After two gruesome mass shootings in a 24-hour span, some Republicans are raising alarms that their opposition to new firearm limits is making the party toxic to the suburban women and college graduates who will shape the 2020 election.
“Republicans are headed for extinction in the suburbs if they don’t distance themselves from the NRA. The GOP needs to put forth solutions to help eradicate the gun violence epidemic,†said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and oil-and-gas executive who supports President Donald Trump.
https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-fear-extinction-suburbs-over-080000684.html;_ylt=AwrE1.EGiEldNWIA3jZx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
“The GOP needs to make several moves such as universal background checks, eliminating loopholes and banning military-style assault weapons to neutralize the issue,†he said. “Otherwise, Republicans will lose suburban voters just like they did in the midterms on health care.â€
The Great Capitulation begins.
AG Barr has a history of favoring 2A restrictions. The signs of a sellout are emerging.
On the assault weapon front, the proposal before us is the DeConcini amendment. And I think … I would support both the Brady Bill waiting period and the DeConcini [semi-auto ban] amendment, provided that they were parts of a broader and more comprehensive crime bill that included … very tough provisions on the use of firearms in crimes and illegal purchase and trading in firearms…
https://freedomoutpost.com/william-barr-is-a-gun-confiscation-advocate/ (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/william-barr-is-a-gun-confiscation-advocate/)
Barr’s track record of statements about gun control caused some gun rights groups to oppose his nomination for attorney general, arguing at the time of his Senate confirmation hearing that he backed confiscation orders and gave ambiguous responses when asked whether he would support a nationwide ban on semi-automatic firearms.
[snip]
A second administration official said Trump has “tremendous respect†for Barr and is looking to him for counsel. It’s no coincidence, the official said, that Trump specifically mentioned Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or red-flag laws, in his remarks Monday. (Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee in January that advancing ERPOs was “the single most important†action Congress could take “in the gun control area.â€)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/05/trump-executive-action-guns-1448612 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/story/2019/08/05/trump-executive-action-guns-1448612)
They better pay more attention to the rural route, where their bread is buttered.
10-4. Additionally, they'll lose the Suburban vote because those folks are close to the heat of urban decay. Trump could blow 2020 quite easily if he caves on the Second Amendment. I know, you aren't going to vote for him anyway, but there are people who would that will be lost.
This kind of thing is exactly why I won't vote for him. He doesn't understand the principle of the thing, and would not stand for it anyway if it were unpopular.
Perhaps he doesn't. Neither did any of his recent predecessors. Neither does most of the GOP.
It looks like we have no voice.
This kind of thing is exactly why I won't vote for him. He doesn't understand the principle of the thing, and would not stand for it anyway if it were unpopular. Y'all better scream to high heaven and make one helluva stink to overcome the volume from the gungrabbers, or he will think he is doing the right thing.
You bet we will. I'm going to a meet & greet with Senator McSally this week, and she'll get an earful.
Politics and governing demand compromise. - Barry Goldwater.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/602892 (https://www.azquotes.com/quote/602892)
Trump understands principle, he understands the right to life. I thought folks bragged on how they were Goldwater conservatives, well Goldwater said politics and governing demanded compromise. As usual some principled position seems built on BS but if we can wallow in our own self-aggrandizing pompous righteous, why not? They don't help. Good riddance, we don't need them to remind us of this constantly, they do nothing, they abandoned principle.
Trump understands principle, he understands the right to life.
They better pay more attention to the rural route, where their bread is buttered.
Says the guy that voids to never vote for Trump. Too funny. In politics you have to play the hand you were dealt,
not fold every hand.
Candidates you support might listen to you, candidate you don't won't.
@jpsb
So you are *FOR* bump stock bans and red flag laws... How much more will you swallow before you realize your freedoms are being sold down the river by the very people you are supporting?
Keep voting them in, requiring less and less of them... You can see where you are going now. It's on you.
This is exactly why I will vote for whatever Dim is on 2020 ticket....
With Trump the GOP/ Conservative side of 2020 American politics will always be divided and Trump will seek the help of the Dims to pass legislation should he win another term e.g. the budget deal.... At least with a Dim in office the GOP and Conservatives will be united in opposition to any 2A legislation and nothing will get done.... :shrug:
@roamer_1
If we not solve our border problem we will lose EVERYTHING, with no chance of ever getting the country back.
So I keep my eye on the big picture. bump stock bans don't brother me one bit and I don't think people that are
really badly mentally ill need semi-auto weapons. Red flags laws brother me, they can easily be abused. But like
I said border security is at the top of my list and Trump is doing everything he can to secure the border and
stop the flow of illegals into the USA so he still has my support.
This is exactly why I will vote for whatever Dim is on 2020 ticket....
With Trump the GOP/ Conservative side of 2020 American politics will always be divided and Trump will seek the help of the Dims to pass legislation should he win another term e.g. the budget deal.... At least with a Dim in office the GOP and Conservatives will be united in opposition to any 2A legislation and nothing will get done.... :shrug:
They better pay more attention to the rural route, where their bread is buttered.
IMO, Trump has done very little to secure the border, nowhere near what he's promised over the past 3 years.
@jpsb
So you are *FOR* bump stock bans and red flag laws... How much more will you swallow before you realize your freedoms are being sold down the river by the very people you are supporting?
Keep voting them in, requiring less and less of them... You can see where you are going now. It's on you.
I'm going to regret asking this question, but I'm curious. What do envision happening if the Democrat-Socialists own the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate and a majority of the Federal courts? And how do envision all of this working for you?
@roamer_1
If we not solve our border problem we will lose EVERYTHING, with no chance of ever getting the country back.
So I keep my eye on the big picture. bump stock bans don't brother me one bit and I don't think people that are
really badly mentally ill need semi-auto weapons. Red flags laws brother me, they can easily be abused. But like
I said border security is at the top of my list and Trump is doing everything he can to secure the border and
stop the flow of illegals into the USA so he still has my support.
@Right_in_Virginia
I don't care about any of that, because that is definitely where we are going since the Republicans are doing the same thing. You know, like being in favor of red flag laws.
IOW, WTF is the difference?
Words fail me here @roamer_1 The democrat-socialists are openly talking about the total destruction of the US economic and social fabric. If you truly see no difference, we've nothing left to discuss.
Kinda like Bushies that don't understand the heinous infraction of the TSA, y'all get easily diistracted...
You are approving red flag laws. Federal red flag laws to boot... I don't think you even know what you're really doing.
No, I truly do not see a difference, @Right_in_Virginia . You are approving red flag laws. Federal red flag laws to boot... I don't think you even know what you're really doing.
I know what I'm doing @roamer_1 I know we cannot hide from the conversation and debate before us. Your arguments against red flag laws are falling on deaf ears because they pale in comparison to the carnage we have a front row seat to far too often.
"Do Something!" is the rallying cry. And no civilized soul who has watched Americans bury so many of our innocent dead would find fault with this.
There will be negotiations and your pro-pure 2nd Amendment crowd must do better.
@Right_in_Virginia
DO Something, even if it's wrong. and when you are done our freedoms will be gone.
We are not burying 'so many'. You are being lead right down the garden path to gun control... fighting FOR gun control.
When in reality, the number of people defended by guns every year dwarfs this crap by several orders of magnitude. THAT is what you are infringing, and your idiot plan won't tough the criminal at all.
That's OK. When it all goes wrong, down the road , they'll just blame it on Barr, former Bushie.
Do better.
@Right_in_Virginia
I am not the one infringing rights for an act as yet uncommitted. When they use the precedent to do it to you, maybe then you'll understand.
But then, of course, it will be too late.
And then you wonder why you look like Democrats to me.
I have not seen an election were a candidate lost because he/she opposed gun control. It seems outside the media/DC bubble it’s not really an issue with that turns an election
The problem with too many Republicans is they think the New York Times represents the thinking of the average every day Americans
I want you to win this one @roamer_1 ... but saying there is nothing we can do but bury our dead is not good enough.
Do better.
@Right_in_Virginia
When in reality, the number of people defended by guns every year dwarfs this crap by several orders of magnitude. THAT is what you are infringing, and your idiot plan won't touch the criminal at all.
Right - And thus my vote of no confidence. Throw the bastards out. All of em.I will vote against anyone who votes for or supports gun control from the local level to the White House.
Then you and me will be singing the same song.
@roamer_1I am all for solving our border problem.
If we not solve our border problem we will lose EVERYTHING, with no chance of ever getting the country back.
So I keep my eye on the big picture. bump stock bans don't brother me one bit and I don't think people that are
really badly mentally ill need semi-auto weapons. Red flags laws brother me, they can easily be abused. But like
I said border security is at the top of my list and Trump is doing everything he can to secure the border and
stop the flow of illegals into the USA so he still has my support.
Do better.You disparage the sacrifices of every service man and woman (millions) when you ignore the sacrifice they made to keep these Rights (including the RKBA), by throwing those Rights away over a couple of crazies killing a handful of people.
@Right_in_Virginia
I don't care about any of that, because that is definitely where we are going since the Republicans are doing the same thing. You know, like being in favor of red flag laws.
IOW, WTF is the difference?
I am all for solving our border problem.
I am completely against surrendering one shred of the RKBA to do so.
The problems are independent of each other.
Guarding the border (providing for the mutual defense of the States) is a Constitutional Mandate.
Incidentally, so is keeping government's sticky fingers off our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Just go by the Constitution, and quit even considering sacrificing parts of it as a bargaining chip to get the other parts.
The inevitable end of such machinations is the destruction of the Republic, in toto.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
When you throw away the rule book, what's the point of having rules?Along those lines, how's that bump stock turn in going?
I will vote against anyone who votes for or supports gun control from the local level to the White House.
I know what I'm doing @roamer_1 I know we cannot hide from the conversation and debate before us. Your arguments against red flag laws are falling on deaf ears because they pale in comparison to the carnage we have a front row seat to far too often.
