• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Sean

Shooter in Texas.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Bl's "cry" is merely frustration at nothing being accomplished. Even here, after 5 years of mass shootings, multiple killings, not a single person subscribes to a solution. So let it be, and let the law work, the solution is as quick as you desire it to be.

Meanwhile, the infliction of pain sometimes starts at the top, doesn't it?

8bjFgZY.jpg

Fair 'nuff - but, responding to the emotion instead of the substance of a problem rarely creates viable solutions.  I'm with ya, BL - I want things to improve, too - and if I thought that taking my small arsenal to the smelter would help?  I'd leave work now to do so.  I honestly don't think that that's where our solution lies, and I also think that we've become too accustomed to avoiding any potential to cause offense to honestly address what I think are the root causes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Keep peddling the same old shit. You’ve got a big nothingburger. Other countries have the same cultural issues, but not the mass murders, or more quietly but more devasting, the inner city low level warfare.

Did Wayne steal your creativity when he refused to give you a reach-around? Cause you got nothing.

Are you interested enough to address the societal ills that have resulted in an increased propensity to use violence as a means of expression?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fair 'nuff - but, responding to the emotion instead of the substance of a problem rarely creates viable solutions.  I'm with ya, BL - I want things to improve, too - and if I thought that taking my small arsenal to the smelter would help?  I'd leave work now to do so.  I honestly don't think that that's where our solution lies, and I also think that we've become too accustomed to avoiding any potential to cause offense to honestly address what I think are the root causes. 

Thank you for your honesty. We have had five years to discuss this problem and every time the solution evades us. I have come to the conclusion that people don't want change even though it appears to be necessary. I am at the point where I am ready to let the law work and once we have a framework, allow adjustments to get to something reasonable. In this case, something is preferable to nothing, and I would much rather have a joint resolution, but that appears to be out of the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you interested enough to address the societal ills that have resulted in an increased propensity to use violence as a means of expression?   

 

I'm okay with violence as a means of expression. My son and I went to a local wrestling match at the bar the other night, those guys hit each other with chairs, and threw each other into mousetraps and a mat full of thumbtacks, and then when the violence was done, we all went home happy, because nobody used a gun or a van or a machete to express their violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I don't care anymore. I'm willing to hack off my big toe just to give a middle finger to the infection. I don't care if it works or if it fails. I've spent more than half of my adult life thinking that gun advocates could address this problem. They didn't give a shit, and now I don't give a shit. I'm voting for the next half-rational gun control half-wit that comes down the path.

Will it fail? Maybe. Even definitely on some levels. I don't care though. The gun advocates have taken a position against the health of society, and they have lost the rest of my allegiance. The Second, in my view, protects a single shot rifle, muzzle-loaders and I don't care about the rest. Will the ban take away magazines and semi-autos, and handguns and whatever else dances in the imaginations of gun lovers? It's okay with me. As long as they don't ban sushi, physics, inebriating substances, green chili, and women with nice smiles, then I don't care.

This post is a perfect example of the hand-wringing, self-deluding idea that ANY action is a positive step - and that addressing the implement is preferable to addressing the societal ills that are at the root of such behavior.  

Solutions are engineered.  Effective engineering requires an understanding of the problem to be solved, including scope, assumptions, constraints - a decomposition of that problem into requirements, and then a design that addresses each of those requirements, with an implementation plan to include schedule, cost, and verification methods of expected outcomes.  

If you "don't care anymore" and expect that some half-assed, emotional, un-engineered knee-jerk reaction is going to eliminate this problem?  Then simply STFU and quit diluting the conversation with  your unhelpful drivel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you interested enough to address the societal ills that have resulted in an increased propensity to use violence as a means of expression?   

 

what "ills" would those be? And how is the US a statistical outlier on those "ills"?

If you mean the fact that we used to hospitalize the mentally ill, but now put them on the streets? Sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Thank you for your honesty. We have had five years to discuss this problem and every time the solution evades us. I have come to the conclusion that people don't want change even though it appears to be necessary. I am at the point where I am ready to let the law work and once we have a framework, allow adjustments to get to something reasonable. In this case, something is preferable to nothing, and I would much rather have a joint resolution, but that appears to be out of the question.

What new law is going to make a difference?   What new framework would you propose, and how would that differ from what's already on the books?   If you want to eradicate private ownership of firearms, and enable a door-to-door search of every premises in the country to achieve that objective, you'll have to suspend the 4th.  While the 4th is suspended, all the "little things" that are often overlooked will be subject to reaction from the authorities as well.  If you're good with that - let's talk about how you see that working in practice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

This post is a perfect example of the hand-wringing, self-deluding idea that ANY action is a positive step - and that addressing the implement is preferable to addressing the societal ills that are at the root of such behavior.  

