Unless you go door to door and collect all guns, you cannot stop a nut job from shooting people!

[Logical]

Most these horrible mass shootings are done by people who obtained the gun legally. Stopping private sales might help someone not legal to purchase a handgun from getting one.

If a lone nut wants to shoot someone they will steal or borrow a gun and do it. 50,000 hand guns are stolen a year. More than enough to commit all 10,000 murders by hand guns a year.

No one, including most democratic senators, will vote to collect all the guns in America. And with the 2nd amendment in place there is no way to do it easily. 2/3rd of the states are needed to change it. Too many red states to do that.

What is the issue is really is why people in this country want to do mass shootings? Many other countries have a lot of guns. Their citizens just do not want to kill people like this country does. Why is that? Our murder rate is terrible compared to countries we admire. Canada, UK, France, Etc.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Australia had the solution. A proven solution. Ban the guns, pass a law, amend the constitution.

Whatever it takes. What laws man made, those laws man can unmake.

Really quite simple where there is the will.

The "throw up your hands in the air in hopelessness" is kind of unAmerican.

[Logical]

5. I agree with you. Do you think there is any possibility of amending the constitution? nt

[Fred Sanders]

25. I would just repeat. What man put on paper can be struck from that paper. Keep it simple, because it

is.


As Obama said today there has to be as much righteous anger on the left as the manufactured fear on the right.

[Logical]

28. I am fine with trying. I am also fine with registering all guns. And ending private sales. nt

[Fred Sanders]

33. And then banning the guns with a one year surrender window, for a tax credit. As in Australia.

and then amending the constitution, because logic and righteous anger demand that this only logical and sensible and easily doable solution be done.

[Logical]

35. I don't think you get close to 2/3 wanting to lose all their guns or the right to own one. nt

[Fred Sanders]

53. All their guns? Who said that? Some may be kept under strict regulation and under punitive

criminal sanctions for violations, like the minimum years of imprisonment for firearms related offences in Canada and for possession violations.

Carrot and stick. Keep it simple.

[RKP5637]

98. How would you get existing guns under control, and then those that can be made with 3D printing.

I'm all for getting them under control, and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, and strict regulation and registration. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

When I was a kid having a gun was a big deal, now, they're all over the place. ... but to have guns back then, especially concealed weapons, one had to have a damn good reason.

I was in a dr's office today when an elderly man was throwing a fit because the dr. had been held up by a previous patient.

This man was going berserk with his verbal demands of the office staff. I was thinking, what if he had a gun on him. Guns in our society are far too prevalent, of course, and hence allow often impulse killing. I don't have the solution. ... but one that seems promising is smart guns from what I've heard of them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

194. Agreed.

And even if a sweeping ban were enacted, the rate of compliance would almost certainly be right around that of compliance with New York and Connecticut's post-Sandy-Hook strict regulations (estimated to be between 10% and 15%). In other words, somewhere between eight and twelve million gun owners...out of c. 80 million.

I understand why these calls for repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning civilian gun ownership happen after these awful incidents...but to be blunt, they're little more than catharsis. After the understandable surge of emotion, I think it's best to focus on steps that can actually be accomplished.

[TipTok]

215. That's part of the appeal to some..

Who would love nothing more than to turn 10s of millions of gun owners into non voting felons...

Most of them right leaning...

[GGJohn]

43. How is it easily doable?

Australia doesn't have a 2A like America does, and it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers meant it to be.

[madinmaryland]

82. Amend the constitution. We saw how bad the 18th amendment was and repealed it

with the 21st amendment.

[GGJohn]

95. Fine, convince the Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention

and then convince 2/3rd's of the Congress to repeal or change the 2A, and then, if by some miracle you've gotten that far,
convince 3/4er's of the States to ratify the repeal or change, bearing in mind that it takes only 13 States to scuttle any change to the BoR.
Think you have the votes?

[Lizzie Poppet]

195. Even if that were to occur, do you think the majority would disarm?

I'm not remotely convinced.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. I like your idea about banning private sales.

I'll go a step further and ban any kind of sale of a purchased weapon whatsoever unless it's rendered unusable first. You buy it, you own it for life and if you choose not to own it any longer, surrender it to the proper authorities or make sure it never fires again.

No one's rights are being infringed if the only place a weapon could be purchased is a gun dealer. No one's rights are unduly restricted.

Proper storage should also be made mandatory. If the owner leaves it out, they become solely responsible for what happens to anyone because of its not being stored properly.

Maybe being responsible for it for the rest of your life would deter some people from buying them in the first place. Kind of like buying a Parrot on a whim when you're in your 50's.

[Judi Lynn]

78. Absolutely love your position on the subject. You are incomparable. Thanks for not giving up. n/t

[GGJohn]

6. Australia doens't have a 2nd Amendment. eom.

[truebluegreen]

61. Ever consider that the key word there is AMENDMENT? eom.

[GGJohn]

64. Sure.

What do you think the chances are of getting it repealed? Or even amended?

[truebluegreen]

68. Zero....unless we try.

This learned helplessness is pathetic.

[GGJohn]

76. Well, good luck in your endeavor. eom.

[truebluegreen]

164. Thank you.

BTW, interesting sig line, in light of the current discussion.

[quickesst]

77. One hurdle...

...and I think it's significant, is applying that law to over 350 million people spread over a much larger land mass compared to roughly 23 million on a large island. I wonder what kind of effort it would take to achieve that goal, and if it is achievable.

[Fred Sanders]

85. One law. One land. It makes no difference the size as long as the nation respects the rule of law.

Non-sequitur.