"Do Something!†is the rallying cry. And no civilized soul who has watched Americans bury so many of our innocent dead would find fault with this.
There will be negotiations and your pro-pure 2nd Amendment crowd must do better.
You better hope that Trump doesn’t cave to this “Do Something†garbage.
@Right_in_Virginia
Snap out of it @EdJames The President will hold the line on weapons bans ... but something will be done. There's no more wiggle room on this. America is simply too tired of burying her innocent dead.
If you've got something to add or remove ... other than a flat out "no" ... to the coming Red Flag legislation, now is the time to do it.
Snap out of it @EdJames The President will hold the line on weapons bans ... but something will be done. There's no more wiggle room on this. America is simply too tired of burying her innocent dead.
If you've got something to add or remove ... other than a flat out "no" ... to the coming Red Flag legislation, now is the time to do it.
Sorry, our Rights aren’t negotiable on a sliding scale, or otherwise.
Trump needs to resist these emotional appeals and lead the nation in focusing on the root causes.
Setting up a system where legal gun owners’ right can be stripped away at the whim of the judiciary for crimes yet to be committed is not the solution he is looking for.
Sorry, our Rights aren’t negotiable on a sliding scale, or otherwise.
Trump needs to resist these emotional appeals and lead the nation in focusing on the root causes.
I'm sorry that you don't understand, these "laws" aren't going to stop anyone that is bent on killing... individuals or masses.
Human emotions (positive or negative) are not part of the equation in the infringement of our natural rights.
I am all for solving our border problem.
I am completely against surrendering one shred of the RKBA to do so.
The problems are independent of each other.
Guarding the border (providing for the mutual defense of the States) is a Constitutional Mandate.
Incidentally, so is keeping government's sticky fingers off our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Just go by the Constitution, and quit even considering sacrificing parts of it as a bargaining chip to get the other parts.
The inevitable end of such machinations is the destruction of the Republic, in toto.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
When you throw away the rule book, what's the point of having rules?
I'm sorry you don't understand where all of this is going. It's too little and too late to tell parents and husbands and wives that we can't stop *any* individual hell bent on killing. Remember this: The most fundamental of our natural rights is the right to life.
I'm on your side @EdJames But, your talking points are ringing shrill. This is not a debate class in college, this is a debate in the world as it is and you're losing, badly. You're now even against taking guns out of the hands of the mentally ill with a hit list.
I'm sorry, but you can no longer can tell people they must accept the deaths of innocents as a consequence of your right to own the guns of your choice. There has been too much bloodshed.
Do better, my friend. Do better.
So what are you suggesting, that we lie to them and tell them that we can?
If you go by the media and bullshit politicians of many stripes, then your premise of "losing, badly" in the debate may be true.
But you keep forgetting, Rights aren't up for debate.
The deaths of innocents come from the sickness in our society and the breakdown of the civil society.
@Right_in_Virginia
I'm not suggesting we lie to anyone @EdJames because I'm convinced we could have stopped the killer in Florida and Dayton. I'm not saying we can stop all ... but damn it, man, why wouldn't we be supportive of stopping even one? Again .... if rights aren't up for debate then this includes the right to life.
Why wouldn't we want to stand as the people who want to stop the killing .... really stop the killing? I repeat myself but red flag laws pave the way for a discussion and action on our failing mental health care, the importance (not the breakdown) of the family unit, fathers working with mothers, limiting the internet for developing hearts, minds and souls, working with community leaders and faith leaders .... the list is endless and each item on the list addresses the root cause of the carnage.
And you know what, Ed ... we will have changed the focus of the conversation from guns to the quality of our collective lives. Take this as an opportunity not to defend guns but to defend life and your guns and the natural right to own them will be safe.
The democrats know this -- which is why they are so damn determined to include further gun control in the legislation being debated. THEY know if we change the dialogue, they lose.
:facepalm2: **nononono*
They are on the same side as Planned Parenthood, yeah, real principled. Those disenchanted can vote for Kamala Harris I suppose. I'm not behind any changes in the law but I'm a realist at the same time.
I'm sorry that you don't understand, these "laws" aren't going to stop anyone that is bent on killing... individuals or masses.
Human emotions (positive or negative) are not part of the equation in the infringement of our natural rights.
This is just more "feel good" nonsense that he is allowing himself to get bullied into.
What will he say when they tell him that it is not enough? Will he shut off the Jarvanka wing and say "No?" Or will he cave further?
I explained this to her yesterday.
Its worse than that - national red flag laws over time will directly result in many more innocent deaths than would be otherwise lost in 'mass shootings'.
@skeeter any of these so called "common sense" gun laws will result in that. These laws never EVER punish the criminals the insane or the truly evil that slaughter people...they don't care about the laws. These gun control laws always punish the law abiding gun owners who have weapons for numerous weapon to include self defense against criminals.
“It’s up to us as Americans to demand change from the gutless leadership that continues to allow this to happen and continues to somehow claim the second amendment is doing its job. The Second Amendment is about the right to defend yourself. The only thing that Second Amendment is doing is leading to mass murder right now. This is all just insanity.â€
Kerr’s Twitter feed has been full of posts and reposts calling for stricter gun control, criticizing Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) since the shootings.
Though he’s clearly frustrated with the lack of action in Congress, Kerr does think change is just around the corner.
“It’s going to happen. The momentum is building,†Kerr said, via the Bay Area News Group. “People are more and more frustrated in our country. I think at this point, the vast majority of people in this country have had it. Now it’s a matter of taking action.â€
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/usa-basketball-gregg-popovich-steve-kerr-lawmakers-action-mass-shootings-donald-trump-el-paso-dayton-215830714.html (https://www.yahoo.com/sports/usa-basketball-gregg-popovich-steve-kerr-lawmakers-action-mass-shootings-donald-trump-el-paso-dayton-215830714.html)
They’re probably right, because both Barr and Trump have a history of supporting an assault weapons ban.
Saving innocent lives was never the goal of hardcore gun control advocates.
Saving innocent lives was never the goal of hardcore gun control advocates.
They better pay more attention to the rural route, where their bread is buttered.
That's what I was thinking... You don't want to scare or piss off rural gun owners.
"Don't Tread On Me!" ... means what it says.
I'm sorry you don't understand where all of this is going. It's too little and too late to tell parents and husbands and wives that we can't stop *any* individual hell bent on killing. Remember this: The most fundamental of our natural rights is the right to life.
Think about it...
One hundred and fifty years ago, everybody West of the Mississippi River carried or had access to guns. For THEIR safety.
It's come full circle.
Only today, they want to disarm Conservatives "...for their own protection". /s
Hell I'm old enough to remember when a rifle on a gun rack inside a pickup truck in my high schools parking lot didn't even draw so much as a second glance.
Hell I'm old enough to remember when a rifle on a gun rack inside a pickup truck in my high schools parking lot didn't even draw so much as a second glance.
@txradioguy
@jpsb
@roamer_1
@austingirl
@skeeter
@ all :laugh:
Benjamin Franklin saw 250 years ago when he answered that question; "A Republic ... if you can keep it!"
Cell phones and GPS and automobiles weren't even a gleam is his eye. Did he 'see' a billion people? Perhaps.
Or was he strictly referring for authority's or government's penchant to want to RULE rather than be ruled?
I'll take the latter for $50, Alex.
How utterly irrational it is to characterize this as a gun violence problem.
QuoteI'm sorry you don't understand where all of this is going. It's too little and too late to tell parents and husbands and wives that we can't stop *any* individual hell bent on killing. Remember this: The most fundamental of our natural rights is the right to life.
@Right_in_Virginia
Yet you seem comfortable telling us we should allow ourselves to be disarmed so that WE can't stop *any* individual hell bent on killing" US or OUR families!
QuoteYou're now even against taking guns out of the hands of the mentally ill with a hit list.
Any SANE person would be against this because it is the left who gets to determine who is,and who is NOT "mentally ill",and by THEIR definition, ANYONE that wants to own a firearm is "mentally ill".
@Right_in_Virginia
Yet you seem comfortable telling us we should allow ourselves to be disarmed so that WE can't stop *any* individual hell bent on killing" US or OUR families!
Any SANE person would be against this because it is the left who gets to determine who is,and who is NOT "mentally ill",and by THEIR definition, ANYONE that wants to own a firearm is "mentally ill".
Stop with the false straw man arguments to distract from the topic at hand.
:facepalm2: **nononono*
Perhaps, but your problem is with the voters. They want reasonable restrictions on the gun right, whether efficacious or not. They want "something done" about gun violence and, increasingly, such calls are coming from gun owners themselves.
The handwriting is on the wall, folks. Extremist positions regarding the sanctity of the 2A will just lead to backlash, and quite possibly loss of the 2A entirely. It is far better to work to address measures that most gun owners can live with, such as red flag laws, background checks for transfers and reasonable requirements for licensure, registration and insurance.
This nonsense of opposing what the public wants and demands because of the Founders' alleged intent to permit citizens to brandish military-grade weapons against their own government is not going to fly with the GP. If gun extremists want to kill off the Republican party and the dash the other policy goals of conservatives, then count me as implacably opposed to the gun extremists.
Any SANE person would be against this because it is the left who gets to determine who is,and who is NOT "mentally ill",and by THEIR definition, ANYONE that wants to own a firearm is "mentally ill".
Stop spouting such utter bullshit. A properly drafted and Constitutional red flag law will include due process protections.
I’ve heard discussion of red flag laws and background checks, but nobody out there is talking about registration or insurance, but you.
Stop spouting such utter bullshit. A properly drafted and Constitutional red flag law will include due process protections.
Hell I'm old enough to remember when a rifle on a gun rack inside a pickup truck in my high schools parking lot didn't even draw so much as a second glance.
I'll take the latter for $50, Alex.