Solutions are engineered.  Effective engineering requires an understanding of the problem to be solved, including scope, assumptions, constraints - a decomposition of that problem into requirements, and then a design that addresses each of those requirements, with an implementation plan to include schedule, cost, and verification methods of expected outcomes.  

If you "don't care anymore" and expect that some half-assed, emotional, un-engineered knee-jerk reaction is going to eliminate this problem?  Then simply STFU and quit diluting the conversation with  your unhelpful drivel. 

that's bullshit A-Guy.

Mike's absolutely right. If the folks who are totally invested in the 2nd refuse to even see the damage, then fuck'em.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

This post is a perfect example of the hand-wringing, self-deluding idea that ANY action is a positive step - and that addressing the implement is preferable to addressing the societal ills that are at the root of such behavior.  

Solutions are engineered.  Effective engineering requires an understanding of the problem to be solved, including scope, assumptions, constraints - a decomposition of that problem into requirements, and then a design that addresses each of those requirements, with an implementation plan to include schedule, cost, and verification methods of expected outcomes.  

If you "don't care anymore" and expect that some half-assed, emotional, un-engineered knee-jerk reaction is going to eliminate this problem?  Then simply STFU and quit diluting the conversation with  your unhelpful drivel. 

Yup.

You gun nuts dug this hole. You weren't willing to police your own industry, and now I'm hunky dory with a bunch of ineffective, misguided gun grabbers running the day.

Wanna know why?

Because I finally realized that they'll be no less dim-witted and delusional as are you guys. I'm bored of your collective bullshit now and I'm tired of the body count.

So yeah, when the tofu-eating thugs come with drones, property takeovers and tax hits, along with an army to confiscate your shit, your cries of agony will be considerably tempered by the body count.

And you're asking US to find a solution? Fuck you. You guys made this mess, find a way to clean it up, or the tofu-eaters will do it for you. 

You guys left your toys all over the front lawn and now you're blaming daddy when he's about to run over all of it with his lawnmower?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

what "ills" would those be? And how is the US a statistical outlier on those "ills"?

If you mean the fact that we used to hospitalize the mentally ill, but now put them on the streets? Sure. 

Yeah, flash - that's indeed part of it.   The way we have stigmatized mental health disorders, and in the interests of budgets and a desire to "live and let live" avoided intervention in the cases when inappropriate behavior and intentions are suspected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What new law is going to make a difference?   What new framework would you propose, and how would that differ from what's already on the books?   If you want to eradicate private ownership of firearms, and enable a door-to-door search of every premises in the country to achieve that objective, you'll have to suspend the 4th.  While the 4th is suspended, all the "little things" that are often overlooked will be subject to reaction from the authorities as well.  If you're good with that - let's talk about how you see that working in practice. 

 

holy hell it's been tossed out umpteen times in this place. Go back and bury your head in the sand. You can come up for air the next time some innocents get blasted and you feel the need to point your anger at the folks trying to stop the carnage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

that's bullshit A-Guy.

Mike's absolutely right. If the folks who are totally invested in the 2nd refuse to even see the damage, then fuck'em.

 

Flash - If you are framing the discussion as a "folks invested in the Second" instead of a discussion of efficacy - then your perspective is myopic and unhelpful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yeah, flash - that's indeed part of it.   The way we have stigmatized mental health disorders, and in the interests of budgets and a desire to "live and let live" avoided intervention in the cases when inappropriate behavior and intentions are suspected.  

Thanks Ronnie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Flash - If you are framing the discussion as a "folks invested in the Second" instead of a discussion of efficacy - then your perspective is myopic and unhelpful.  

I'm with Woofers on this one.  Fuck you and your elk.  Confiscation of .22s? Don't care.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Yup.

You gun nuts dug this hole. You weren't willing to police your own industry, and now I'm hunky dory with a bunch of ineffective, misguided gun grabbers running the day.

Wanna know why?

Because I finally realized that they'll be no less dim-witted and delusional as are you guys. I'm bored of your collective bullshit now and I'm tired of the body count.

So yeah, when the tofu-eating thugs come with drones, property takeovers and tax hits, along with an army to confiscate your shit, your cries of agony will be considerably tempered by the body count.

And you're asking US to find a solution? Fuck you. You guys made this mess, find a way to clean it up, or the tofu-eaters will do it for you. 

You guys left your toys all over the front lawn and now you're blaming daddy when he runs over all of it with a lawnmower?

There is no "us/them" dumbass - we're all in this together. If the "You" in "You guys made this mess" is supposed to be the advocates of our enumerated rights?  Yeah - no.  The problem is the societal disengagement that makes it unacceptable to say to little Johny's parents that little Johny is a weird little shit who needs help, and we're not going to permit his presence continue to disrupt the class and consume resources that are better spent educating the other 29 kids.  The problem is trying to address a whole slew of ills in simplistic, quick-fix terms, and refusing to do ANYTHING unless the one thing YOU want to see done is done first.   The problem is people like you who think that their perspective and world view are applicable to everyone else in every other situation, and that anyone who doesn't think like they do deserves to be vilified and infringed upon for their disagreement.  