[quickesst]

149. I understand...

...and it would be ideal. I'm just wondering, what with the diverse social, and political leanings, how could it be done without anarchy setting in. What would be the reaction, for example, of the NRA which boasts a membership of roughly 3 million? We know what their paranoid idealism is about by the campaigns they wage against anything progressive/liberal. It's hard for me to believe Australia's solution could be applied here without some form of a police state. The second amendment, no matter how much it has been twisted, and abused, is one of the most defended rights this country has, and I just can't see them giving it up without a fight, and I don't mean with words.

[Waldorf]

190. From the last info on the NRA they boast of a membership of around 5 million. Big, but there are

about 75-100 million people who own 350 million firearms. NRA is a heavy influence on lobbying but it seems the rest of the folks figure a lot in local, national elections. Half the folks in this country who reside in urban areas (where crime is higher) want stronger gun laws, the other half in the non-urban areas (where crime is lower) think current laws are fine. I really don't see much happening except for maybe minor changes. Biggest change I see is maybe universal background checks at gun shows.

[quickesst]

203. You are right

I was talking about an outright ban on gun ownership. I am all for stricter background checks, and I don't mean the "here, fill this out and wait 5 days variety". You would really really really want to own a gun to go through the background check I would put someone through.

[dumbcat]

2. Oh, c'mon

What is the issue is really is why people in this country want to do mass shootings? Many other countries have a lot of guns. Their citizens just do not want to kill people like this country does. Why is that? Our murder rate is terrible compared to countries we admire. Canada, UK, France, Etc.

You know thoughts on that subject cannot be discussed.

[madokie]

42. Two thing,

Hate radio and a complicit congress to lame to attempt a discussion on sane gun regulations

Make that three. a congress for the most part bought and paid for by special interest.

[RKP5637]

101. Hate radio is horrific. I've had friends made very ugly by the endless crap on hate radio. n/t

[alarimer]

119. The murder rate is terrible because THERE ARE TOO MANY GUNS.

Too readily available. Period. Full stop.

[TeddyR]

126. There are too many guns

In the hands of felons and murderers. The volume of guns is irrelevant if those guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Make gun-related crimes subject to lengthy prison sentences and that should help, but it won't deter the criminal whose only goal is to kill as many people as possible.

[melman]

200. No it's not irrelevant

There are too many of the fucking things. Period.

[flamingdem]

3. Like if you make laws against smoking people will still continue to smoke?

It's proven that is incorrect. People will act with what society permits, and right now it permits and celebrates the use of guns without much concern for death.

[Logical]

12. People still smoke! Also, Heroin is illegal to manufacturer, sell and possess. But......

it is still easily available.

[flamingdem]

17. Much less, that's the point nt

[truebluegreen]

63. So, since laws don't totally prevent "bad things"

we shouldn't bother with laws? Is that your point?

[Logical]

66. No, but be realistic. nt

[truebluegreen]

71. You be realistic; I'm reaching for better. nt

[jberryhill]

130. Social reality is something that we all make together

As a society, we have accomplished a number of things which, at one time, were considered "unrealistic".

Toward what ideal would you like to move your reality?

[840high]

51. Prohibition did not work.

[Fred Sanders]

54. There are laws against murder but there is still murder. Why, then, bother with laws!

As is essentially the NRA and gun lovers arguments reduced to the core and stripped of propaganda.

[flamingdem]

57. Obama said it today, we make fixes to save Americans whether it's

car accidents, pollution etc. why can't we be Logical about gun control.

[virtualobserver]

69. You think that Trump deporting 11 million people is hard....

Try confiscating 300 million guns.

Will you personally be a part of the confiscation patrol?

[Fred Sanders]

70. Non-sequitur.

[virtualobserver]

74. They are two similar procedures that would require house to house searches

I repeat, will you be volunteering for gun seizure patrol.

[GGJohn]

4. And it would be a massive violation of the 4A.

The culture in this country needs to change.
How? I don't know.

[Logical]

8. I agree, I also think news coverage causes more of these. nt

[GGJohn]

11. I agree.

There are a lot of sick fucks out there who will be contemplating a copy cat attack.

[fredamae]

7. No one claims Prevention Programs

Gun Safety Class Mandates, Comprehensive Background Checks, Harm Reduction Ed, Expanding Mental Health Care, Drug Treatment, Requiring Gun Owners to Carry Liability Ins, Enforcing Existing Laws etc are going to be 100% effective but it will make a Huge Reduction in Violent Gun Fatalities!

[Glassunion]

9. Stolen from "responsible" gun owners.

I should have put stolen in quotes too.

[Logical]

10. I agree, I would love jail time for gun owners who do not secure their guns. nt

[NutmegYankee]

15. Even guns in a safe can be stolen.

Thieves have been extremely creative in opening them. For every thick bolted safe, there is a thief with a grinding wheel and cutting torch.

[Glassunion]

21. They are also good at breaking into unlocked cars

"Finding" them on the ground

"Falling" off trucks

Etc...

[NutmegYankee]

89. The vast majority in illegal use are bought at stores.

I believe only 10-15% IIRC of guns used in crimes are stolen.

[Logical]

22. I agree, but at least make it a little difficult. nt

[NutmegYankee]

87. You try to make it difficult - in fact you want to.

But I have seen people in the past who have the opinion that if a family comes home from vacation to find that they have been burglarized with items of value stolen including guns, the owners should be thrown in jail because the guns were stolen.

Large heavy safes take longer to defeat, but if the thief has time, it's easily doable. No safe in the world can survive a cutting torch sawing the top off. Sometimes the entire safe is stolen, as in sawed out of the floor or wall and rolled out on anything in the house that can be found. The most creative story was the kitchen table legs were used to serve as rolling logs to wheel a safe out.

And while a huge heavy safe is preferred, a lot of Americans could never have one. They either rent and can't modify the building or the weight of a large safe would be too much for the floor and is therefore prohibited by building code.