Perhaps, but your problem is with the voters. They want reasonable restrictions on the gun right, whether efficacious or not. They want "something done" about gun violence and, increasingly, such calls are coming from gun owners themselves.
Nah @sneakypete Please don't go all hyperbolic on me. I'm actually proposing a different approach to a campaign (and it is a campaign) against disarming American citizens.
Why are you surrendering your voice? I don't get it. :shrug:
Not here they don't.
Hey, think of me as Paula Revere @Bigun .... "The socialists are coming and you're losing .... badly."
I'm merely suggesting you, and others, think outside the box. Outside the box means remembering innocents are dying and right now their heirs are holding all the cards and political clout.
Peace. happy77
And around here, they sure as hell do.
Stop spouting such utter bullshit. A properly drafted and Constitutional red flag law will include due process protections.
@txradioguy
@jpsb
@roamer_1
@austingirl
@skeeter
@ all :laugh:
Benjamin Franklin saw 250 years ago when he answered that question; "A Republic ... if you can keep it!"
Cell phones and GPS and automobiles weren't even a gleam is his eye. Did he 'see' a billion people? Perhaps.
Or was he strictly referring for authority's or government's penchant to want to RULE rather than be ruled?
I'll take the latter for $50, Alex.
Franklin was seeing the same tendencies and personality types in 1775 that we are seeing now. There's nothing new under the sun.
And around here, they sure as hell do.
That's right.
One-third of the Colonists kept the fealty to the King.
One-third of the Colonists actively fought for Independence
One-third of the Colonists didn't give a shit and wanted to be left alone.
Hmmmmmm..... in which third might we find you? :laugh:
And the ones that say otherwise are lying to your face.
That's right.
Every time they think they have a good crisis to exploit. Effi ghouls, every one of them.
YEP.
Every time they think they have a good crisis to exploit. Effi ghouls, every one of them.
I have no use for dirty, rotten scoundrels who take pleasure in mass murder so they can exploit the tragedy to forward their goal of disarming the public. F*** them all.
As predictable as day follows night, the Rats were raising funds before the bodies were cold.
Trump says there’s no political appetite to ban assault weapons ‘from the standpoint of the legislature,’ but he will bring it up with them.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371325.new.html#new (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371325.new.html#new)
If there's no appetite...then why even bring it up?
@Right_in_Virginia
Seems to me like YOU are the one surrendering.
MY philosophy on gun control is that any citizen not on parole or other restriction should be able to walk into any gun shop in the country and buy any firearm he wants as long as it isn't a crew-served weapon. The 2nd Amendment covers individual weapons as carried by the typical soldier,and individual soldiers don't carry crew-served weapons. By definition they need a crew.
BTW,before we get into that argument,the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover things like grenades,either. Grenades and similar devices are classified as "weapons of mass destruction" because they are nothing less than tiny bombs.
Politics and governing demand compromise. - Barry Goldwater.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/602892 (https://www.azquotes.com/quote/602892)
Trump understands principle, he understands the right to life. I thought folks bragged on how they were Goldwater conservatives, well Goldwater said politics and governing demanded compromise. As usual some principled position seems built on BS but if we can wallow in our own self-aggrandizing pompous righteous, why not? They don't help. Good riddance, we don't need them to remind us of this constantly, they do nothing, they abandoned principle. Spare us the morality speech, hey, the rural areas are unfortunately pretty well offset by the urban.
I'm not suggesting we lie to anyone @EdJames because I'm convinced we could have stopped the killer in Florida and Dayton. I'm not saying we can stop all ... but damn it, man, why wouldn't we be supportive of stopping even one? Again .... if rights aren't up for debate then this includes the right to life.
Why wouldn't we want to stand as the people who want to stop the killing .... really stop the killing? I repeat myself but red flag laws pave the way for a discussion and action on our failing mental health care, the importance (not the breakdown) of the family unit, fathers working with mothers, limiting the internet for developing hearts, minds and souls, working with community leaders and faith leaders .... the list is endless and each item on the list addresses the root cause of the carnage.
And you know what, Ed ... we will have changed the focus of the conversation from guns to the quality of our collective lives. Take this as an opportunity not to defend guns but to defend life and your guns and the natural right to own them will be safe.
The democrats know this -- which is why they are so damn determined to include further gun control in the legislation being debated. THEY know if we change the dialogue, they lose.
Trump says there’s no political appetite to ban assault weapons ‘from the standpoint of the legislature,’ but he will bring it up with them.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371325.new.html#new (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371325.new.html#new)
QuoteI am actually fighting for what you're fighting for ... preservation of American gun rights. But I think current events, and by current I mean the last 15 years, demand a different kind of fight, a fight with a different focus.
I agree. ALL that compromise has brought us is more gun laws and more compromises. We give,they take.QuoteWe MUST acknowledge the pain the carnage has caused our fellow citizens. Dead innocents cannot be whisked aside and replaced with a 200 year old document. Not anymore; there has been too much bloodshed.
Once again I agree,and more gun control is a direct cause of it. Notice how almost all the massacres are committed in areas with strict gun laws? The reason for that is the shooters know they won't get shot there because their victims are unarmed.QuoteRed flag laws reinforce the simple truth that the mentally ill murder.
Biggest steaming pile of crap I have seen in months,maybe years. Saying "the mentally ill murder" is akin to stating that water is wet or that ducks are known to fly and swim. This is NOT some great discovery,yet people say it like it's something profound.
The REALITY is it means nothing BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS,INCLUDING THE GUN GRABBERS. Hell,they rely on it to push for gun confiscation. What they don't want discussed in public is that armed citizens stop mass murders. Sometimes the mere fact that there are armed citizens walking around with concealed weapons is enough to keep a massacre from happening because these loons don't want to get shot,they want to shoot someone else.
QuoteOur support for such laws also tells our fellow citizens that we are not cold-hearted bastards who don't care how many children they bury.
No,YOUR support for them shows our fellow citizens that you think the gun grabbers are right,and that no one but the police and the body guards for the wealthy should be ALLOWED to be armed.
QuoteWe do care and want to help identify and treat those who exhibit the signs of mental illness that put all of us at risk --- even if this reduces the number of rampages by only one.
Please splain how ME giving up MY guns saves any lives I would be interested in saving,or that needed saving. I have had guns since I was 8 years old,and haven't shot anyone since I left VN. Came close a few times when different sets of idiots thought they could rat pack me outside of bars or restaurants and get away with it because they outnumbered me,but I managed to get them to listen to reason. I WOULD have killed them,and was prepared to do so if they made their move,but they seemed to lose all interest in attacking me when I laughed at them and told them what would happen if they did.QuoteWe will fight to do this with Constitutional due diligence and court oversight, but we will do this.
What's this "We" stuff,Willard?QuoteBut this should be just the beginning.
That's one thing I am positive about if it ever happens.QuoteWe should then move to addressing the failures and stigmas in mental health treatment, the isolation among our youth -- the lack of family and community connection, the violence and diminishment of the value of life flowing to our young through video games, music, movies and television. We should begin a campaign to reinforce that human life is a profound gift and its protection and enhancement is the first and most essential responsibility of all within a civilized society.And you know what would happen if we did all of this?
Yes. The left would announce we agreed with them,and would outlaw the NRA and private gun possession,as "A reasonable first step to restoring peace and tranquility."
QuoteWe'd no longer be talking about guns -- at all;
You are right,but for the wrong reason. We would quit talking about guns because none of us would be allowed to have one after everyone,including people like you,agreed with the left that it was the guns that caused the murders.Quotebut we'd be preventing the carnage they have been used for.
That's one way of looking at it,I guess. A more effective way would be to confiscate and melt them down for scrap.
"I know that you (and many others) would like to believe that they would work in the way intended, but countless posts in numerous threads here this week have done a very good job of explaining how they will fail both in intended results (stop killing) and the "unintended" consequences of deprivation of citizens' rights."
@EdJames
As my mother would say, "that's the pit and core of it!"
Ok lets say these Red Flag laws are implemented with all the 4th and 5th Amendment protections our anti-gun friends here say they will include.
A person gets reported...gets his or her guns taken away as ordered by a judge.
What's to stop that person from driving downtown...or in a more rural setting out to the sticks somewhere and buying a gun from the local gang banger or hillbilly and still carrying out his or her murderous intentions?
For that matter how will anyone know if all of the persons guns were collected?
No one no matter what unconstitutional law..mandate or feel good legislation is proposed or passed will stop someone from getting a gun that wants one.
The gun grabbers mask their true intentions behind bullshit like Red Flag laws or "common sense" gun regulations....but at the end of the day what they are all striving for is total confiscation and the prohibition of ANY civilian owning any type of firearms.
And the ones that say otherwise are lying to your face.
assault weaponssemi-automatic rifle
If you asked the average liberal if we should ban semi-automatic rifles for hunters, I wonder what they would say? It's damned tiresome to get lectures on what kinds of guns a person needs by someone who knows nothing about firearms.
That's not the point. Engagement is necessary to avoid disaster. If gun extremism keeps the GOP from credibly appealing to the millions of voters concerned with unremitting gun violence, then the future is clear - the 2A is done.
I know that you aren't a disingenuous person, @Right_in_Virginia, and I believe that your intentions are honorable and focused on the good.
But the focus should be on the items that you mention ("our failing mental health care, the importance (not the breakdown) of the family unit, fathers working with mothers, limiting the internet for developing hearts, minds and souls, working with community leaders and faith leaders .... the list is endless and each item on the list addresses the root cause of the carnage.") without inserting liberty-depriving red flag laws into the mix. I know that you (and many others) would like to believe that they would work in the way intended, but countless posts in numerous threads here this week have done a very good job of explaining how they will fail both in intended results (stop killing) and the "unintended" consequences of deprivation of citizens' rights.
Thank you for that @EdJames
Before we can shift the focus to the other issues, we must first address the blood that's been spilled and the humanity wounded.