So tell me Mike - how far do we go in the suspension of the bill of rights to achieve the quick fix you're clamoring for?  Should we declare martial law and a suspension of all enumerated rights until the "cleanup" is complete?   How long will that take, and what personal infringements are you willing to accept to achieve your desired end?  

Do you really want to fix things, Mikey - or just feel good sitting at home because you "did something"? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What new law is going to make a difference?   What new framework would you propose, and how would that differ from what's already on the books?   If you want to eradicate private ownership of firearms, and enable a door-to-door search of every premises in the country to achieve that objective, you'll have to suspend the 4th.  While the 4th is suspended, all the "little things" that are often overlooked will be subject to reaction from the authorities as well.  If you're good with that - let's talk about how you see that working in practice. 

 

Congress isn't going to anything that radical, please remember it is a Republican majority. In fact, I doubt a Democratically led Congress would be that outlandish as well. Let's not clutch pearls this early, as of this moment there isn't a single proposal on the floor, and if it ever did get that crazed I would join you in protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm with Woofers on this one.  Fuck you and your elk.  Confiscation of .22s? Don't care.

Now we get to it - you think differently than I do, and thus deserve to be discounted.   yeah - that "Fuck You" approach has worked marvelously so far, eh Flash?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Congress isn't going to anything that radical, please remember it is a Republican majority. In fact, I doubt a Democratically led Congress would be that outlandish as well. Let's not clutch pearls this early, as of this moment there isn't a single proposal on the floor, and if it ever did get that crazed I would join you in protest.

Protest?  Hey - if we decide after appropriate, rational deliberate evaluation of the alternatives that that's the best approach? I won't protest it.  It's the idea of slamming something together to appeal to the masses without doing that deliberate analysis and evaluation that I oppose.   Like Mikey said "Do SOMETHING - even if it fails".  I contend that that approach is an exercise in hopeful stupidity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Now we get to it - you think differently than I do, and thus deserve to be discounted.   yeah - that "Fuck You" approach has worked marvelously so far, eh Flash?  

 

that's been the gun-nutz mantra for years now. Dead kids? Fuck you, 2nd amendment.

Dead inner city young makes? Fuck you, 2nd amendment

Dead concert goers - just a couple weeks ago, fuck you, 2nd amendment right here in this forum.

So - you're blaming it on the folks trying to solve the problem? Fuck you and the 2nd amendment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Solutions are engineered.  Effective engineering requires an understanding of the problem to be solved

Or, as in this case, it requires a fairly small percentage of the population to develop enough intellectual honesty to accept what the problem actually IS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Protest?  Hey - if we decide after appropriate, rational deliberate evaluation of the alternatives that that's the best approach? I won't protest it.  It's the idea of slamming something together to appeal to the masses without doing that deliberate analysis and evaluation that I oppose.   Like Mikey said "Do SOMETHING - even if it fails".  I contend that that approach is an exercise in hopeful stupidity. 

We have had a lot of time to formulate a plan and it has failed time after time. Time is up. Whatever happens past this point is the result, don't like it? call your rep and tell them what you want to see, but I doubt you even know what it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Congress isn't going to anything

You coulda saved a lot of typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

that's been the gun-nutz mantra for years now. Dead kids? Fuck you, 2nd amendment.

Dead inner city young makes? Fuck you, 2nd amendment

Dead concert goers - just a couple weeks ago, fuck you, 2nd amendment right here in this forum.

So - you're blaming it on the folks trying to solve the problem? Fuck you and the 2nd amendment.

I'm not doing the blaming - I'm deflecting inappropriate blame. Big difference.  You are intentionally refusing to consider a perspective from anyone who isn't saying "get rid of the guns now". You wanna say "Fuck You" to me instead of considering what I'm advocating?   Go right ahead - that'll help immensely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm not doing the blaming - I'm deflecting

Waste of keystrokes in your original draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

My point was that the periodicity suggests that nothing is going to change without a change. We can't tell ourselves that this is a phase, or something due to politics, or guns. It's now who we are as a nation, we apparently don't dislike mass murders enough to do anything about them ... Other than think, pray and demand that the statistics of a chart be correlated to population growth.

Such statistics should always be reported as rate per 100,000

Raw numbers are an intentional distortion. 

One simple fact that ends the Gun control argument. The gun related homicide and accident rate per 100K has fallen dramatically over the last quarter century. All while the number of guns has skyrocketed,  domestic and foreign terror acts have increased, concealed carry has spread to most states that don't already allow open carry, the castle doctrine has spread as well and the assault rifle ban was retired.  