[Logical]

96. I don't agree with stolen guns but do think accidental shootings should be jail time. nt

[GGJohn]

113. One small caveat,

there is no such thing as an accidental shooting, I think negligible would be a more apt term and I agree that there should be jail time for such.

[Logical]

121. I agree, your term is more accurate. I don't want to ruin someones life but.....

a few weekend in jail might make people see that they need to secure their weapons and not be idiots.

[Marr]

13. Can we at least do something about getting nuts off the street?

Since any sort of gun regulation seems to be a complete non-starter in this country, you'd think we could at least do something to deal with the mentally ill. There seems to be next to zero infrastructure in place for dealing with the mentally ill, and next to no controls on obtaining weaponry. It's an idiotic situation and no surprise that we have so many of these shootings.

[dumbcat]

55. I would agree. But the problem is

who gets to decide when one is mentally ill, and what is the criteria for restriction of rights? Involuntary holds in a hospital or restriction on other rights? The usually definition used is "a danger to oneself or others", but it seems many of these mass shooters never seem to rise to that criteria before they go over the edge. I don't think we the public will stand for people being involuntarily incarcerated based on an official's prediction or evidence of a thought crime, such as a twitter post. Where do you draw the line? Most of us probably think anyone that openly supports Repubs is mentally ill, and they probably think the same of us. We need to be careful of who we allow to have so much discretion.

But yeah, I wish there was a way to keep dangerous people off the street. Who doesn't?

[Daemonaquila]

84. Problem...

So, how do you propose doing it?

Are you going to do an in-depth mental health check on basically everyone? The existing laws about mentally ill folks getting their hands on guns only work sometimes, so what's the better way of doing it? Not just look for things like hospitalizations, but ANY type of treatment, medication, whatever, and over what period? How far do we want people's most private medical matters laid bare for inspection? What standards do we follow? After all, how many people have been on some type of antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication at some point in their lives? Who is really a danger?

I don't think you're wrong IN PRINCIPLE, but in practice I see a whole lot of ugly doors we're opening there.

[Marr]

166. Europe seems to be doing it just fine.

We need a safety net in place to keep those diagnosed as mentally ill properly housed, fed, medicated, get them regular medical attention, check in on them, etc.

I've seen first hand how they're dealt with in this country-- and how it can turn out. One of my brothers was among their ranks, and the other was shot dead by one of them on a shooting spree. The mentally ill in this country are shoved out the door like they're anyone else, and invited to sink or swim. If we're just so damned determined to make this place into a 24-hour gun store, at the very, very least, we need a good means of dealing with the mentally ill.

[X_Digger]

139. The mentally ill are no more likely to commit violence than the non-mentally ill.

In fact, they're more often the *victims* of violent crime.

*sigh*

[Marr]

162. Really.

So sane people are pulling off more rampage shootings than nuts, huh?

There are a whole lot of people out there with mental problems who have no place to go and we've got next to zero infrastructure in place for diagnosing them, tracking them, getting them regular counseling, medication, some means of staying housed and fed, etc.

[X_Digger]

180. Yes, sane people are more often rampage shooters than the insane.

That quite a jump you just made there, from 'mentally ill' to 'insane'. The fact that you switched between them so glibly tells me how little you know about mental illness.

Please, just stop while you've got some shred of credibility left.

There are a whole lot of people out there with mental problems who have no place to go and we've got next to zero infrastructure in place for diagnosing them, tracking them, getting them regular counseling, medication, some means of staying housed and fed, etc.

Those with mental problems are first and foremost, people. Not stray cats to be fucking rounded up, medicated and 'tracked'. They have rights just like the rest of us. Jeez, I get tired of this shit from people who should fucking know better.

[Marr]

199. Maybe you can point out where I used the word "insane", while we're talking about

Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 11:22 AM - Edit history (7)

'shreds of credibility'-- and maybe even offer a source for your dubious claim that most rampage shooters are completely sane?

And spare me the paranoid rant-- I never said they needed to be rounded up like fucking cats, for christ sake.

[X_Digger]

214. Silly euphemisms don't really paper over your true meaning.

So sane people are pulling off more rampage shootings than nuts, huh?

A is to B as Sane is to.. You fill in the blank.

And spare me the paranoid rant-- I never said they needed to be rounded up like fucking cats, for christ sake.

Oh? Who was it that said this?

Can we at least do something about getting nuts off the street?

Did someone jump up and ninja your keyboard away and make that post?

[Lee-Lee]

211. That's not exactly true

Sure, if you lump all mental illness together it's true. Including any and every kind of diagnosis.

But there are subsets of mental illness that are more likely to commit violent crimes. Bipolar and Schizophrenia are two that are statistically shown to have a higher rate of violent criminal behavior.

Persons with a dual diagnosis of mental illness and a substance abuse disorder are more than twice as likely to engage in violent criminal behavior than the general population.

[Rex]

14. That is impossible. Not enough manpower.

Might as well try to grab some water. Regulation is the key, such a dirty word to some. It's the only way and still would not be enough. How do you deal with 300 million individual problems? Without causing the country to fall apart in a panic?

[workinclasszero]

16. Hey even if you make everyone wear a seatbelt

you will never stop accidents. Even if you put child resistant caps on drugs you will never stop overdoses.

Even if you put stop signs at every intersection someone is gonna run it.

So you know, fuck it all cause some asshole is going to come along and break the law right?

So fuck it yall let's just have total fucking anarchy and may the most insane asshole with the most weapons rule it all! SMFH.

[Logical]

24. OK, give me your first steps. nt

[workinclasszero]

34. Outlaw assault weapons

They are specifically designed and manufactured to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
That's where I would start....oh and tell the terrorist organization the NRA to fuck off and die too.