Red laws, rightly written and carried out, will help us get a handle on the mentally ill who are killing us. And as I said, if these laws stop one rampage, we have done well.
I just do not understand the resistance to this. If you truly believe guns don't kill people, that people do ... then focus on those people. In 2019, red laws may be the only way to protect the American gun rights enshrined in 1787.
More proof that nothing good comes from Ohio.
You can't say you strongly support the Second Amendment and turn around and express your support for everything the Libs want as far as limitations on gun ownership.
Thank you for that @EdJames
Before we can shift the focus to the other issues, we must first address the blood that's been spilled and the humanity wounded.
Red laws, rightly written and carried out, will help us get a handle on the mentally ill who are killing us. And as I said, if these laws stop one rampage, we have done well.
I just do not understand the resistance to this. If you truly believe guns don't kill people, that people do ... then focus on those people. In 2019, red laws may be the only way to protect the American gun rights enshrined in 1787.
In a somewhat surprising move, Fox Business Network host Trish Regan—a vocal and loyal booster of President Trump—on Wednesday called for stricter gun laws and the ban of assault weapons.
[snip]
Trish Regan
@trish_regan
@realDonaldTrump
has a major opportunity: he can BAN assault weapons and envoke strict gun laws and backgrnd checks in one executive order. To heck w/ lobbyists at NRA - the majority of Americans and common sense supports this! It’s time to do what is right for our country.
9:43 AM · Aug 7, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-business-host-calls-trump-192807861.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-business-host-calls-trump-192807861.html)
Hell I'm old enough to remember when a rifle on a gun rack inside a pickup truck in my high schools parking lot didn't even draw so much as a second glance.Yep, me, too.
:laugh:They'd do that for a shotgun shell (already fired, not live ammo) on the dash.
Today, they send a masked SWAT team for you before the bell rang.
That's because the real liberal wet dream is the confiscation of firearms, and those he is in sympathy with want the shopping list to go get them with--something registration and insurance records would provide.
I’ve heard discussion of red flag laws and background checks, but nobody out there is talking about registration or insurance, but you.
Stop spouting such utter bullshit. A properly drafted and Constitutional red flag law will include due process protections.How are you going to have a "constitutional" Bill of Attainder*?
Aww Come on, man!!
I was born and raised in Ohio!!
You can't mean that!
****slapping
(But I agree with the rest of what you said.)
That's because the real liberal wet dream is the confiscation of firearms, and those he is in sympathy with want the shopping list to go get them with--something registration and insurance records would provide.
I have no interest whatsoever in taking your precious guns. Only that you act responsibly, and register and insure them, just as I do my cars.
Automobile registration and insurance have been around for a century. The government has yet to confiscate cars.
Aww Come on, man!!
I was born and raised in Ohio!!
You can't mean that!
****slapping
(But I agree with the rest of what you said.)
I have no interest whatsoever in taking your precious guns. Only that you act responsibly, and register and insure them, just as I do my cars.
Automobile registration and insurance have been around for a century.
The government has yet to confiscate cars.
Ah, the old insurance saw. What do you have against poor people? Why don't they deserve to defend themselves? They live in the worse neighborhoods. At least you quit lying about it not leading to registration.
No. No deal. No registration.
I wanna know why Jazzy hate minorities and the poor so much. The registration and insurance schemes he supports (as do all leftist gun grabbers) impact those that need guns the most. Minorities and lower income people who live in high crime areas and if these idiotic plans were put i place it would price them out of being able to defend themselves. Which is the whole idea behind these schemes anyway.
You know...those places where criminals use guns and give a rats ass a out registration...insurance or background checks for the weapons they use.
The concern about insurance and liability is a lie, registration is the golden ring.
:beer: It's all good. I learned that saying in relationship to the Buckeyes more than any people I know form there :)
NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after the president expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump's supporters, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss internal talks. LaPierre also argued against the bill's merits, the officials said.
[snip]
"I don't think the president or his Republican allies are going to become out of nowhere advocates of aggressive gun control," said Matt Schlapp, who leads the American Conservative Union and is a close ally to Trump
[snip]
"He seems determined to do something and believes there is space to get something done this time around," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said he had spoken to Trump "four or five times" since the shooting. "The president has a pretty common-sense point of view. He's never been a sports or gun enthusiast. But he is more determined than ever to do something on his watch."
https://m.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Trump-warned-by-NRA-over-background-checks-14288843.php
Trump has previously said the NRA doesn’t hold influence over him. Schlapp doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’ve posted more than a few quotes/links that have shown either the previous history or changed opinions of people on the right. Graham says what a lot of us already knew.
You may say Sclapp doesn't know what he's talking about, but he knows this with clarity: If Trump goes down as a gun-grabber, he's finished as President. No way he wins in 2020, no matter how loony his opponent.
My point is that Barr and Trump both have a history of supporting the AWB idea. It’s not ‘out of nowhere.’ Also, there have been representatives and donors, from the right, who have expressed their desire to re-instate the ban, since Stoneman-Douglass and the recent events. So, it would seem as if Schlapp isn’t paying attention.
QuoteI wanna know why Jazzy hate minorities and the poor so much. The registration and insurance schemes he supports (as do all leftist gun grabbers) impact those that need guns the most.
@txradioguy @Jazzhead
I think I know. Those of us on the right USUALLY tend to think rationally and try to come up with conclusions that fit the problem.
Those on the left are dreamers,and logic should NEVER conflict with the dream of puppy dog kisses and candy canes for all.
If de po can't afford the registration fees,including losing time off from work to handle the registering,why,the government will just have to give them the money to pay for it!
They can either do this by raising taxes on the wealthy (defined as ANYONE that brings in more money than ME!),or they can just print more money. Problem solved!
See,it's simple.
We iz da wurld.....
We iz da peep-pulls.....
Group hug! Group hug!
I think Trump can't afford to lose any of his voting base, which will desert him in droves if he outs himself as a gun grabber. JMHO.
I wanna know why Jazzy hate minorities and the poor so much. The registration and insurance schemes he supports (as do all leftist gun grabbers) impact those that need guns the most. Minorities and lower income people who live in high crime areas and if these idiotic plans were put i place it would price them out of being able to defend themselves. Which is the whole idea behind these schemes anyway.
You know...those places where criminals use guns and give a rats ass a out registration...insurance or background checks for the weapons they use.
The concern about insurance and liability is a lie, registration is the golden ring.
You may say Sclapp doesn't know what he's talking about, but he knows this with clarity: If Trump goes down as a gun-grabber, he's finished as President. No way he wins in 2020, no matter how loony his opponent.
You may say Sclapp doesn't know what he's talking about, but he knows this with clarity: If Trump goes down as a gun-grabber, he's finished as President. No way he wins in 2020, no matter how loony his opponent.
My point is that Barr and Trump both have a history of supporting the AWB idea. It’s not ‘out of nowhere.’ Also, there have been representatives and donors, from the right, who have expressed their desire to re-instate the ban, since Stoneman-Douglass and the recent events. So, it would seem as if Schlapp isn’t paying attention.
Trump is no gun grabber. He is, however, President of the nation and all its citizens, not just you gun huggers. If he does the responsible thing, and is defeated by the gun huggers staying home, then blame yourselves, and yourselves alone, for the fate your rights will suffer.
@Jazzhead says "you gun huggers." Is that you, Zero? :silly: :silly:
I have no interest whatsoever in taking your precious guns. Only that you act responsibly, and register and insure them, just as I do my cars.With all due respect what part of "No" don't you understand?
Automobile registration and insurance have been around for a century. The government has yet to confiscate cars.
@txradioguy
It is MY OPINION that the ugly truth they will never even admit to themselves is they see minorities are inferior beings. Semi-human pets that need some kind human like them to provide them with everything they need,because they are incapable of doing it for themselves.
No other scenario I can come up with covers all the bases. If they thought minorities were equals,they would need no special government protections. They don't,and they feel guilty about it,so they want to use taxpayer money to ease their guilt over being what they accuse everyone else of being.
I think Trump can't afford to lose any of his voting base, which will desert him in droves if he outs himself as a gun grabber. JMHO.True, that, and he already has one foot in that door with the bump stock ban--something even Obama would not risk.
@txradioguyYou nailed it.
It is MY OPINION that the ugly truth they will never even admit to themselves is they see minorities are inferior beings. Semi-human pets that need some kind human like them to provide them with everything they need,because they are incapable of doing it for themselves.
No other scenario I can come up with covers all the bases. If they thought minorities were equals,they would need no special government protections. They don't,and they feel guilty about it,so they want to use taxpayer money to ease their guilt over being what they accuse everyone else of being.
True, that, and he already has one foot in that door with the bump stock ban--something even Obama would not risk.
@txradioguy
It is MY OPINION that the ugly truth they will never even admit to themselves is they see minorities are inferior beings. Semi-human pets that need some kind human like them to provide them with everything they need,because they are incapable of doing it for themselves.
No other scenario I can come up with covers all the bases. If they thought minorities were equals,they would need no special government protections. They don't,and they feel guilty about it,so they want to use taxpayer money to ease their guilt over being what they accuse everyone else of being.
Fellow gun-grabbers who profess to hate only two things about Trump (everything he says, everything he does) think the President is making the smart move by alienating his base.Considering a significant fraction of the 80,000,000 gun owners out there will find any new gun control (or revived old gun control) measures to be an absolute deal-breaker, especially with Hillary still free, the border still not secure, and the ACA still lurking in the shadows, it could be politically terminal.
Considering a significant fraction of the 80,000,000 gun owners out there will find any new gun control (or revived old gun control) measures to be an absolute deal-breaker, especially with Hillary still free, the border still not secure, and the ACA still lurking in the shadows, it could be politically terminal.