Guns were never the problem.  People that only see a bleak future for themselves, lose hope or  feel the system has failed or cheated then are the problem. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

We have had a lot of time to formulate a plan and it has failed time after time. Time is up. Whatever happens past this point is the result, don't like it? call your rep and tell them what you want to see, but I doubt you even know what it is. 

What plan has emerged?  From where I'm sitting - it's been a shouting match between the sides, with nothing solid proffered by either, and any ideas that might grow into a solution lost in the noise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Such statistics should always be reported as rate per 100,000

Raw numbers are an intentional distortion. 

One simple fact that ends the Gun control argument. The gun related homicide and accident rate per 100K has fallen dramatically over the last quarter century. All while the number of guns has skyrocketed,  domestic and foreign terror acts have increased, concealed carry has spread to most states that don't already allow open carry, the castle doctrine has done the same and the assault rifle ban was retired.  

Guns were never the problem.  People that only see a bleak future for themselves, lose hope or  feel the system has failed or cheated then are the problem.

Guns were ALWAYS the problem you moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Guns were never the problem.  People that only see a bleak future for themselves, lose hope or  feel the system has failed or cheated then are the problem. 

 

 

until you compare US statistics to other countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But American Exceptionalism means the USA is not like other places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What plan has emerged?  From where I'm sitting - it's been a shouting match between the sides, with nothing solid proffered by either, and any ideas that might grow into a solution lost in the noise. 

Umm, no. It's been:

Proposal is put forth. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth and name calling ensues. Policy shelved.

over, and over, and over again.  with a "Fuck you, 2nd amendment" thrown in for good measure.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

But American Exceptionalism means the USA is not like other places.

yeah, it's getting to downright suck here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

Guns were ALWAYS the problem you moron.

 Y'all have 'em up there, too (wiki cites Canada as #11 in ownership per capita) - but, not the same degree of violence that is experienced here.  Whyzzat, do ya think?   If it was the guns - then the incidents of violence per capita should directly correlate to existence per capita, no?  

The problem is attitude - that's what has to change - and people like Flash and Mikey think that if we were somehow magically able to eliminate private ownership of firearms that everybody would be happy-happy/joy-joy.   Hey - I've asked several times, and have yet to get an answer: What new prohibition would you propose, what objective will it attain, when, at what cost, what is the measure of success?    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What plan has emerged?  From where I'm sitting - it's been a shouting match between the sides, with nothing solid proffered by either, and any ideas that might grow into a solution lost in the noise. 

No plan has emerged that's my point. Time is still up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 Y'all have 'em up there, too (wiki cites Canada as #11 in ownership per capita) - but, not the same degree of violence that is experienced here.  Whyzzat, do ya think?   If it was the guns - then the incidents of violence per capita should directly correlate to existence per capita, no?  

The problem is attitude - that's what has to change - and people like Flash and Mikey think that if we were somehow magically able to eliminate private ownership of firearms that everybody would be happy-happy/joy-joy.   Hey - I've asked several times, and have yet to get an answer: What new prohibition would you propose, what objective will it attain, when, at what cost, what is the measure of success?    

 

it's not my job to propose, again, and again, and again. The proposals have been out there for fucking ever. And no, it's not your "confiscate everything" approach. So enough of the bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 Y'all have 'em up there, too (wiki cites Canada as #11 in ownership per capita) - but, not the same degree of violence that is experienced here.  Whyzzat, do ya think?   If it was the guns - then the incidents of violence per capita should directly correlate to existence per capita, no? 

No

30% of the guns per capita.

No handguns (essentially).

No assault weapons. (essentially).

No automatic weapons.

Etc.

As I said earlier - it requires a fairly small percentage of the population to develop enough intellectual honesty to accept what the problem actually IS.

And we have an increasing number of incidents of gun violence - almost exclusively young punk gangsters shooting each other using handguns smuggled from the USA.

Wake The Fuck Up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fair 'nuff - but, responding to the emotion instead of the substance of a problem rarely creates viable solutions.  I'm with ya, BL - I want things to improve, too - and if I thought that taking my small arsenal to the smelter would help?  I'd leave work now to do so.  I honestly don't think that that's where our solution lies, and I also think that we've become too accustomed to avoiding any potential to cause offense to honestly address what I think are the root causes. 

You have a problem with due process for people with a mental health issue. Or, equal protection for people on government disability while a person receiving private treatment for the same issue keeps his guns?  Or the strong likelihood that people will avoid seeking treatment for fear of losing their rights? Or laws that fail to explain what happens to the existing guns. We have the California cases where Vets that seek any kind of mental health care, OCD for instance, wind up with the Law kicking their door in to confiscated their often very expensive guns without due process or any right of appeal before the guns are destroyed. 