[Logical]

37. The NRA is a bunch of right wing idiots who only wants to sell guns. But assault weapons....

are not really different than hunting rifles.

[leftofcool]

39. I agree 100% with this.

[TipTok]

59. Any other special interest groups that should be banned because you disagree with them?

Unions? Environmental? Social Justice?

No?

Oh... just the ones you personally disagree with...

Got it..

[GGJohn]

80. Define assault weapons.

My fist can be an assault weapon, a rock can be an assault weapon, etc.

[workinclasszero]

91. AR-15, AK variants

It's not hard. Any weapon specifically made to kill human beings.

You don't need a semi auto military assault rifle to shoot a deer but they come in handy for mass murder unfortunately.

[GGJohn]

99. What does need have to do with it?

Are you aware that the AR platform makes a great hunting rifle, it can be converted to accept a .308 round, coupled with a 5 round mag makes an ideal hunting rifle.
My AR-15 makes a great varmint rifle for coyotes that try to take my livestock, the .223 round is ideal for that.

[pothos]

167. tough shit.

use a single shot rifle like your forefathers did.

[GGJohn]

169. Naw, I choose not to.

Ain't choice wonderful?

[pothos]

173. just shaking my head

at someone who flies the rainbow flag, presumably understands what types of violence have been committed on queer people throughout history, and yet still trumps up weapons made solely to kill other human beings. just shaking my head...

[GGJohn]

177. Are you familiar with the Pink Pistols?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

Belief in the 2A isn't just a conservative issue, it's an American issue.

[pothos]

178. i'm also familiar

with the log cabin republicans. i fail to see your point.

[GGJohn]

181. You're questioning my sig line,

I pointed out that one isn't exclusive to the other.
I can believe in gay rights and firearm rights and one is compatible with the other.

[Scootaloo]

97. Here's a link for you, GGJohn

http://bfy.tw/25Cq

[rbrnmw]

29. ^^^^THIS^^^^

Thank you

[Rex]

41. Excellent reply.

[etherealtruth]

65. wonderful

[Fred Sanders]

72. The "laws will be disobeyed so why make laws" is the most hilarious of the NRA propaganda!

300 million guns already and counting and still the gun lovers cower in fear while their weaponry slaughters us all.

[workinclasszero]

156. Right. And there's always the threat

of violence if some one want to pass any restrictions on guns in America.

You know...from my cold dead hands....idiots.

[Fred Sanders]

157. That the fearful gun lovers will threaten violence is even more reason to take them away!

[workinclasszero]

159. Right

I mean if the gun humpers had to give up their assault weapons of mass destruction their pathetic manhood would go with it!

Horrors!

[Cleita]

18. Fewer guns means fewer nut cases with guns.

Gun ownership needs to become a privilege not a right. People must earn the privilege of owning guns and do all the things set out for such ownership just like owning an airplane for instance. You just don't get to go out and by an airplane. You have to go through steps and training in order to fly one. They just don't hand you the keys.

[GGJohn]

30. Gun ownership needs to become a privilege not a right?

Ok, fine, all you have to do is convince the Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, get 2/3 of the Congresscritters to vote to repeal the 2A, then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
Think you can do that?
Remember, it takes only 13 states to defeat such a repeal.

[Cleita]

38. Obama needs to sign an executive order tonight declaring a moratorium on the sales of all guns

and ammo until such a convention happens and gun laws for the safety of American citizens and especially children are hammered into place. It's the only way it will happen when the politicians get a fire lit under them.

[GGJohn]

45. Pres. Obama has no such authority to do so.

EO's only apply to the Executive branch of the govt, not the legislative, nor the judicial branch.
That's civics 101.

[Cleita]

58. I think there is authority out there. It will take clever lawyers to find it, but Georgie Bush sure

found ways of executive ordering our rights away. If there is a will, there is a way.

[GGJohn]

67. No, there isn't.

Presidents do not have the authority to do what you suggest, period.

[Cleita]

100. I think they do if they have the will.

After Pearl Harbor, all manufacturing was stopped almost overnight, to retool the plants to build war stuff. For five years, there were no new cars, refrigerators and many other every day items that stopped being made. My uncle, who worked in a machine shop, made me a pair of homemade roller skates because non were being made commercially. All those materials and the manufacturing went into war.

This is war again. If our President can't, under the pressure of emergency measures, take a step to stop the very homegrown terrorists at our steps, other than begging our bigoted politicians in charge to do something, we are really doomed.

[GGJohn]

103. And how is that related to you suggesting that the President can issue an EO to do what you want?

EO's only apply to the Executive branch of the Govt., not the Legislative branch, not to the Judicial branch, not to State govt.
EO's are very strictly defined and the next incoming President can rescind them at their pleasure.

Again, that's basic Civics 101.

[Snobblevitch]

111. Those manufacturing companies WILLINGLY transferred their operations to making war matériel.

Even if President Roosevelt issued an executive order forcing them to switch to producing airplanes, guns, munitions, etc., none of them would have challenged such an order. They made more profits producing the war materiel.

(My father has an M1 Carbine made by the Singer Sewing Machine Company.)

[Cleita]

117. I don't care about the willing. I care about the precedent. It's there.

This deadlock has to be broken. We are not lawyers. They are, and if they stop thinking for five minutes about the millions they are going to make leaving office, they can do it. They have fucked up our country pretty well for profit. Maybe they can find some ways to help it for a change.

[GGJohn]

123. That doesn't change the fact the the President doesn't have the authoity to do what you want. eom.

[Snobblevitch]

133. So basically,

you want to give lucrative government contracts to all U.S. firearms manufacturers to produce products other than guns? Will these contracts be given to new manufacturers as well? Because since firearms are a legal product, new companies would jump in to fill the void while Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc. are making (insert product here).