He can’t, but he also can’t hide from who and what he really is, either. I think it was @txradioguy that said (either on this thread or a related one) that Trump would return to his anti-assault weapon stance, after the 2020 election. I’m not particularly comforted by the fact we could say ‘at least it’s not (fill in the blank),’ when the end result is still a massive infringement.
Considering a significant fraction of the 80,000,000 gun owners out there will find any new gun control (or revived old gun control) measures to be an absolute deal-breaker, especially with Hillary still free, the border still not secure, and the ACA still lurking in the shadows, it could be politically terminal.
@edpc yeah that's my belief that if he's gonna revert to his New York Values it will be after 2020 when he doesn't have to worry about reelection.
Considering a significant fraction of the 80,000,000 gun owners out there will find any new gun control (or revived old gun control) measures to be an absolute deal-breaker, especially with Hillary still free, the border still not secure, and the ACA still lurking in the shadows, it could be politically terminal.
@txradioguyMaybe. If this isn't all some sort of Kabuki theater. We'll see. Besides, he wouldn't be the first to move his corporate headquarters out of NYC, or the whole State, for that matter.
When you consider the hatred spewed at him by what seems like EVERY denizen of NYC,legal,illegal,and semi-human,I just don't see him identifying as a NY'er anymore.
As for his business dealings in NYC,what he has now is all he will ever have. There is no way in hell ANY city official is going to sign off on any sort of permit for him in the future.
In fact,I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't start "surprise inspections" on all his property including his hotel,as well as scouring over all the tax records and inspection permits,zoning permits,and everything else they can think of,as well as trying to shut him down while he is forced to take the city to court.
I suspect before it is all over he will end up selling everything he has there unless he can get his counter-suit heard in a impartial court outside of the city or the state capital. If he doesn't,his life will be a living nightmare.
Dims ARE vindictive bitches and they will NEVER forgive someone they thought of as "one of our own" turning on them.
So there it is, then. If Trump adopts the position of the gun extremists, he loses the election. If he rejects the position of the gun extremists, he loses the election.It isn't just the top of the ticket. Any congresscritter who votes for gun control better line up that lobbying job.
Start stockpiling supplies for that bunker, sir.
It isn't just the top of the ticket. Any congresscritter who votes for gun control better line up that lobbying job.
As I politely explained to my Senator yesterday.
Go ahead, destroy conservatism for a generation, in service to your selfishness and willful disregard of the community's legitimate concerns over mass shootings.
But engaging on the issue, conservatives can help shape the details of laws to make sure they are efficacious and respectful of the rights of law abiding gun owners. But if bullying is all the extremists have got, then I'll cheer when the Courts take their rights away.
Go ahead, destroy conservatism for a generation, in service to your selfishness and willful disregard of the community's legitimate concerns over mass shootings.By being complicit in the destruction of a Constitutional Right, conservatism will have become another meaningless label.
But engaging on the issue, conservatives can help shape the details of laws to make sure they are efficacious and respectful of the rights of law abiding gun owners. But if bullying is all the extremists have got, then I'll cheer when the Courts take their rights away.
By being complicit in the destruction of a Constitutional Right, conservatism will have become another meaningless label.
I refuse to give up one jot or tittle of my Rights so some jackass politician can wave a label around in another fit of electoral false advertising.
So, it sticks in your craw that I had an opportunity to speak with my Senator and exercised my 1st Amendment right. Well, why not throw another Amendment under the bus?
I've seen your version of "conservatism," and I'll take a pass on it.
Then suffer the consequences. The problem is, your extremism causes harm to far more than yourself. It is high time for the rest of us to stand up to bullying.
By being complicit in the destruction of a Constitutional Right, conservatism will have become another meaningless label.
I refuse to give up one jot or tittle of my Rights so some jackass politician can wave a label around in another fit of electoral false advertising.
You didn't "speak to your Senator", you threatened him. What would stick in my craw is if he capitulates to such bullying. Responsible gun owners want the same thing most of the rest of us want - the right to protect ourselves in the context of a system of laws that protects innocents from mass murder.
You didn't "speak to your Senator", you threatened him. What would stick in my craw is if he capitulates to such bullying. Responsible gun owners want the same thing most of the rest of us want - the right to protect ourselves in the context of a system of laws that protects innocents from mass murder.
Then suffer the consequences. The problem is, your extremism causes harm to far more than yourself. It is high time for the rest of us to stand up to bullying.BULLYING? Us?
Did you notice that my mere mention of the subject to my Senator meant I "bullied" a former A-10 pilot? Well...she is about a head shorter than I....
(https://i.imgur.com/IIJfecA.png)
Go ahead, destroy conservatism for a generation, in service to your selfishness and willful disregard of the community's legitimate concerns over mass shootings.
But engaging on the issue, conservatives can help shape the details of laws to make sure they are efficacious and respectful of the rights of law abiding gun owners. But if bullying is all the extremists have got, then I'll cheer when the Courts take their rights away.
the right to protect ourselves in the context of a system of laws that protects innocents from mass murder
No one bullies an A-10 pilot
Nosir. When I greeted her, I did not say it's an honor to meet a Senator, I told her it's an honor to meet an A-10 pilot, and thanked her for doing it so well.
We...aren't the extremists. And the bullys are the ones like you trying to force normal people to give up a Constitutional right.
WTH do you care about "conservatism?" I have yet to see a post of yours arguing a conservative position on any issue with a degree of controversy swirling around it.
The "community" is free to have as many legitimate concerns as they wish, on a whole host of issues.
However, the "community" is not authorized to interfere with natural rights.
You understand that, yes? The rights that are endowed upon mankind by its Creator.... or put another way for those not all that keen on the concept of a "Creator," the rights that are endowed upon mankind by the nature of his humanity....
Yes, those rights.... you and the "community" have no say about them. Not one iota.
Nice! 888high58888
I guess I need to post this again as apparently it was missed the first time around!
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67742118_2463809650349699_6189002647530373120_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeHbdbrnmUE_8ZBupmvEfNIUMbhNHWwR1l6xpktAmn9Vb7zh_Vromh9xj9U5XQfFbOJTd7AiPtyJPshWhywW37QGVVhDNNTyETGWLAnDuNS_ZA&_nc_oc=AQns5bc7vOuRXCdLTw_zTUuU7LFnmo18TuQ-NOfxcXEXTtjCQu3dyfZm1K964YQeql8&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=b261a93330c3ed648bc22b9d9d06fb45&oe=5DE7F531)
Freedom of speech is the very first amendment to the Constitution yet we put parameters around this right. No one can yell "fire" in a theater and there are libel and slander laws "dictating" what people cannot say or write. The Right to Assemble, also a First Amendment right, requires a permit. And freedom of religion protected in #1 is limited on government property and public schools.
What the hell makes the 2nd amendment so damn sacrosanct that we cannot put parameters around this amendment too?
And please, spare me the "if you don't know, I can't explain it :bs: "
@txradioguy
@Bigun
@Cyber Liberty
It's true. Senators are nothing to me, but heroes who wear our country's uniform are special to me. And thank you for that, Sarge.
It's very simple. Without the 2nd Amendment there is no 1st Amendment...there is no Bill of Rights. It literally protects all the others from being tossed away like an old rag by all of these hard left Progressives running amok in today's society.
The 2nd Amendment prevents tyranny.
It's very simple. Without the 2nd Amendment there is no 1st Amendment...there is no Bill of Rights.
However, the "community" is not authorized to interfere with natural rights.
You understand that, yes? The rights that are endowed upon mankind by its Creator.... or put another way for those not all that keen on the concept of a "Creator," the rights that are endowed upon mankind by the nature of his humanity....
Yes, those rights.... you and the "community" have no say about them. Not one iota.
Winner, Winner Chicken dinner!
If this was the truth, the Founders would have made the right to bear arms the first amendment to the Constitution.
Please stop making up crap to suit your gun fixation.
No one bullies an A-10 pilot
If this was the truth, the Founders would have made the right to bear arms the first amendment to the Constitution.
Freedom of speech is the very first amendment to the Constitution yet we put parameters around this right. No one can yell "fire" in a theater and there are libel and slander laws "dictating" what people cannot say or write. The Right to Assemble, also a First Amendment right, requires a permit. And freedom of religion protected in #1 is limited on government property and public schools.Read Federalist 46 for the real reason the 2nd Amendment exists.
What the hell makes the 2nd amendment so damn sacrosanct that we cannot put parameters around this amendment too?
And please, spare me the "if you don't know, I can't explain it" nonsense
@txradioguy
@Bigun
@Cyber Liberty
If this was the truth, the Founders would have made the right to bear arms the first amendment to the Constitution.
Please stop making up crap to suit your gun fixation.
Then why didn't the founder make the right to bear arms the first amendment? @Bigun
The rights that are endowed upon mankind by its Creator.... or put another way for those not all that keen on the concept of a "Creator," the rights that are endowed upon mankind by the nature of his humanity....
Yes, those rights.... you and the "community" have no say about them. Not one iota.
Martha was such a cutie, too.
I took that image of @Cyber Liberty and Senator McSally, and I can guarantee there was no bullying going on there. Why would there be any bullying? We had such a great time!
:yowsa:
Bullshit. I understand what Justice Scalia understood. Every right set forth in the Constitution is subject to reasonable regulation. And that is all I am talking about. Not denial, not confiscation.
In actual fact, there was quite a robust discussion about the order by Madison, Mason, and others.
I would have to go look it (it has been decades since I was buried in those texts and papers), but strong arguments were made to position the 2nd above the 1st.
Maybe @Bigun or someone else has a reference handy?
Are you arguing that the rights endowed upon mankind by its Creator includes the right to slaughter innocents? @EdJames
If you're not … then what's your point vis-à -vis red flag laws?
An assault weapons ban won't stop gun violence. It's just for show - to show that politicians are "doing something". There are far more effective, and less intrusive, ideas for addressing gun violence.
