn't it make you sick that we have not done one single thing after all these shootings and violence as if we should just be ok with it?

---

Although I'm with you for the most part, the "mental health check" is a ridiculous proposition emanating from the gun lobby. How would you implement it? Must see a Ph.D or psychiatrist? For how long and what would you expect the health care professional to say? If the individual is a certified wacko, you and I could discern that. The tougher question is the seemingly normal man or woman who betray no evidence of dysfunction, but given certain events in their life could go off on a gun spree. There is no way of knowing if or when that will happen.

The other relatively ridiculous proposal is that every school should be manned by a rent-a-cop with a gun. If I'm the Aurora shooter or the Newtown crazy, the first person I'm going to knock-off is the security guard. The moment his back is turned, he would be shot. A shooter is not about to announce his presence or his intent. These people, loners discontent about their lives, may not abide by the same rules as you and I, but they can and do plan their assaults with all the details considered.

The best proposal is to limit bullets. Certainly, some people can make their own, but not with the ease of buying large stocks at a gun shop. They can keep their guns, but be limited with ammunition.

I am guessing we have different interpretations of the Second Amendment--and the current operating understating by gun advocates is not only opinion, but recently manufactured and recently reinterpreted by the courts. As I understand the history of the amendment, it was not created for home security, the threat of government (our own or British), or the so-called right to guns as we would describe in today's terms. It was about arming Southern militia for fear of a slave rebellion. And as you know we are talking about radically different definitions of "arms".

In too many ways the amendment has nothing to do with the terms of the modern discussion. Disingenuous is the conservative pro-gun position that tries to act like it does--that it is uniquely tied to Liberty and founding fathers. That my friend is the BS narrative. It's historically dishonest, and dishonest as to the real reason that we as a society have not been able to have a real discussion about guns: a hardline position by NRA for profit driven reasons and conservatives that have taken a symbolic stance.

I'm not "using" Newtown, I am responding to a long long list of avoidable acts of violence and making rationale conclusions. Not everything that is "liberal" is bad, socialist, or to be condescended without reasoned inquiry.

Unit2Sucks;842106993 said:

---

. Perhaps we can levy a gun/bullet tax which will go to support social programs.

---

thats actually a pretty good suggestion

6bear6;842106998 said:

---

Although I'm with you for the most part, the "mental health check" is a ridiculous proposition emanating from the gun lobby. How would you implement it? Must see a Ph.D or psychiatrist? For how long and what would you expect the health care professional to say? If the individual is a certified wacko, you and I could discern that. The tougher question is the seemingly normal man or woman who betray no evidence of dysfunction, but given certain events in their life could go off on a gun spree. There is no way of knowing if or when that will happen.

The other relatively ridiculous proposal is that every school should be manned by a rent-a-cop with a gun. If I'm the Aurora shooter or the Newtown crazy, the first person I'm going to knock-off is the security guard. The moment his back is turned, he would be shot. A shooter is not about to announce his presence or his intent. These people, loners discontent about their lives, may not abide by the same rules as you and I, but they can and do plan their assaults with all the details considered.

The best proposal is to limit bullets. Certainly, some people can make their own, but not with the ease of buying large stocks at a gun shop. They can keep their guns, but be limited with ammunition.

---

i didn't mean to conduct a mental health evaluation when they buy a gun, but to check to see if there are anything reported by mental health professionals about the person if they were deemed a threat to themselves or others. I think this is fairly common sense. If you were going to entrust someone with a gun, wouldn't you want to know if they were deemed potentially crazy by someone else?

And no I doubt believe in rent a cop as it will probably do more harm than good and skyrocket costs even more. Further, it'll just up the ante of murderers to account for them.

tim94501;842106236 said:

---

Hate to be a scab picker but a Buddy of mine is of the same mindset and showed me a bunch of videos that made me extremely skeptical as well.

---

If you're skeptical, then you are also very gullible. Sad......

6bear6;842106998 said:

---

Although I'm with you for the most part, the "mental health check" is a ridiculous proposition emanating from the gun lobby. How would you implement it? Must see a Ph.D or psychiatrist? For how long and what would you expect the health care professional to say? If the individual is a certified wacko, you and I could discern that. The tougher question is the seemingly normal man or woman who betray no evidence of dysfunction, but given certain events in their life could go off on a gun spree. There is no way of knowing if or when that will happen.

The other relatively ridiculous proposal is that every school should be manned by a rent-a-cop with a gun. If I'm the Aurora shooter or the Newtown crazy, the first person I'm going to knock-off is the security guard. The moment his back is turned, he would be shot. A shooter is not about to announce his presence or his intent. These people, loners discontent about their lives, may not abide by the same rules as you and I, but they can and do plan their assaults with all the details considered.

The best proposal is to limit bullets. Certainly, some people can make their own, but not with the ease of buying large stocks at a gun shop. They can keep their guns, but be limited with ammunition.

---

Your argument would apply to every instance of a security guard so can I assume that you're never for guards?

1. Eliminating the guard first is not a given and an armed guard would certainly have a greater chance of fighting back then the first unarmed person that would otherwise be targeted.