[TeddyR]

124. Manufacturing

Isn't a constitutionally protected right, while the right to keep and bear arms is. President Obama can't unilaterally amend the constitution, and I wouldn't want him -- or any president -- to be able to do so.

[Cleita]

134. Yeah, constitutional right and all that and yet I can't exercise my lst amend. constitutional right

to express my opinion quite often including right here. I actually snort on constitutional rights a lot because they seem to be selective depending on the authority I'm asking for my rights from. I have a right to be safe and that is what the constitution implies in the preamble, but I'm not because a 200+ year old paragraph allowing for militias, in a time when we didn't really have a standing army in rural and frontier communities allowed the residents to form militias for their safety. They also shot muskets and used swords. I don't think that's the rights the constitution guaranteed you. We now have a very large and expensive military. No militias are needed. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns, but like owning anything that is lethal, like a car, airplane boat and so on, you need to go through a process to convince the authorities you are responsible and will not intentionally try to be an ass.

[TeddyR]

142. I for one

Completely support your right to express your views, especially on this website. I don't want to suppress views I disagree with. I disagree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, but agree that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation.

[GGJohn]

146. Actually, no one on this site has the "right" to express their views,

this is a privately owned website and anyone can be banned for any reason, or no reason whatsoever.

[Cleita]

150. Thank you. Spoken like a true American. eom

[hatrack]

19. Well, I guess there's nothing to be done, right?

Can't make a Freedom Omelet without breaking a few Freedumb Eggs, and all that, I s'pose . . .

[workinclasszero]

23. Yep we got to water the tree of freedumb

With the blood of innocent school kids cause......

We live in a batshit insane country, that's all I can come up with sorry.

[leftofcool]

32. I agree and I don't think the 2A says what the gun nuts think it says.

The problem is, I am in the minority on this and I can't for the life of me figure out how to get around it. 5 states would pass doing away with the 2A much less 2/3's

[RKP5637]

105. Sadly, we do! "We live in a batshit insane country." Just looking at some of the presidential

hopefuls is such a total WTF. The crazies want to elect crazies. Some days I get so disgusted I feel like just turning my back on it all, but I won't. There are solutions, but often I think about half this country is totally off their rocker and unable to think through solutions.

[workinclasszero]

158. Ikr? smh

This country is pathetic. We can't even defend our own children from mass murderers cause gee it's just to hard!

Any dumb animal will fight to the death to protect their offspring but not humanity oh hell no!

Well in America anyway.

[Warpy]

20. It shouldn't be easier to buy a gun than buy a pack of cigarettes.

What we need are to start putting up barriers, like requiring safety training and licensing, like requiring liability insurance, like requiring a license to purchase ammo, like taxing the hell out of ammo. Those laws need to have teeth in them with stiff penalties for unlicensed possession of either a gun or ammo, failure to keep a current license, and failure to keep liability insurance.

Putting up barriers to smoking, like higher taxes and restrictions on smoking indoors, got us fewer smokers. Barriers to gun ownership will get us fewer people who can get it together to jump through hoops to buy guns.

[Logical]

26. I am 100% ok with training and licensing guns. At least to track them. nt

[Snobblevitch]

88. I used to smoke.

I never went through a background check to buy cigarettes.

[LonePirate]

27. I'm in favor of going door to door and confiscating all guns. The sooner the better.

[Logical]

31. Issues is no legal way to do it. 2nd and 4th amendment. nt

[GGJohn]

36. So I'm guessing that you'll help with the house to house searchs?

Or will you rely on others with guns to be on the confiscation teams?
And you'll also be in favor of massively violating the 4A?
And, how will you know what houses to search?
There are over 300 million unregistered firearms in the country that the govt. doesn't even know where they are.
Or are you in favor of searching every home in America?
How will the courts receive that 4A violation?

[LonePirate]

44. We empower a national confiscation to coincide with the antiquated 2A repeal.

[GGJohn]

46. Utopian dream.

There is no apetite for a Constitutional Convention in the Congress or the country.

[LonePirate]

48. Easily 30% support nowadays and increasing with each passing day. Just a matter of time.

[GGJohn]

52. Nope.

Only 25% of the American public support banning handguns.
There is no apetite for any gun bans in the country.

[RKP5637]

109. Yep, I think the collective consciousness of the US is realizing more and more something

needs to be done. We need a shift in the gun culture.

[sarisataka]

81. Utopian?

more like Orwellian.

[GGJohn]

120. THAT'S THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR.

Thanks.

[Lizzie Poppet]

196. And who do you propose carry out that confiscation?

The police? There aren't remotely enough of them (under one million officers with arrest powers) and the majority of officers support civilian gun ownership.

The military? Even if that were legal (and it isn't unless you also repeal posse comitatus), it's the same situation as with the police (only far more so): rank and file military personnel tend to strongly support the right to possess firearms.

Who's left to carry out the confiscation?

[workinclasszero]

50. Fine then. Nothing can be done.

Even though the rest of the free world doesn't let every nutcase on the street own military assault weapons, I guess it's just our burden as Muricans. That thirsty thirsty tree of freedumb thingie, yeah.

Just kiss your kids and hug them real hard before you send them off to school everyday cause....

Well check the headlines, you know?

[GGJohn]

62. There are very few military assault rifles in private hands in the US,

and they're strictly regulated by the 1986 National Firearms Act.

What you classify as a "military assault weapon" is nothing more that a semi auto weapon, they operate the same exact way as my .22 semi auto, one round fired for one pull of the trigger.

[workinclasszero]

79. So you are telling me that there is no difference between

a .223 bullet and a 22 bullet? Really?

I could swear that 223 ammo was made so the bullet tumbles end over end to maximize the killing and maiming potential.