Majority of Republicans(women) support an assault weapons ban: PollIf the majority of Americans thought a town in the US should be nuked, would that make it OK?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/8/majority-republicans-support-assault-weapons-ban-p/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/8/majority-republicans-support-assault-weapons-ban-p/)
Read Federalist 46 for the real reason the 2nd Amendment exists.
Not sure it addresses that point precisely @EdJames but this is a pretty good primer: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/more-perfect-union (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/founding-docs/more-perfect-union)
Bullshit yourself. You don't appear to understand anything about natural rights.
You use the disingenuous tactics of arguing that prior, wrongful incursions against these rights are justification for more of them!
You've proven that you are either a despicable troll, or a blithering idiot!
Please don't refer to Members as "idiots." I had just warned him about that....
Are you arguing that the rights endowed upon mankind by its Creator includes the right to slaughter innocents? @EdJames
If you're not … then what's your point vis-à -vis red flag laws?
Thanks, will check it out!
Don't beclown yourself by formulating such nonsensical questions......
:thud:
Sorry, Boss..... it is just that I have bitten clear through my tongue today!!
:yowsa:
It's not nonsense. I'm weary of hearing you speak of God-given natural rights and never once address the natural right to life.
I think you defile the concept of God-given natural rights when you use them to defend and support the weapons that kill --- rather than the innocent lives lost because of them.
@EdJames
Why are you bringing state militias into this conversation?Oh silly me, that was when we had a Federal Government not a National one. In those days, every state had its own army (Militia). The militias were seen as the counter to the power of the standing Federal Army, in the event the Federal Army was used as an instrument to impose tyranny.
It's not nonsense. I'm weary of hearing you speak of God-given natural rights and never once address the natural right to life.
I think you defile the concept of God-given natural rights when you use them to defend and support the weapons that kill --- rather than the innocent lives lost because of them.
@EdJames
It's not nonsense. I'm weary of hearing you speak of God-given natural rights and never once address the natural right to life.
I think you defile the concept of God-given natural rights when you use them to defend and support the weapons that kill --- rather than the innocent lives lost because of them.
@EdJames
I am actually shocked and stunned that you have allowed your emotions to reduce your thought process to such a level of absurdity, @Right_in_Virginia.
"Shocked!" "Stunned!" --- yeah, no emotion there. *****rollingeyes*****
I'm being cold-hearted factual, and you damn well know it. And I nailed ya fair and square.
:silly:
Not really, but if you want to believe that, who am I to stop you?
"Shocked!" "Stunned!" --- yeah, no emotion there. *****rollingeyes*****
I'm being cold-hearted factual, and you damn well know it. And I nailed ya fair and square.
Not sure I understand your implication here.
"Shocked!" "Stunned!" --- yeah, no emotion there. *****rollingeyes*****
I'm being cold-hearted factual, and you damn well know it. And I nailed you fair and square.
:rolling: :silly:
For the record, I found your twisting of other people's words to be highly insulting for the topic.
Many here need to hope no one's monitoring the gun fanatic threads --- what with the coming red flag laws and all. Another reason to keep your fingers crossed, boys :crossed:
000hehehehe
Bullshit yourself. You don't appear to understand anything about natural rights.
You've proven that you are either a despicable troll, or a blithering idiot!
Many here need to hope no one's monitoring the gun fanatic threads --- what with the coming red flag laws and all. Another reason to keep your fingers crossed, boys :crossed:
000hehehehe
Then neither did Justice Scalia. But I prefer to be in agreement with Justice Scalia than an arrogant fool such as yourself.
Then neither did Justice Scalia.
I prefer to be in agreement with Justice Scalia than an arrogant fool such as yourself.
@Smokin Joe
@Cyber Liberty
If Trump does background checks, gun owners will STILL vote for him because the other choice wants NO GUNS.
I'm fine with the background checks, just the way they are. The left has been thumping the tub for "universal" background checks, which could make felons of a father who gifts a firearm to his child, or someone who allows someone else to borrow their gun to try out at a shooting range (depending on how the law is written).
I am philosophically opposed to any law that makes felons out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
I'm opposed to ANY new laws until we start enforcing the ones we already have!
I'm fine with the background checks, just the way they are. The left has been thumping the tub for "universal" background checks, which could make felons of a father who gifts a firearm to his child, or someone who allows someone else to borrow their gun to try out at a shooting range (depending on how the law is written).
I am philosophically opposed to any law that makes felons out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The expanded background checks the left want implemented have to do with private sales. They want to make it where if I had a couple of 1911’s in my collection that I wanted to sell you we couldn’t meet at you place and exchange the guns for $$$. We’d have to conduct the transaction at a licensed gun dealer and have him run a NICS check on you and charge whatever rate he charges per gun to complete the transaction.
Never mind the fact in the last 100 years there hasn’t been a mass shooting with a gun that was bought or sold in a private transfer.
Is that a threat? Reads like a threat.
Many here need to hope no one's monitoring the gun fanatic threads --- what with the coming red flag laws and all. Another reason to keep your fingers crossed, boys :crossed:
000hehehehe
I'm fine with the background checks, just the way they are. The left has been thumping the tub for "universal" background checks, which could make felons of a father who gifts a firearm to his child, or someone who allows someone else to borrow their gun to try out at a shooting range (depending on how the law is written). I am philosophically opposed to any law that makes felons out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.@Cyber Liberty
@Cyber Liberty
Yes, I know that, however, what I said is true. If he does universal background checks, gun owners will still vote for him due to Dems want the guns. Really, what would you do if he does it?
Is that a threat? Reads like a threat.
You have not made the case that more gun control would save lives.
Pushing back the boundaries of ignorance and superstition has its risks I suppose. I'll take my chances.
I haven't tried to do that @Cyber Liberty I have tried to make the case that rightly crated red flag laws will.
I haven't tried to do that @Cyber Liberty I have tried to make the case that rightly crated red flag laws will.
How is being a proponent of rightly crafted red flag laws ignorant and superstitious @Bigun
IF... after application for firearm, the person is deemed "OK", all papers, forms and documents...data should be destroyed.
Nobody in government should know what kind of...or how many firearms you own or where you keep them.
That's the way it's supposed to be, under current law. I think retention is 90 days from purchase, then shredded. Problem is, that's just the paper. What about the computerized records?
That's the way it's supposed to be, under current law. I think retention is 90 days from purchase, then shredded. Problem is, that's just the paper. What about the computerized records?
That's the way it's supposed to be, under current law. I think retention is 90 days from purchase, then shredded. Problem is, that's just the paper. What about the computerized records?
For allowed transactions it's 24 hours I believe.
So there it is, then. If Trump adopts the position of the gun extremists, he loses the election. If he rejects the position of the gun extremists, he loses the election.
It isn't just the top of the ticket. Any congresscritter who votes for gun control better line up that lobbying job.
(You are the extremists calling for infringing a enumerated Right that Constitutionally proscribes infringement) What other Civil Rights do you want to mess with?
At least in this neck of the woods, the firearm owners voted for Trump, not Hillary. All of those 80,000,000 votes would have cinched the last go-round. Voting for the RKBA should cinch 2020. Voting against the RKBA (essentially, the Constitution) will cinch it, too, but not in his favor.
Go ahead, destroy conservatism for a generation,
Then suffer the consequences. The problem is, your extremism causes harm to far more than yourself. It is high time for the rest of us to stand up to bullying.
Responsible gun owners want the same thing most of the rest of us want - the right to protect ourselves in the context of a system of laws that protects innocents from mass murder.
*****rollingeyes*****
"Her." It's a sad day when we cannot discuss policy with our elected representatives for fear of being accused of "bullying."
I guess I need to post this again as apparently it was missed the first time around!
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67742118_2463809650349699_6189002647530373120_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_eui2=AeHbdbrnmUE_8ZBupmvEfNIUMbhNHWwR1l6xpktAmn9Vb7zh_Vromh9xj9U5XQfFbOJTd7AiPtyJPshWhywW37QGVVhDNNTyETGWLAnDuNS_ZA&_nc_oc=AQns5bc7vOuRXCdLTw_zTUuU7LFnmo18TuQ-NOfxcXEXTtjCQu3dyfZm1K964YQeql8&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=b261a93330c3ed648bc22b9d9d06fb45&oe=5DE7F531)
If this was the truth, the Founders would have made the right to bear arms the first amendment to the Constitution.
Please stop making up crap to suit your gun fixation.
Then why didn't the founder make the right to bear arms the first amendment? @Bigun
Correct. We need to win an election folks. That requires engagement, as the President has advocated, on ways to protect the public from mass shootings, within the protections of the Constitution.
Because that is what the public demands.
Why are you bringing state militias into this conversation?
@Smokin Joe
@Cyber Liberty
If Trump does background checks, gun owners will STILL vote for him because the other choice wants NO GUNS.
I'm opposed to ANY new laws until we start enforcing the ones we already have!
QuoteIF... after application for firearm, the person is deemed "OK", all papers, forms and documents...data should be destroyed.
@Right_in_Virginia
Has someone hacked your account? I know you know better than that. Every heard of a guy named Thomas Jefferson? Look up what he had to say about this issue.
Nobody in government should know what kind of...or how many firearms you own or where you keep them.
When did I suggest they should @DCPatriot
@Right_in_Virginia
Because before the First Amendment became the law of the land,there was nothing to protect
[That's enough. Stop the insults]
You didn't.
I was merely adding my two cents to the ongoing conversation. :laugh:
I'm having a rough enough time here .... 88devil
QuoteI know what he said about a lot of things (love the letters), including the First Amendment. But did we invoke his -- or any Founder's name --- when freedom of speech was restricted by libel and slander laws; or the right to assemble was restricted by permits; or the freedom to exercise religion was restricted on government and public school land? (The answer is "no".)