Read the full rule. It give Zero direction how a person placed on the list avoids a felony if they have an existing gun. The rule required notification in person and in writing. But that often breaks down in practice. People move, addresses get mistyped etc. If you understand driving laws, getting stopped with a suspended license is a crime. It does not matter if notification failed to reach you. 

The rule is a mess and probably unconstitutional on several basis. 

Obama did this on Dec 19th/2016. Why did he wait 8 years to use a "Rule" to legislate and bypass congress in the 11th hour?

Sorry I forgot the link

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf

 

Edited by Hillary
added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

it's not my job to propose, again, and again, and again. The proposals have been out there for fucking ever. And no, it's not your "confiscate everything" approach. So enough of the bullshit.

Get the advocates of prohibitions to focus on "eradicating violence" /vs/ "getting rid of guns" and you might get some support.  Accept as reasonable including protections to prevent a prohibition from being applied to a situation beyond its stated intent, and not used as the "1st step towards eradication".  Before any new prohibition is enacted - include an explanation of how it addresses a situation that's not already covered by the laws on the books.  

'Til then?  I'll continue to oppose any legislation that's based upon emotion and not objective analysis, and to discount as baseless any opinion who supports "do anything - anything's " - and your continued assertion that those who share my perspective are willingly complicit in the tragedies that are being experienced is intentionally insulting bullshit that's guaranteed to increase opposition and resistance to your way of thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hillary said:

You have a problem with due process for people with a mental health issue. Or, equal protection for people on government disability while a person receiving private treatment for the same issue keeps his guns?  Or the strong likelihood that people will avoid seeking treatment for fear of losing their rights? Or laws that fail to explain what happens to the existing guns. We have the California cases where Vets that seek any kind of mental health care, OCD for instance, wind up with the Law kicking their door in to confiscated their often very expensive guns without due process or any right of appeal before the guns are destroyed. 

Read the full rule. It give Zero direction how a person placed on the list avoids a felony if they have an existing gun. The rule required notification in person and in writing. But that often breaks down in practice. People move, addresses get mistyped etc. If you understand driving laws, getting stopped with a suspended license is a crime. It does not matter if notification failed to reach you. 

The rule is a mess and probably unconstitutional on several basis. 

Obama did this on Dec 19th/2016. Why did he wait 8 years to use a "Rule" to legislate and bypass congress in the 11th hour?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Guns were ALWAYS the problem you moron.

Name calling is not very impressive and weakens your unsupported declaration. If you can't treat me with respect and debate civilly I don't really have mush use for you. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hillary said:

Name calling is not very impressive and weakens your unsupported declaration. If you can't treat me with respect and debate civilly I don't really have mush use for you. 

You should put him on ignore Cuck Cuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

 

Losing was an eye opener. Made me reevaluate my positions. I must have been loopy that day to think it was constitutional to hold gun makers responsible for the misuse of the gun.

That would be like holding Ford responsible for the Biker deaths in NYC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hillary said:

Losing was an eye opener. Made me reevaluate my positions. I must have been loopy that day to think it was constitutional to hold gun makers responsible for the misuse of the gun.

That would be like holding Ford responsible for the Biker deaths in NYC. 

How cute to see you trying to formulate an opinion when you're so used to this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Something.  Anything.  Right?  As long as we are seen to be doing something.  Do you even care what that something is?  I somehow doubt it as long as "something" is done.  

Honest question for you BL - if there was some gun control legislation being proposed by the D's in the wake of this that clearly was shown to have little effect on mass shootings but was simply punitive to law-abiding gun owners..... would you oppose it?  Or would you just shrug and say it serves you right?  

Whoa Whoa Whoa.  You want to ban bumpa stocks. What are you going to tell the law-abiding bumpa stock owners?  It serves you right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are truly fucked now.   But I am not convinced that we have seen anything yet.  Wait till all those gun nuts hit the streets to shoot at each other.

colbert-popcorn.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the solution will come from any number of laws. 

At some time in the future, maybe US society will just decide that owning a gun isn't cool.  

Gun owners will be treated the way smokers are now.  Shunned, banished and thought of as poor, ill-informed and uneducated hicks (that's what most people think of smokers, right?).  

It will probably take at least three generations to change the mindset.  Until then the carnage will continue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

How cute to see you trying to formulate an opinion when you're so used to this.

 

Still don't get it. I may be Hillary but I'm not gay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One party is in control of all three branches of the U.S. Government.  What legislative proposal are we likely to see from that party regarding mass shootings, whether aimed at mental health, gun regulation or anything else?

I propose we will see nothing even put forward and that will tell the whole story that this isn't even seen as a serious problem at all, the status quo will be accepted.

I put forward that the 2nd amendment at all costs folks here are aligned with that party and most if not all probably voted for their President.  What proposals or legislation is forthcoming?  Forget about the "gun grabbing party", they are not in power.