Not to mention you could easily have a 30 round clip of 223 ammo loaded in your semi auto death machine.

Hell you can make it full auto pretty easy as well. You ever go to gun shows?

[GGJohn]

93. No, I'm telling you that an AR-15 operates the same exact way my Marlin .22 rifle operates.

And no, the .223 doesn't tumble end over end as it leaves the barrel, it will start the tumble upon striking an object.
And that's a bullshit myth that you can make a modern AR-15 easily convertible, again, the 1986 National Firearms Act took care of that.
Yes, I go to firearms shows at least 6 times a year, I'm well aware and versed on firearms, along with over 40 years in the Army.

My Marlin has a 30 round mag., so what?

[840high]

56. Unless every gun is registered - unrealistic - do

you really think illegal guns would be handed over?

[LonePirate]

60. Yes, with the right combo of penalties/jail for offenders and incentives for informants

Large numbers of illegal handguns will also be turned over or confiscated over time.

[NutmegYankee]

94. Its worked so well in the war on drugs! What could ever go wrong?

[LonePirate]

106. Couldn't be any worse than the current policy of doing nothing to stem unlimited gun profileration

[NutmegYankee]

110. I take it you support the war on drugs?

And mass incarceration of minorities?
And Flagrant violations of the 4th Amendment?
And violence and death associated with enforcement, often unnecessary?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

152. If someone legitimately defended themselves from a violent attack with an unregistered gun

how long would you have them sent to prison? Say, for example, a woman who shot a stalker ex-partner that had broken into her home.

[SheilaT]

83. So glad at least one other person sees this the way I do.

Maybe, rather than weeping softly over the 2nd amendment, we should start asking all the gun apologists, exactly WHAT it would take for them to support real gun control, maybe even confiscation? Your own 6 year old being shot at school? Someone successfully gunning down dozens in a church? Maybe shooting up a nursing home? Surely there is some circumstance that would finally make even LaPierre recognize the idiocy we have in this country.

[PowerToThePeople]

40. I support door to door collection.

Eom

[GGJohn]

49. See post #36. eom.

[oneshooter]

73. And you are willing to go door to door and do it?

Didn't think so.

[juxtaposed]

92. I'm am so with u on that!

[oneshooter]

104. Then start locally.

Grab a couple of trash cans and go door to door in your neighborhood. Politely knock and when it is answered tell the people why you are there. I am sure that they will allow you to search their house and confiscate any firearms you find.

Good Luck, let us know how it goes, with pictures.

[juxtaposed]

107. so simple as u said, It would be if we didn't have clowns that felt one was taken their Nuts Too!

But kids will be always Kids..

[oneshooter]

114. Go ahead and do it.

You have "right" on your side, if they don't like it then do it anyway.

After all, they are "cowards without their guns", so once you control them they should be crying at your feet.

[juxtaposed]

127. so u feel u should do the same.. It just seems more civil after a few years of this shit.

[GGJohn]

129. We seem to have a lot of Keyboard Kommandos here.

They want house to house searches and confiscation, but they're not willing to do it themselves, they would rely on others with guns to do their dirty work.

[PowerToThePeople]

165. I will do it, if the laws are passed

Deputize me, I am more than willing,

[GGJohn]

168. Yeahh, sure you would.

So you would carry a gun to take guns away from law abiding citizens? That would make you a hypocrite.

[PowerToThePeople]

171. I never said I would have a gun.

The only ones saying that are the pro-gun peeps. I also said I would not do it unless laws were passed outlawing the weapons.

Your whole post is false.

[GGJohn]

174. Ok, then how would you get people to comply?

Ask politely?

[PowerToThePeople]

175. Yes, or get a search warrant.

By your logic, mlk, ghandi, and other non-violent movements could never have succeeded.

[GGJohn]

179. MLK, Ghandi were advocates of self defense,

MLk applied for a Concealed Carry Permit but was denied by a racist system.
And what would you base your application for a search warrant on? Speculation?
No judge is going to grant a search on a hunch, there has to be reasonable suspicion.

[PowerToThePeople]

188. That is ok.

If the gun is ever spotted, the owner will go to jail and the guns destroyed.

I am not worried. We can rid ourselves of these weapons of terror.

[GGJohn]

189. Something that has a slim to none chance of happening,

and slim just left the station.

[PowerToThePeople]

191. All important and good changes to society

Have been viewed in that fashion from the people resisting the change.

There is a name for those who resist positive changes to society. What is it again? Oh. Conservative.

Not concerned.

[GGJohn]

193. I'm not concerned in the least that your plan would ever come to pass.

Why is it that when it comes to the 4A, most progressives will defend it passionately, except in the case of guns?
Several here, including you, would gladly support a massive violation of the 4A just because of the hatred of firearms.
I just don't get it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

198. Okay, good for you.

I genuinely admire your willingness to put your life on the line for what you believe to be right. But you do realize you'll be facing widespread resistance, right?

[Throd]

143. So people with guns are going to search all properties to confiscate guns?

People like you are why my batshit-crazy uncle and his friends have guns buried or hidden in remote locations.

[Lizzie Poppet]

197. Enough to volunteer to help do it?

[Daemonaquila]

75. Wrong question, wrong solution.

I'm really tired of people yelling "guns, guns, more guns!" and others yelling "no guns, no guns, nevermore guns!" when guns aren't the issue. The media makes a killing polarizing the debate, not to mention the NRA assholes and all the other gun and anti-gun asshole lobby groups.

Here is some actual food for thought - a rundown of all the different kinds of rampage killings, split up by area of the world and context (school, workplace, domestic violence, etc.). You'll see some interesting things emerging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

The U.S. is by no means the king of mass killing. We are, however, the king of mass killings in educational settings (by a variety of means). In the incidents listed, there are tons from countries where guns are banned, and yet... and yet... the motivated psychos are getting the job done with "excellent" efficiency. Once again, U.S. "exceptionalism" is a myth - we only believe "we're number one" in mass killings because our news media doesn't report on much of anything outside our borders. The conversation is being manipulated based on a false premise.