@Right_in_Virginia
HorseHillary! There is no way in hell that nobody complained. The problem was it wasn't the right people,or enough of the "wrong" people to scare the politicians.QuoteSo why are we invoking Jefferson when we try and restrict those who exhibit symptoms of violent mental illness from getting their hands on a gun?
Why is this even a question? If you are mentally ill and violent,you should be locked away in an insane asylum. That way there is no danger of them getting their hands on a gun,or even anything sharp or pointy.QuoteCan you really believe had this carnage happened on Jefferson's watch he would not have revisited the 2nd Amendment with an eye for a couple of parameters to protect innocent life?
Uhhhh,hear of a little dust-up called "The Revolutionary War"? It was in ALL the papers back then.QuoteI happen to be among those who believe we've the ability to construct a red flag law that comports with the US Constitution.
You can believe up is down if you want,but that won't make it so.QuoteI also believe the mentally ill are responsible for the rampant rampages and the slaughter of innocents --- and the first natural right is the right to life.
I agree. Put them away,and the problem is solved. So why are you still ranting about restricting the rights of sane people to possess firearms without goobermint permission?QuoteSo let's focus on the loss of innocent life (outside the womb this time) and set up some checks and balances that protect the rights afforded under the Constitution while protecting God's greatest gift.
Works for me! More people need to be armed with concealed weapons while walking the streets. It will make everyone safer when the criminal classes are not the only ones armed.QuoteIs this really so difficult or too much to ask?
Yes,it IS too much to ask. If the mentally ill and the violent criminals are locked up,why would honest citizens need background checks and permits?
Sorry @sneakypete but this just doesn't make sense, so I'm unable to respond :shrug:
@Right_in_Virginia
Soooo,in that case I guess it would make sense to you to borrow thousands of dollars to have a big high-tec safe installed in your house to store money and other valuables you don't have?
@Right_in_Virginia
HorseHillary! There is no way in hell that nobody complained. The problem was it wasn't the right people,or enough of the "wrong" people to scare the politicians.
Why is this even a question? If you are mentally ill and violent,you should be locked away in an insane asylum. That way there is no danger of them getting their hands on a gun,or even anything sharp or pointy.
Uhhhh,hear of a little dust-up called "The Revolutionary War"? It was in ALL the papers back then.
You can believe up is down if you want,but that won't make it so.
I agree. Put them away,and the problem is solved. So why are you still ranting about restricting the rights of sane people to possess firearms without goobermint permission?
Works for me! More people need to be armed with concealed weapons while walking the streets. It will make everyone safer when the criminal classes are not the only ones armed.
Yes,it IS too much to ask. If the mentally ill and the violent criminals are locked up,why would honest citizens need background checks and permits?
Huh?
@Victoria33 We already have background checks in place. For at least a couple of decades. What the Dims and RINO's are pushing for now is beyond a step too far. They know this,and that is why they are pushing for it so hard. Even they know they have no chance at all unless they can make Trump look like Hitler.@sneakypete
LOL! I'm eating vanilla ice-cream with orange sherbet...enjoying reading. You're like Lara Croft, Tomb Raider. :beer:
@sneakypete
@Cyber Liberty
I have bought a number of "defensive" weapons, one time bought three at once, and gone through the "wait here until I go in the back and check you out". I know we have this background check.
I dread, for others not me, since I have what I need/want, the "universal" background check due to using that to increase ways to stop the sale of weapons and a likely new "keep the info", don't shred it, so we know what you have and where you live.
Trump wants the vote of "almost 5 million" members of the NRA. He also wants to get other voters by giving them a universal background check law. He wants the love/vote of all. He doesn't realize one group wanting the new background check are liberals and he will never get those votes. He does need Independent voters and they likely want the new background check as they vote according to their emotion at the time (dead/wounded) since they have no allegiance to either party.
Senator Majority Leader McConnell (sp) is in the hot seat. If he wants reelection he has to have the NRA voters in his state plus those Independent voters. Hmm, I don't know if he is up for election this time - will have to look that up. If not up for reelection, he can stonewall this and never bring it to a vote. However, I think Trump will force him to pass a new background check law so he (Trump) can appear to please all people, get their love and vote. Why does Trump want love/approval/honor and glory above all things? That is another story.
Freedom of speech is the very first amendment to the Constitution yet we put parameters around this right. No one can yell "fire" in a theater and there are libel and slander laws "dictating" what people cannot say or write.
The Right to Assemble, also a First Amendment right, requires a permit.
And freedom of religion protected in #1 is limited on government property and public schools.
What the hell makes the 2nd amendment so damn sacrosanct that we cannot put parameters around this amendment too?
Because that is what the public demands.
Are you arguing that the rights endowed upon mankind by its Creator includes the right to slaughter innocents?
It's not nonsense. I'm weary of hearing you speak of God-given natural rights and never once address the natural right to life.
I think you defile the concept of God-given natural rights when you use them to defend and support the weapons that kill --- rather than the innocent lives lost because of them.
You have not made the case that more gun control would save lives.
The bottom line was that the presence of arms in the hand of the people would serve as the bulwark against tyranny, imposed by the Federal Government, should it become ambitious in that regard.
After all, you can't even trust the FBI anymore!! Or the CIA. Or NSA.
@Jazzhead
Only in your wettest dreams, Scooter.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. The answer will be clear enough in November of next year.
I wonder if you’ll be humble enough to admit you were don’t next November?
Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate. But the chances don't look good. As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists, he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured. The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.
Again you're trying to corrupt the language and redefine who the extremists are just like a typical Alinskyite and you don't get to do that.
The extremists are the Democrats anti-gun Libs like yourself and every Presidential candidate with a D by their name.
They are the ones that want to punish law abiding citizens the poor and minorities by making it too expensive or too restrictive to own a gun for their own defense.
The ones that want to do away with the 2A implement an assault weapons ban...require meaningless and ineffective "expanded" backgorund checks or your pet project registration and insurance...THAT is the extremist view.
If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.
Quote... which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.
@Jazzhead
No,they love them because they KNOW they will never get elected anywhere without a state of anarchy existing,and the people screaming for politicians to "do something,do ANYTHING,but stop the violence and restore order!"
Which is something they have had wet dreams thinking about their whole lives. They don't really want to be representatives. They want nothing less than becoming "Maximum Leaders" on the order of Mussolini,Stalin,and Hitler.
Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate. But the chances don't look good. As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists, he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured. The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.If Trump backs the gun extremists, then we're fighting to keep our Rights, and he gets the boot.
The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.
You, who daily on this forum advocate for the choice to murder babies in the womb, have a lot of damned gall calling anyone here who backs the letter of the US Constitution an extremist.
Then why didn't the get anywhere with their intended desire to limit and/or ban guns after the 14 different mass shootings that happened in the 8 years Obama was in office?Sadly, the trump Administration has already banned a gun stock that the Obama Administration had ruled as perfectly fine.
Again you're trying to corrupt the language and redefine who the extremists are just like a typical Alinskyite and you don't get to do that.
The extremists are the Democrats anti-gun Libs like yourself and every Presidential candidate with a D by their name.
They are the ones that want to punish law abiding citizens the poor and minorities by making it too expensive or too restrictive to own a gun for their own defense.
The ones that want to do away with the 2A implement an assault weapons ban...require meaningless and ineffective "expanded" backgorund checks or your pet project registration and insurance...THAT is the extremist view.
If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.
Do you believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to defend her own body?
There are extremists on both sides. For purposes of this discussion, what I mean by "gun extremists" are those 2A advocates who reject any reasonable regulation of firearms as an unlawful "infringement". My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia: the individual right exists under the Constitution, and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights, is subject to reasonable regulation.
If my support for Justice Scalia makes me a "gun-grabber", as I've repeatedly been labeled, then permit me to use the term "gun extremists" as I've defined it above.
There are extremists on both sides. For purposes of this discussion, what I mean by "gun extremists" are those 2A advocates who reject any reasonable regulation of firearms as an unlawful "infringement". My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia: the individual right exists under the Constitution, and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights, is subject to reasonable regulation.You aren't supporting Justice Scalia, you are using him as an excuse to try to walk all over the Right. We aren't talking about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, Any reasonable regulations were done long ago, like prohibitions on shooting up dance halls and firing into the air (because the descending bullet just might kill someone). Anything more isn't reasonable.
If my support for Justice Scalia makes me a "gun-grabber", as I've repeatedly been labeled, then permit me to use the term "gun extremists" as I've defined it above.
If Trump backs the gun extremists, then we're fighting to keep our Rights, and he gets the boot.
No one who would take a fundamental Civil Right is anything less than an Extremist.
If you are referring to the millions of people who simply want to retain their Rights, their property, and their means of protecting themselves and their posterity as extremists, you are the extremist who would infringe a Right millions have died to protect for the acts of two individuals and a handful of victims.
You, who daily on this forum advocate for the choice to murder babies in the womb, have a lot of damned gall calling anyone here who backs the letter of the US Constitution an extremist.
Again...that's not extremism...that's your opinion. YOu're trying to corrupt the language and turn the good law abiding people that believe in the Constitution as written into the fringe radicals and that is not nor will it ever be the case. I don't care how many times you use that Liberal/Alinsky tactic.
You're not being honest in what Scalia said. I showed you the exact thing he said and you unsurprisingly passed right over it. You don't support Scalia in Heller...you supported the dissent.
Guess you hoped we'd forget that you did that huh?
Yes. And ironically, you have just made the case for permitting a woman to choose abortion. Self-determination. That's the natural right that the Constitution protects.
Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate. But the chances don't look good. As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists, he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured. The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.
Why are those who want gun laws to remain where they have been for 225 years now considered "extremists", while those who seek to dramatically curtail them are not?
You aren't supporting Justice Scalia, you are using him as an excuse to try to walk all over the Right. We aren't talking about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, Any reasonable regulations were done long ago, like prohibitions on shooting up dance halls and firing into the air (because the descending bullet just might kill someone). Anything more isn't reasonable.