2. Deterrent factor should be considered.

tommie317;842107011 said:

---

i didn't mean to conduct a mental health evaluation when they buy a gun, but to check to see if there are anything reported by mental health professionals about the person if they were deemed a threat to themselves or others. I think this is fairly common sense. If you were going to entrust someone with a guy, wouldn't you want to know if they were deemed potentially crazy by someone else?

And no I doubt believe in rent a cop as it will probably do more harm than good and skyrocket costs even more. Further, it'll just up the ante of murderers to account for them.

---

Since when has the gun lobby been about common sense? Background checks on all purchases that could also do what you are suggesting are very common sense, but are off the table as far as the NRA is concerned for political, monetary and conspiracy reasons. The idea of common sense left the building at the NRA when Wayne LaPierre took over and became the mouthpiece for a Board of Directors that includes 2 CEO's of companies that manufacture AR's, including the Bushmaster, and the CEO of the largest manufacturer of high capacity magazines. They are laughing all of the way to the bank as the discussion rages while LaPierre protects their (and his) monetary interests.

StillNoStanfurdium;842107019 said:

---

Your argument would apply to every instance of a security guard so can I assume that you're never for guards?

1. Eliminating the guard first is not a given and an armed guard would certainly have a greater chance of fighting back then the first unarmed person that would otherwise be targeted.

2. Deterrent factor should be considered.

---

So who is going to pay for the rent-a-cops services and who is going to pay for their eventual mistakes?

I don't know why we just don't enact a law that says any crime committed with the use of a gun, any gun, registered or unregistered, real or fake, is an automatic life sentence. No need to rewrite legislation or fight the constitution. I don't see why the NRA would oppose this as most of their members are avid hunters and not criminals so the new law wouldn't affect their membership negatively. Commit a crime using a gun and get caught, you're done. Period.

C6Bear;842107027 said:

---

So who is going to pay for the rent-a-cops services and who is going to pay for their eventual mistakes?

---

A special fund financed by the armament/munitions industry and administered by the NRA, of course.

:rollinglaugh:

How about we start by confirming an ATF director, something the House has stalled for years. They say there are too many laws already on the books, and that we must enforce them. Then they do everything that they can to hamper gun law enforcement. Is that not disingenuous? I am just asking, as I am not sure.

This entire thread is silly.
Lyerla is NOT as stupid and whacko as a ... fuskie.

It's a contest he entered to try and win the Hoover Tower Kindasleazy Rice Contest in which the theory most likely to inspire a whacked reaction wins ... the contest is sponsored by the military-industrial companies who profit mightily from these theories.

The award is a base of fools-gold in the shape of a mushroom cloud topped by a smoking gun. The gun actually works ... pull the trigger and a cloud is emitted that smells like the armpit of a furdie dollie. ewwwww grossssssssss

<apology to MyWifeIsAFurd for the analogy>

TiredBear;842107036 said:

---

How about we start by confirming an ATF director, something the House has stalled for years. They say there are too many laws already on the books, and that we must enforce them. Then they do everything that they can to hamper gun law enforcement. Is that not disingenuous? I am just asking, as I am not sure.

---

Just business strategy and tactics ... Ingenuity of a different kind.
They're just trying mightily to make a buck or two or ten or more (billion) in a tuff economy.
And the Jethros eat it up like a bucket of pig nuts and grits.

slider643;842107033 said:

---

I don't know why we just don't enact a law that says any crime committed with the use of a gun, any gun, registered or unregistered, real or fake, is an automatic life sentence. No need to rewrite legislation or fight the constitution. I don't see why the NRA would oppose this as most of their members are avid hunters and not criminals so the new law wouldn't affect their membership negatively. Commit a crime using a gun and get caught, you're done. Period.

---

mass murderers wouldn't care about this as they are assuming they will get gunned down, commit suicide, be locked up forever or be put on deathrow.

Now torture I'm okay with.

tommie317;842107054 said:

---

mass murderers wouldn't care about this as they are assuming they will get gunned down, commit suicide, be locked up forever or be put on deathrow.

Now torture I'm okay with.

---

castration and release into the general prison population ... so that they can enjoy having done to them what they did to society.

C6Bear;842107020 said:

---

Since when has the gun lobby been about common sense? Background checks on all purchases that could also do what you are suggesting are very common sense, but are off the table as far as the NRA is concerned for political, monetary and conspiracy reasons. The idea of common sense left the building at the NRA when Wayne LaPierre took over and became the mouthpiece for a Board of Directors that includes 2 CEO's of companies that manufacture AR's, including the Bushmaster, and the CEO of the largest manufacturer of high capacity magazines. They are laughing all of the way to the bank as the discussion rages while LaPierre protects their (and his) monetary interests.