The questions, I would suggest, are "What is going on with rampage killing worldwide, using whatever means is available in that part of the world?" and "Why are U.S. psychos so keen on targeting schools in particular?"

The latter is the truly chilling question. WHY are schools so tempting, whether among adults or little kids?

I don't have a full solution yet, but I do know that whatever it is, it won't be based on guns/no guns. Explosives, fires, you name it - those have some of the highest death tolls on the list. It's the automatic American thing to pick the most knee-jerk, polarizing false solution, without defining the problem accurately, and claim victory...

But I will say one thing that will make a difference. It's to STOP LYING. Make the media STOP LYING. When we see false information in social media, call people out about LYING. Truth is much more important than anyone's political or philosophical agenda. Why are people so angry, hateful, and prone to violence? It's because LYING sells better, now, than sex. It's also because the tyrants and would-be tyrants of the world understand that LYING is the best way to keep people from discussing things with each other. Prevent people from even using the same language, keep it all politically coded, inject insults into the common terminology until each side is so riled at the other that they'll slug someone on the other side of a debate sooner than they'd say hello.

The other part of the solution I am very sure of, is restoring a culture that builds empathy. In the civil rights era, why was it so important to keep people segregated? It was to ensure that no white would commit the cardinal sin of believing a black person was an actual human being. Our culture of lies and insularity increases the number of kids in home schooling, ensuring they're well-indoctrinated in an echo chamber. Our partially-misguided (or at least mishandled) growing culture of claiming insult, offense, alleging "microaggression," etc., that was started in good faith as a solution to racist/sexist/etc. bullying, has been perverted into students refusing to study ideas which are at odds with their world view. Kids don't hang out at the mall any more - they sit in their basements playing video games with friends around the country or the world, with minimal real conversation, or sit on the Internet on a variety of social media, often with people with whom they have little real-life interaction, if any. We've got a problem, and it isn't the weapon, it's us.

[Logical]

86. Thanks for the info. Also, I think stop covering these would help! nt

[RKP5637]

122. This, would do a lot!!! K&R!!! "The other part of the solution I am very sure of, is restoring a

culture that builds empathy."

[juxtaposed]

90. I own guns.. And I'm a big fan of everyone not having any guns.

Including law enforcement.
We can only wish, what if we didn't have a second amendment.

[longship]

102. "collect all the guns in America"? What a fucking illogical statement!?

That is called a straw man argument, a classic logical fallacy. Nobody is suggesting to "collect all guns in America". Nobody, except possibly those who advocate for MOAR GUNZ for America.

And you name yourself, logical?

Sorry. Could not resist. But I could not disagree more with your illogic.

[Logical]

118. Ahh, did you read any posts? 2 posts in this forum said to collect all of them. LOL! nt

[longship]

128. I have now.

And I would disassociate myself with them as well as I do your despicable straw man, one undoubtedly heard last out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre.

And in spite of your broad paint stroke (yet another logical fallacy) your logic does not play very well. Quite the contrary. Such are the facts of the matter.

I stand by my post, and this one as well.

Gun regulation is the only rational solution.

[GGJohn]

131. Firearms already are regulated. eom.

[longship]

135. Apparently not enough, if at all in many places.

The proof is in the results of the shocking amount of gun violence in the USA, and the horrible number of mass murders by gunfire plaguing the USA.

To justify such a thing in the name of firearm freedom, or to say that firearms are already sufficiently regulated, is to be heartlessly blind to the carnage before our very eyes.

I do not have to take any such arguments seriously. And I do not.

[GGJohn]

138. I didn't say sufficiently regulated, I said regulated.

And violent crime, including firearms related crime, has been dropping for the last 20 years, according to the FBI's UCR.

[Logical]

132. LOL, you fucking with me? nt

[longship]

137. No, I am arguing against your ridiculous and illogical argument.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Otherwise, my regards.

[Logical]

140. LOL, you are really not paying attention. I'll be glad to play with you......

But what "regulations" will stop a mass shooter Einstein? Can't wait to hear since most mass shooters have obtained the gun legally.

This is exciting, having a debate with the guy who didn't even read my post.

[longship]

144. It is called regulation, my friend.

In other words, not every kook gets to own a gun. In fact, kooks don't get to own guns.

And yes, that likely includes gun registration, or at minimum being able to pass a background check and any necessary waiting period to accomplish such checks to buy one.

Let's start there.

I would also be for mandatory insurance for any gun owner. That might also mean mandatory registration, although not necessarily. However, owning a firearm without insurance would trigger a violation, when it was found out.

The extent that firearms are not regulated is the extent that unnecessary deaths will result.

It is that simple.

[Logical]

147. And that would of stopped the Sandy Hook shooting how? He took him moms gun. You need....

to think outside your little box.

Stolen guns? Another thing you forgot about. Or in your magic fun land no guns get stolen or sold on the street.

Well, we know those drug laws have stopped heroin overdoes. Well wait.....maybe not.

So insurance stops mass shootings? LOL.

Stare at the graphic below REAL HARD and discuss it with someone you trust and get back to me.



&w=1484

[longship]

148. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027220865

And, of course, there's Australia, where gun ownership is also fairly prevalent. Regulation has resulted in cutting off this gun madness that is endemic here in the USA.

Certainly you are not saying that things here are satisfactory with regards gun violence. That in itself would be a most illogical position to take.

[Logical]

151. The shit you named would do nothing! Nt

[longship]

161. Let me ask you straight out, then.

What regulations would you impose to rein in the horrible number of gun deaths in the USA?