My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia: the individual right exists under the Constitution, and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights, is subject to reasonable regulation.
OK, but what the red flag laws are going to do is regulate 2A rights on a perceived state of mind. There won’t be a heavy burden on the government to prove their case. The burden will be on the red flag target. They’ll just use ‘public safety’ to chip away at 2A, the same way they’ve used national security to intrude on 1A, 4A, and 5A - and probably others. Most ‘extremists’ know where this leads, hence the heel digging.
Why are those who want gun laws to remain where they have been for 225 years now considered "extremists", while those who seek to dramatically curtail them are not?
I not only have the gall, I'll apply the term to you personally - you're an Extremist @Smokin Joe . Now go wear the label with pride.I would, (As Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no Vice.") except that to let you corrupt the language to describe someone who only advocates for their Civil Rights as an "extremist" in this day and age of corrupted language would paint me as a violent and dangerous person in current usage, and I will resist you pulling that semantic rabbit our of your warm, dark hat, as well.
@skeeter
Because we don't believe they way he does.
Standing up for the 2A = extremism
Being a gun grabbing...gun banning Liberal or RINO = rational sensible through on the subject.
The left does enjoy its name calling.
By their name calling, we will know them.Yeah, the project a lot. If they claim you're doing something, it's usually what they are up to.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. The answer will be clear enough in November of next year.
If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.
There are extremists on both sides. For purposes of this discussion, what I mean by "gun extremists" are those 2A advocates who reject any reasonable regulation of firearms as an unlawful "infringement".
There is already plenty of regulation of firearms.It isn't that we reject any regulation of firearms, but much of what is on the books is a clear infringement of the Right. However, we have reached the point where there is no more ground to be given. Where the knife has shave, skinned and is down to the arteries. No more regulation is what we are opposed to.
It isn't that we reject any regulation of firearms, but much of what is on the books is a clear infringement of the Right. However, we have reached the point where there is no more ground to be given. Where the knife has shave, skinned and is down to the arteries. No more regulation is what we are opposed to.
Donald J. Trumpâ€
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks. I have also been speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected. Guns should not be placed in the hands of.....
....mentally ill or deranged people. I am the biggest Second Amendment person there is, but we all must work together for the good and safety of our Country. Common sense things can be done that are good for everyone!
5:03 AM - 9 Aug 2019
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1159797315680555014
...
It isn't that we reject any regulation of firearms, but much of what is on the books is a clear infringement of the Right. However, we have reached the point where there is no more ground to be given. Where the knife has shave, skinned and is down to the arteries. No more regulation is what we are opposed to.
No, you are not.
Part of what really ticks me off...Well, give 'em an inch....
The prior infringements are being used to justify more!
Part of what really ticks me off...
The prior infringements are being used to justify more!
It’s time for some common sense knife reform.That followed in Britain, after guns were pretty much closeted. Note, though, that the folks over there who seem to be doing mass stabbings tend to follow the same prophet as the ones running vans into crowds or blowing things up. All of those activities are forbidden, and the desire to harm others will not be thwarted by having to find a different tool.
https://www.libertynation.com/stabbings-on-the-rise-national-knife-ban-gains-momentum/ (https://www.libertynation.com/stabbings-on-the-rise-national-knife-ban-gains-momentum/)
That should have been expected and that is why the 2A clearly states and "shall NOT be infringed"!! Once the dismantling is started and allowed ... what truly is to stop it?Actually, it is time for a lesson from our Northern neighbors.
Red flag laws will continue and continue and continue until there is nothing left of the 2nd Amendment.
The bigger lesson of Canada's experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country
If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.
Let's think that through.
Americans who are 'Deplorables'...soon to be sport prey in a movie coming to your theaters next month...are going to get pissed off at President Trump for 'expanding' Red Flag Laws, and allow the Party that wants to take your guns outright to win in 2020??
:pondering: :pondering: :pondering: :pondering: :pondering:
I literally see no difference in the two - And neither will most folks when it comes to 2A.
Tumpy is fixin to put his tongue on the third rail.
Let's think that through.
Americans who are 'Deplorables'...soon to be sport prey in a movie coming to your theaters next month...are going to get pissed off at President Trump for 'expanding' Red Flag Laws, and allow the Party that wants to take your guns outright to win in 2020??
:pondering: :pondering: :pondering: :pondering: :pondering:
Let's think that through.
Americans who are 'Deplorables'...soon to be sport prey in a movie coming to your theaters next month...are going to get pissed off at President Trump for 'expanding' Red Flag Laws, and allow the Party that wants to take your guns outright to win in 2020??
:pondering: :pondering: :pondering: :pondering: :pondering:
Trumpy has a
888high58888
You're absolutely correct, a candidate can't be perfect in anything. Some of those against him have no standard, abandoned the unborn. They've shown themselves. Don't let them say they are conservative. They abandoned the most innocent and over the most foremost right, the right to life.
Trump's all for Red Flag laws
And it won't stop there either, unless we stop it.
Britain has drop boxes where you can turn in your knives no questions asked.
Britain.
**nononono*
Folks think they ain't gonna go that far here.
Hard for me to believe, but it was 50 years ago that my parents gave me a Buck knife for Christmas. Like many of my friends, I took it to school everyday, safely secured in the scabbard on my belt. There were never any instances of one student taking their knife out in anger.
O/T, but I just reconnected with a good friend from HS. We'd spend quite a few weekends, and nights during the summer at bowling alleys that stayed open 24 hours. We'd bowl until about 4 or 5, then head off to breakfast before getting home at 6 AM or so.
Can't do that today, with all the curfews put on minors today.
@txradioguy
A absolute bald-faced lie.
It was the DIMS that started that crap,and the media all piled on and started calling Trump a baby-killer,etc,etc,etc because he was against gun control.
Trump finally had to appear to be in favor of the least offensive part (least offensive only because it was ALREADY the law) in order to counter the Fascist left,and even the Fascist right campaigns against him and his supporters.
He is a President,NOT a dictator. As is traditional,he lost control of Congress during the mid-terms,and this has made his life and his term even harder. What he is trying to do is not poison the waters for the Republican congressional candidates whose support and votes he needs for things like immigration control,voter ID's,etc,etc,etc.
ALL of these things are as important as stopping more gun laws. We are now fighting for the very existence of our nation,not just gun rights.
"We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process," Trump said, according to USA TODAY's reporting. "That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders."
"I think in the end, Wayne and the NRA will either be there or maybe will be a little bit more neutral — and that would be OK too," Trump said Friday.
Trump added: "Frankly, we need intelligent background checks. This isn't a question of NRA, Republican or Democrat."
Hard for me to believe, but it was 50 years ago that my parents gave me a Buck knife for Christmas. Like many of my friends, I took it to school everyday, safely secured in the scabbard on my belt. There were never any instances of one student taking their knife out in anger.
Good grief I had forgotten about that. Every other guy had a Buck knife on his belt at my high school here in the SF bay area. Some of em were pretty substantial. Never a single problem.
A knife is merely another tool none of which have any capacity to act without human intervention. The problem is NOT the tools it's the people.
Yes. The problem is not the gun. The problem is us.
Don't red flag laws address the problem of us? :pondering:
@skeeter
Don't red flag laws address the problem of us? :pondering:
@skeeter
Leaving aside that a law allowing the arbitrary seizure of an individual's property without due process should be an anathema to all Americans, what I'm referring to is spiritual.
This nation is increasing defective in that regard and these mass shootings are a mere symptom.
Btw I believe Trump will not go down the red flag route, but will focus on universal background checks instead.
@txradioguyWhen the media come out against the slaughter of abortion they they can point the 'baby killer' finger--AND NOT UNTIL.
A absolute bald-faced lie.
It was the DIMS that started that crap,and the media all piled on and started calling Trump a baby-killer,etc,etc,etc because he was against gun control.
Trump finally had to appear to be in favor of the least offensive part (least offensive only because it was ALREADY the law) in order to counter the Fascist left,and even the Fascist right campaigns against him and his supporters.
He is a President,NOT a dictator. As is traditional,he lost control of Congress during the mid-terms,and this has made his life and his term even harder. What he is trying to do is not poison the waters for the Republican congressional candidates whose support and votes he needs for things like immigration control,voter ID's,etc,etc,etc.
ALL of these things are as important as stopping more gun laws. We are now fighting for the very existence of our nation,not just gun rights.
A Republican senator was booed and heckled by her constituents when she was challenged about America's gun control laws.Tell her there has never been a reason to stop teaching children to read and write.
At a town hall in her home state of Iowa, a teacher told Joni Ernst that she had recently been asked to listen to sounds to "determine if they were gunshots or not."
The educator who did not reveal her name, added that she had "asked to be trained to man a family reunification centre to provide counselling to parents seeking their children following a catastrophic event."
Questioning the senator, she said: "When can I plan to get back to trainings that simply teach children to read and write?"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/something-republican-senator-heckled-she-234309302.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/something-republican-senator-heckled-she-234309302.html)
Tell her there has never been a reason to stop teaching children to read and write.
Mass shootings in Iowa have been mostly family affairs, with rare exception, and one hasn't taken place at a school since a 1991 shooting at the U of I over a physics award. Perhaps it would be more in order to train for their job rather than an event which has never occurred.
https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/worst-mass-killings-in-iowa-history/collection_820b7aef-daac-5c8e-a07b-179e6fa9acf6.html#16 (https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/worst-mass-killings-in-iowa-history/collection_820b7aef-daac-5c8e-a07b-179e6fa9acf6.html#16)
I am a survivor of that shooting.It was a good day not to be there.
Well, at least according to Camera Hogg. I had class at the time in the building where most of the shootings took place, but I "survived" because I wasn't there at the time.