Does YOUR party even see a problem here?  I suspect not.  Not one that is important enough to rate any action.

http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep more praying.  But wasn't that what the people in the church were doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Protest?  Hey - if we decide after appropriate, rational deliberate evaluation of the alternatives that that's the best approach? I won't protest it.  It's the idea of slamming something together to appeal to the masses without doing that deliberate analysis and evaluation that I oppose.   Like Mikey said "Do SOMETHING - even if it fails".  I contend that that approach is an exercise in hopeful stupidity. 

In the face of ongoing crisis, the only move guaranteed to fail is no move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 Y'all have 'em up there, too (wiki cites Canada as #11 in ownership per capita) 

 

It is either adorably naive or completely disingenuous to compare a country where almost all firearms are hunting rifles and shotguns to one where the majority are handguns.  I'll let you decide which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is the only way to stop it.  Law enforcement isn't up to the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mikewof said:

It finally happened, some psychopath killed church-going Americans at a church in the Church of Texas. As of this moment, our national insanity is no longer deniable, no longer a fringe. It's now apparently part of who we are, until we decide to change.

Does it make it worse if they’re church-goers? As opposed non-practitioners or non-believers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kmacdonald said:

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is the only way to stop it.  Law enforcement isn't up to the challenge.

How effective would citizens shooting their guns at the Mandalay Bay shooter have been?  Do you actually believe this?  What's next, mandatory gun ownership and carry at all times for everyone?  Then toddlers, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mad said:

Does it make it worse if they’re church-goers? As opposed non-practitioners or non-believers?

to some people, yes, I think it does. There's a large group of folks (trump voters) who don't see their kids at expensive suburban schools, or hanging out in gay nightclubs, or maybe even attending a country western concert in Vegas (sin city and all that)

They DO see themselves going to churches every sunday.

 

You might want to take a look at this OpEd as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/why-we-dont-give-a-damn-about-mass-shootings-robbins/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BrickTopHarry said:

How effective would citizens shooting their guns at the Mandalay Bay shooter have been?  Do you actually believe this?  What's next, mandatory gun ownership and carry at all times for everyone?  Then toddlers, eh?

Yes, good idea.  A town in Texas had a mandatory carry law,  they had zero crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It is either adorably naive or completely disingenuous to compare a country where almost all firearms are hunting rifles and shotguns to one where the majority are handguns.  I'll let you decide which.

Not to mention the differences in automatic firearms numbers, licensing procedures, and laws regarding management and handling of the handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It is either adorably naive or completely disingenuous to compare a country where almost all firearms are hunting rifles and shotguns to one where the majority are handguns.  I'll let you decide which.

It's neither - and it's disingenuous for you to conflate to avoid the point. 

I'll leave it to you, Clean, to tell the class which kinds of firearms the prohibitionists are clamoring to eliminate - it ain't the cheap little revolvers.   I am not opposed to any change that has a better than even chance at reducing violence.  I refuse to support any increased prohibition for which demonstrable progress towards the objective of reducing violence cannot be established.   I'll note also that even though people seem to generally agree that the perpetrators of most of these incidents are dealing with mental issues, that I don't hear a hue and cry for better mental health treatment options - it's always about the guns.   If we want to solve this problem, we ought to be looking at more than one facet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's neither - and it's disingenuous for you to conflate to avoid the point. 

I'll leave it to you, Clean, to tell the class which kinds of firearms the prohibitionists are clamoring to eliminate - it ain't the cheap little revolvers.   I am not opposed to any change that has a better than even chance at reducing violence.  I refuse to support any increased prohibition for which demonstrable progress towards the objective of reducing violence cannot be established.   I'll note also that even though people seem to generally agree that the perpetrators of most of these incidents are dealing with mental issues, that I don't hear a hue and cry for better mental health treatment options - it's always about the guns.   If we want to solve this problem, we ought to be looking at more than one facet. 

 

Exactly.  The root cause is not the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

that I don't hear a hue and cry for better mental health treatment options

then you haven't been paying attention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

then you haven't been paying attention

Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.   Aside from your reply to my earlier post, after about 3-300 "Fuck You's" from you - I've seen none from you, or anyone else other than as a grudging admittance that the anti-prohibitionists might have a point as it pertains to helping/constraining the ability of those w/mental health issues to enact violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

UBC and registration would have prevented this.  But domestic violence would need to added to the no buy list.