[Logical]

163. Make people less violent! No idea how, but many other.....

Countries with guns have a much lower murder rate.

We are still in the Wild West mindset.

[longship]

172. I see. In other words, it isn't wide access to firearms here?

In spite of Australia's counter example?

Can one really maintain credibility stating such things in spite of such falsifying evidence?

I think I will stand my ground on this issue -- no, not like FL Stand Your Ground. Rather, this country needs rational and universal firearm regulations.

Apparently you disagree and are not bothered enough by the number of gun deaths in this country to advocate for some sanity in these matters. Maybe I am misinterpreting your posts, but that would be the logical extension of what you have posted here.

I am done with you on this topic. You are illogically wrong on this and I disagree wholeheartedly with you.

Thank you for the polite dialog nevertheless.

[Logical]

176. You too, and I was not polite at times. Sorry! Nt

[longship]

183. No worries, my friend. We disagree on this. Let us leave it there. nt

[RKP5637]

112. Your question hit at the common denominator/root of the entire situation! "What is the issue is

really is why people in this country want to do mass shootings? Many other countries have a lot of guns. Their citizens just do not want to kill people like this country does. Why is that? Our murder rate is terrible compared to countries we admire. Canada, UK, France, Etc."

[laundry_queen]

153. Not really

Canada may have a lot of guns but we also have a lot of regulations. A LOT more than the US has. Common sense regulations. It makes a difference, as much as some here want to pretend it doesn't.

[mrdmk]

202. Thank you for pointing this out, found the information from a link below

Canada

A license is required to own or possess firearms. Federal government safety course required before applying for a license. Special license required to own pistols. Pistols may only be used for target shooting at a licensed range. Semi automatic firearms have size restricted magazines (rimfire rifles excluded) Automatic firearms not permitted.

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[laundry_queen]

208. Yes

not only that but there are strict rules regarding storing and transporting. You cannot just carry a loaded gun around.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/index.html

ETA: here is the link for all regulations: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/

[alarimer]

115. It needs to be all but impossible to get a gun in this country.

You are correct in stating that in most cases, they've obtained their weapons of mass destruction perfectly legally, which means it is way too damn easy.

I'm calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I know this is a very long-term goal. But still, given the destructed capabilities of guns these days, it's something we need to get to work on.

[TeddyR]

136. I'm a lifelong Democrat

And disagree that we should attempt to repeal the Second Amendment which, according to the platform of the Democratic party, protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Even if you repeal the Second Amendment -- which will never happen in the foreseeable future -- most state constitutions protect the right to keep and bear arms.

[GGJohn]

141. Call all you want for a repeal of the 2A,

it just ain't gonna happen.

[pothos]

170. how about

we just stop dropping the "well regulated militia" part of it? why do people just summarily ignore that part of the amendment?

[Deadshot]

116. I'm sick of this argument.

And so is Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001

I suggest you read that article.

[hatrack]

125. Since nothing can be done, why, precisely, did you post this mound of Useless?

Just wondering.

[spanone]

145. maybe we'll have a chance to see. congress won't even talk about it.

we're a fucking smart nation. there has to be a dialog. the nra bullshit has to end.

[Puzzledtraveller]

154. This is true.

and it will never happen, ever. I wish I could snap my fingers and make all guns disappear, and remove all thoughts from peoples mind of doing harm to one another but that is not reality. It never will be.

[Crunchy Frog]

155. Obviousl, this is just how America wants to live.

And I'm sorry, but if you can't see the connection between this country's gun fixation/saturation, you're just being willfully delusional.

There aren't other countries with this level of unregulated gun ownership, at least not ones that aren't in the middle of civil wars.

[Generic Other]

182. Then let's go collect the fucking guns

because that's a better plan that what we have now.

[RandySF]

186. +1

[oneshooter]

205. Then get off of the computer and do it!!!

Large trash can, an axe, and the knowledge that you are doing right!

[Generic Other]

209. OK for starters, I will add gun fetishists to my ignore list

So many crawled out of the woodwork last night for all to see.

[peace13]

184. Things will only get worse unless we find a solution.

Trying to freak gun owners out is not a good start to the process.

[RandySF]

185. I'm up for it.

[Calista241]

187. People here don't understand the danger of a Constitutional Convention.

Once all those people are in a room discussing shit, Absolutely everything would be on the table. There'd be no way to limit it to just guns, or just issues we support.

Obamacare. Social Security. Defense. Guns. Medicare. The right to choose. Free speech. The war on drugs. Religion. Immigrations. Citizenship.

Everything would be open for review and editing. It's a lot to risk for less than 10 crimes like this per year.

[GGJohn]

192. Great post.

I wish people would educate themselves on the chaos that could be unleashed just because they hate firearms.

[DebJ]

201. Many other countries have a lot of guns????????????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[Vinca]

204. Then let's go door to door and collect all the guns.

Everyone who wants theirs back will have to pass an FBI background check, mental health testing and provide proof of insurance in case said weapon does harm in either their hand or another's.

[oneshooter]

206. Again,DO IT!!

Don't let lack of law hold you back, just go into peoples homes and collect them. Surely the knowledge that 90% of Americans will support you makes it right.

[Vinca]

207. Hold your shorts on, this is a nation of laws.

I'm not going into anyone's house and taking anything. Try to get a grip. It could be you or your family next.

[dbackjon]

210. Your username is false advertising

[snooper2]

213. Seems logical to me! What is a dbackjon anyway? A new game in Vegas?

[Warren Stupidity]

212. Register and regulate. Works elsewhere.

Of course we need a scotus that hasn't carved out the 2nd as the one bill of rights amendment that has to be interpreted as an absolute barrier to any meaningful regulation regardless of the social cost.