---

Don't forget almost forcing Smith and Wesson into bankruptcy in the mid 90's with the NRA boycott of Smith and Wesson. When S&W was facing lawsuits from 29 different municipalities with regards to their handguns, S&W stated that their handguns would come with locks and that the company would research and implement ''smart-gun'' technology that would only allow the owner of a gun to operate it and improve the way retailers sold its products. The NRA was beyond furious. It questioned the CEO's experience. Its members were told that Smith & Wesson "became the first gun maker to run up the white flag of surrender and duck behind the Clinton-Gore lines." The result was a boycott by the National Rifle Association that made Smith & Wesson an industry outcast, forced the CEO out, and almost forced the company into bankruptcy. S&W was forced to toe the party line.

The idea that the NRA takes its marching orders from the gun companies is a joke. It's the other was around.

diva1;842106198 said:

---

What an idiot, makes me glad we lost the recruiting battle for him. Guy is an idiot

---

You should listen to his brother, Winchester. Talk about a loose cannon.










JUST KIDDING. He doesn't have a brother named Winchester. At least I don't think he does.

C6Bear;842107027 said:

---

So who is going to pay for the rent-a-cops services and who is going to pay for their eventual mistakes?

---

That'd be a different argument altogether of course.

tommie317;842107054 said:

---

mass murderers wouldn't care about this as they are assuming they will get gunned down, commit suicide, be locked up forever or be put on deathrow.

Now torture I'm okay with.

---

That's fine, those people will do whatever they do regardless of any law. But you can affect the vast majority of rational thinkers by making the consequences so severe that it's not worth the risk. Gun used in any crime equals automatic life sentence. I'm good with that.

slider643;842107157 said:

---

That's fine, those people will do whatever they do regardless of any law. But you can affect the vast majority of rational thinkers by making the consequences so severe that it's not worth the risk. Gun used in any crime equals automatic life sentence. I'm good with that.

---

can cut off both hands like they used to do in midevil times so that they cant use a gun anymore.

slider643;842107157 said:

---

That's fine, those people will do whatever they do regardless of any law. But you can affect the vast majority of rational thinkers by making the consequences so severe that it's not worth the risk. Gun used in any crime equals automatic life sentence. I'm good with that.

---

Not to take away from your argument, but I think the vast majority of rational thinkers tend to avoid committing crimes. So we're really left dealing with the non-rational thinkers.

Furthermore, I think the key issue is mentally deranged people going to public places/schools and shooting large numbers of people with rapid fire weapons. Their are a number of ways to attack the issue, but we can't bury our heads in the sand any longer. It is my personal preference that we do not choose to deal with this with additional restrictions on large groups in public places/schools. Look what we've done to airline travel ... I'd hate to see that happen at schools.

running bear;842107276 said:

---

Not to take away from your argument, but I think the vast majority of rational thinkers tend to avoid committing crimes. So we're really left dealing with the non-rational thinkers.

Furthermore, I think the key issue is mentally deranged people going to public places/schools and shooting large numbers of people with rapid fire weapons. Their are a number of ways to attack the issue, but we can't bury our heads in the sand any longer. It is my personal preference that we do not choose to deal with this with additional restrictions on large groups in public places/schools. Look what we've done to airline travel ... I'd hate to see that happen at schools.

---

I think most who commit crimes expect to get away with it, which makes them irrational. That's the problem with penalties. Plus it just puts more burden and costs on the government and tax payers.

blungld;842107002 said:

---

I am guessing we have different interpretations of the Second Amendment--and the current operating understating by gun advocates is not only opinion, but recently manufactured and recently reinterpreted by the courts. As I understand the history of the amendment, it was not created for home security, the threat of government (our own or British), or the so-called right to guns as we would describe in today's terms. It was about arming Southern militia for fear of a slave rebellion. And as you know we are talking about radically different definitions of "arms".

In too many ways the amendment has nothing to do with the terms of the modern discussion. Disingenuous is the conservative pro-gun position that tries to act like it does--that it is uniquely tied to Liberty and founding fathers. That my friend is the BS narrative. It's historically dishonest, and dishonest as to the real reason that we as a society have not been able to have a real discussion about guns: a hardline position by NRA for profit driven reasons and conservatives that have taken a symbolic stance.

I'm not "using" Newtown, I am responding to a long long list of avoidable acts of violence and making rationale conclusions. Not everything that is "liberal" is bad, socialist, or to be condescended without reasoned inquiry.

---

Second amendment equals Southern militia for slave rebellions? No.

GB54;842107508 said:

---

Second amendment equals Southern militia for slave rebellions? No.

---

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

GB54;842107508 said:

---

Second amendment equals Southern militia for slave rebellions? No.

---

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. That certainly played a big part.

diva1;842107511 said:

---

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

---

Appeasement of Southern states? Then why did Mass and Pennsylvania have specific provisions on the right to bear arms in their Constitutions? They weren't slave states. And why did Maryland, New Hampshire, New York and Virginia's constitutions specifically identify the need for militias?

The article is nonsense. It cites Georgia as an example where in 1755 and 1757 "all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state."

So what? The concept of state militias was ingrained in the founding states-all of them- and why wouldn't they check on slaves? That's what you did in 1789.

Militias were a check on the powers of a federal army or federal government.

These states were flat out radical. Read below from New Hampshire's constitution-underlining is mine-which basically allows the rights of revolt-pretty heady stuff for 1784

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men;[U] therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.[/U]