To the bolded, it already is. It is a prohibiting offense, any domestic violence conviction strips you of any right to own a gun. Has been that way for a while. Which is why I posted several times upstream that we should be looking at where the breakdown in NICS is. This is not the first time that someone has been able to get a clean background check when they were clearly prohibited. This guy was prohibited, the military says they passed that info along to NICS, I would like to know why NICS approved his purchase. In this specific case at least, we already passed a law that would have stopped him. Under the law, he should have been in jail for lying on his background check form. If he was in jail, all those people would still be alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It seems pretty evadent that the armed citizen shot and killed the shooter.  Other accounts I listened to this afternoon also said when he was engaged by the armed citizen, the shooter dropped his gun and fled.  Most likely because he had been hit and wounded.  I'm betting he bled out and died while trying to drive and slumped over dead and crashed.

I sort of wish he would have lived so we could pick his brain apart cell by cell to see what made him do this shit.  But good riddance.  My absolute sincerest hope is that if he is a crazed militant atheist who snapped, that there REALLY is a God and more importantly that means there really is a HELL for him to rot and burn in.  

He clearly was an angry man.  You don't just dress up in black and spray the facade of a church before you walk in and start shooting others in the back.  I wonder what atheist propaganda websites he was consuming?  It would be really interesting if this led back to the Russians and their fake neuse.  That could be pretty damning.

I told y'all this would happen.

 

Jeffie is partly wrong though.  The good gun nutter with a gun only wounded the bad gun nutter with a gun, who then killed himself after crashing.  Of course the gun fetish crowd will not only crow about the armed intervention by a 2A proponent.  They will then use the argument that the bad guy killed himself with a gun, and tell us how gun suicides are worse than mass shootings.  Those gun nutters are slippery mofos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's neither - and it's disingenuous for you to conflate to avoid the point. 

I'll leave it to you, Clean, to tell the class which kinds of firearms the prohibitionists are clamoring to eliminate - it ain't the cheap little revolvers.   I am not opposed to any change that has a better than even chance at reducing violence.  I refuse to support any increased prohibition for which demonstrable progress towards the objective of reducing violence cannot be established.   I'll note also that even though people seem to generally agree that the perpetrators of most of these incidents are dealing with mental issues, that I don't hear a hue and cry for better mental health treatment options - it's always about the guns.   If we want to solve this problem, we ought to be looking at more than one facet. 

 

Any additional restrictions will reduce the violence, because currently there are almost no controls on who can own firearms.  There have been multiple proposals, from your feared confiscations down to nothing more than safety courses required before owning anything that can put more lead downrange than a hunting rifle or a shotgun with a plug.

How is "People disagree about what to do, so let's do nothing and watch 'em get gunned down" a good strategy? 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LenP said:

To the bolded, it already is. It is a prohibiting offense, any domestic violence conviction strips you of any right to own a gun. Has been that way for a while. Which is why I posted several times upstream that we should be looking at where the breakdown in NICS is. This is not the first time that someone has been able to get a clean background check when they were clearly prohibited. This guy was prohibited, the military says they passed that info along to NICS, I would like to know why NICS approved his purchase. In this specific case at least, we already passed a law that would have stopped him. Under the law, he should have been in jail for lying on his background check form. If he was in jail, all those people would still be alive.

No NICS check when you go to walmart to buy a .308 or a 12 ga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LenP said:

To the bolded, it already is. It is a prohibiting offense, any domestic violence conviction strips you of any right to own a gun. Has been that way for a while. Which is why I posted several times upstream that we should be looking at where the breakdown in NICS is. This is not the first time that someone has been able to get a clean background check when they were clearly prohibited. This guy was prohibited, the military says they passed that info along to NICS, I would like to know why NICS approved his purchase. In this specific case at least, we already passed a law that would have stopped him. Under the law, he should have been in jail for lying on his background check form. If he was in jail, all those people would still be alive.

Don't count on your government to get anything right.  People need to accept a little responsibility for their own safety.  The SC even says the police have no obligation to protect citizens.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

No NICS check when you go to walmart to buy a .308 or a 12 ga.

Do tell?  I thought that every  sale by a licensed FFL (of which WalMart is one) is required to submit a background check for any firearms purchase.  I had to do one the last time I bought a .22 rifle, yeah, from a WalMart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do tell?  I thought that every  sale by a licensed FFL (of which WalMart is one) is required to submit a background check for any firearms purchase.  I had to do one the last time I bought a .22 rifle, yeah, from a WalMart. 

Not in MI, apparently.  At least they didn't run me when I bought my new deer rifle last week

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the regs, it appears they are required to do the check...I'm guessing I'm not the only one slipping through the cracks though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Looking at the regs, it appears they are required to do the check...I'm guessing I'm not the only one slipping through the cracks though.

The NICS background check is valid for up to 30 days and only covers a single transaction (a single transaction can involve multiple guns). In most cases, a check takes only a couple of minutes. According to the FBI, roughly 92% of checks render an instant verdict. If a check is clean, the gun is sold.Jan 7, 2016

 

Not sure if any of that applied.  More likely, WallyWorld boffed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Looking at the regs, it appears they are required to do the check...I'm guessing I'm not the only one slipping through the cracks though.

Not bustin' your stones, Alan - but, that's problematic, and even as a "devout gun nutter" - I wouldn't want that to happen.   I don't presume to tell you what to do, and wouldn't want you to imperil yourself, but, that's something that oughta be reported.    Good luck - and stay safe in the woods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.   Aside from your reply to my earlier post, after about 3-300 "Fuck You's" from you - I've seen none from you, or anyone else other than as a grudging admittance that the anti-prohibitionists might have a point as it pertains to helping/constraining the ability of those w/mental health issues to enact violence. 

because we're tired of proposing it and getting the Heisman.

So what's the point?

Expanded background checks for mental illness?rolled back by Trump

more money for diagnosis and treatment, and possible including on the no-buy list? Ha!

 

it's not worth the time to type it out as the response will be, as it always has been "fuck you, 2nd amendment" (by the way - that's not a Fuck You to you - that's a direct quote from Princess Jeffina any time someone has a policy proposal)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that this thread is a microcosm of the US's handling of the gun problem.  Every time there is another horrific gun crime, both sides come out and rehash the same old tired arguments and nothing changes which leads to more old tired arguments about why nothing changes.  As the definition of insanity goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, so goes the great gun debate.

If anything meaningful is going to happen, everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and try to re-frame this problem.  Until a different perspective is obtained, nothing will ever change.  Every problem has a solution, sometimes it is a matter of examining a problem from an entirely new perspective and then a reasonable solution may become apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not bustin' your stones, Alan - but, that's problematic, and even as a "devout gun nutter" - I wouldn't want that to happen.   I don't presume to tell you what to do, and wouldn't want you to imperil yourself, but, that's something that oughta be reported.    Good luck - and stay safe in the woods. 

I imagine it is the same all over the country.  End of the day, guys who make 7.20/hour don't give a fuck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

It seems to me that this thread is a microcosm of the US's handling of the gun problem.  Every time there is another horrific gun crime, both sides come out and rehash the same old tired arguments and nothing changes which leads to more old tired arguments about why nothing changes.  As the definition of insanity goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, so goes the great gun debate.

If anything meaningful is going to happen, everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and try to re-frame this problem.  Until a different perspective is obtained, nothing will ever change.  Every problem has a solution, sometimes it is a matter of examining a problem from an entirely new perspective and then a reasonable solution may become apparent.

It's just a body count question.  When enough conservatives have buried a friend or relative, it'll change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soak_ed said:

It seems to me that this thread is a microcosm of the US's handling of the gun problem.  Every time there is another horrific gun crime, both sides come out and rehash the same old tired arguments and nothing changes which leads to more old tired arguments about why nothing changes.  As the definition of insanity goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, so goes the great gun debate.

If anything meaningful is going to happen, everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and try to re-frame this problem.  Until a different perspective is obtained, nothing will ever change.  Every problem has a solution, sometimes it is a matter of examining a problem from an entirely new perspective and then a reasonable solution may become apparent.

Soakers - on this?  I think you're right, and I've been trying to do that.  All snark aside - if the way I've articulated my thoughts on this leads one to think I meant something different, I'd appreciate hearing why folks think that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I imagine it is the same all over the country.  End of the day, guys who make 7.20/hour don't give a fuck.

Custodians in the hospital don't make much either, but, we count  on 'em not to snag and unplug ventilators when they come by with the mop bucket.  I get your point, but, there's some things that we oughta expect to be done properly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

It seems to me that this thread is a microcosm of the US's handling of the gun problem.  Every time there is another horrific gun crime, both sides come out and rehash the same old tired arguments and nothing changes which leads to more old tired arguments about why nothing changes.  As the definition of insanity goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, so goes the great gun debate.

If anything meaningful is going to happen, everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and try to re-frame this problem.  Until a different perspective is obtained, nothing will ever change.  Every problem has a solution, sometimes it is a matter of examining a problem from an entirely new perspective and then a reasonable solution may become apparent.

Agreed - that article I posted had a proposal: What would happen if the President said the nation would solve the mass-shooting problem and lead the world in mass shooting safety in 10 years? And put the collective power of the nation to tackle the problem.  It's an interesting approach. Before you get all negative, it worked to put a dude on the moon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hillary said:

Name calling is not very impressive and weakens your unsupported declaration. If you can't treat me with respect and debate civilly I don't really have mush use for you. 

Respect is earned.

You're not a good earner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kmacdonald said:

Exactly.  The root cause is not the guns.

Yes it is.

You talk like other countries don't have widespread mental health problems and that is why they don't have weekly gun massacres. Not because they don't have an ocean of guns.

Only a person with mental health problems - or at least mental deficiency - could truly believe that.

 

It's the guns, stupid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites