Keeping guns from nuts. Is there not a way?

[RoyDawgMercer]

You're going to have to get specific to establish law. Talking points won't cut it.

The red flag statute is worthy of discussion, but no one has come up with criteria to prevent abuse of systems proposed. As we've seen with swatting in the online gaming community, false reporting gets innocent people targeted by law enforcement.

But yes, we do need to restrict mentally ill people from purchasing weapons, but doesn't that start with being honest about people who are mentally ill?

Open carry doesn't mean squat and it's crazy you'd suggest that has anything to do with someone wanting to do others harm. Do you really think restricting open carry has made a violent person decide to wait on being violent?

Not sure about the no background check thing. Isn't that a private sale issue? Pretty hard to police that given we can't even stop drug and human trafficking.

Making something illegal doesn't stop crime directly. The best you can hope for is making people think twice about punishment. The problem with murder is that it's not like speeding. People willing to commit murder already don't care about consequences.

Your final point about eliminating gets closer to the end game of total confiscation. All firearms are deadly. The idea of restricting the "most deadly" is a fairytale.

The manner in which these school shootings have taken place could be done with any firearm, and that's the point. It's all or nothing. Either a firearm is legally available or not. If you want to be sure, then you must take away all.

Name a caliber that should remain available after your ideal restrictions are in place that couldn't kill the same number of people from the Nashville shooting or any other school shooting in recent memory.

Fact: Hardly anyone supports confiscation …. even though there is valid argument that the need for a “well armed militia” has long since passed. Never said tighter firearm laws (mental illness reporting, etc) were going to be simple or easy. Even Nashville parents said their child never should have possessed a firearm but neither they nor the counselor had any mechanism they could turn to to even report that fact. Eliminate anything that chambers any ball high velocity round. That starts with, but should not be limited to, battlefield grade or specs caliber. Without open carry permitting a police officer is powerless to have stopped the Nashville, and other killers, merely by observing the weapons in their possession. Nothing will 100% eliminate the problems but our kids deserve us to do more than we have.

PS - I’m not naive enough to refuse to acknowledge there are places / times when protection of oneself is paramount. That said, I also believe in my heart the Founders would take action to stem massacres of innocent victims particularly in schools.

 

[deadduckdawg]

“Eliminate anything that chambers any ball high velocity round.”
You just cancelled Southern whitetail deer hunters. Do you mean if a rifle chambers expanding rounds such as hollow point it will remain legal?

.22LR is loaded to high-velocity supersonic levels. So grab them, too, huh? The .17 HMR, Hornady Magnum Rimfire, the so-called “chipmunk rifle,” cooks at 2650 FPS. So that’s it for chipmunk hunters, huh?

It’s a helluva lot more interesting discussing gun control with somebody who has at least a shred of gun knowledge.

 

[Zonadog]

Like I said constructing a bunker complex. THESE ARE SCHOOLS; should NOT BE armed / barricaded / guarded / bunkers. Teachers carrying sidearms is so foolish to be laughable. My wife, Mrs Hormones, taught for 40+ years and she is the last person you want with a loaded gun.

I purposely said nothing about teachers carrying firearms. Once again, you react without reading. I didn't say anything about bunkers, barricades, or razor wire (from your previous post), either. That's just the melodrama in your head.

I wonder why you are so adamantly resistant to protecting children, especially with basic physical security measures that are effective against a wide range of weapons an attacker might choose - not just one.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

Fact: Hardly anyone supports confiscation …. even though there is valid argument that the need for a “well armed militia” has long since passed. Never said tighter firearm laws (mental illness reporting, etc) were going to be simple or easy. Even Nashville parents said their child never should have possessed a firearm but neither they nor the counselor had any mechanism they could turn to to even report that fact. Eliminate anything that chambers any ball high velocity round. That starts with, but should not be limited to, battlefield grade or specs caliber. Without open carry permitting a police officer is powerless to have stopped the Nashville, and other killers, merely by observing the weapons in their possession. Nothing will 100% eliminate the problems but our kids deserve us to do more than we have.

PS - I’m not naive enough to refuse to acknowledge there are places / times when protection of oneself is paramount. That said, I also believe in my heart the Founders would take action to stem massacres of innocent victims particularly in schools.

Fact, you don't know how many people support confiscation, yet some of your proposals have involved just that, only for the "most deadly", which is all in this context.

I'm still not seeing your point about open carry permitting. Are you suggesting that Nashville police were fully aware of this shooter possessing firearms and threw their hands up because there's open carry? Sounds silly. You're just throwing out random stuff that has no basis in reality.

A good test for new policy to address a problem is to see if the new policy would prevent the problem. So far, no one has provided a specific law that satisfies that test for Nashville.

And what do you mean the parents and counselor had no mechanism? We've had telephones, email, and vehicles with directions to the PD for some time now.

 

[poorpreacher]

You're going to have to get specific to establish law. Talking points won't cut it.

The red flag statute is worthy of discussion, but no one has come up with criteria to prevent abuse of systems proposed. As we've seen with swatting in the online gaming community, false reporting gets innocent people targeted by law enforcement.

But yes, we do need to restrict mentally ill people from purchasing weapons, but doesn't that start with being honest about people who are mentally ill?

Open carry doesn't mean squat and it's crazy you'd suggest that has anything to do with someone wanting to do others harm. Do you really think restricting open carry has made a violent person decide to wait on being violent?

Not sure about the no background check thing. Isn't that a private sale issue? Pretty hard to police that given we can't even stop drug and human trafficking.

Making something illegal doesn't stop crime directly. The best you can hope for is making people think twice about punishment. The problem with murder is that it's not like speeding. People willing to commit murder already don't care about consequences.

Your final point about eliminating gets closer to the end game of total confiscation. All firearms are deadly. The idea of restricting the "most deadly" is a fairytale.

The manner in which these school shootings have taken place could be done with any firearm, and that's the point. It's all or nothing. Either a firearm is legally available or not. If you want to be sure, then you must take away all.

Name a caliber that should remain available after your ideal restrictions are in place that couldn't kill the same number of people from the Nashville shooting or any other school shooting in recent memory.

Excellent post. I particularly like the part about honesty when it comes to mental illness.

Can imagine fear by a shop owner.

"I have to sell them a gun, or they will sue
for discrimination"

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

You're going to have to get specific to establish law. Talking points won't cut it.

The red flag statute is worthy of discussion, but no one has come up with criteria to prevent abuse of systems proposed. As we've seen with swatting in the online gaming community, false reporting gets innocent people targeted by law enforcement.

But yes, we do need to restrict mentally ill people from purchasing weapons, but doesn't that start with being honest about people who are mentally ill?

Open carry doesn't mean squat and it's crazy you'd suggest that has anything to do with someone wanting to do others harm. Do you really think restricting open carry has made a violent person decide to wait on being violent?

Not sure about the no background check thing. Isn't that a private sale issue? Pretty hard to police that given we can't even stop drug and human trafficking.

Making something illegal doesn't stop crime directly. The best you can hope for is making people think twice about punishment. The problem with murder is that it's not like speeding. People willing to commit murder already don't care about consequences.

Your final point about eliminating gets closer to the end game of total confiscation. All firearms are deadly. The idea of restricting the "most deadly" is a fairytale.

The manner in which these school shootings have taken place could be done with any firearm, and that's the point. It's all or nothing. Either a firearm is legally available or not. If you want to be sure, then you must take away all.

Name a caliber that should remain available after your ideal restrictions are in place that couldn't kill the same number of people from the Nashville shooting or any other school shooting in recent memory.

This^^^^It is obvious that the current climate shelters the mentally ill as if they are the bravest people on the planet when in fact they are the most maladapted and biggest cowards on earth. You won't see them ever attack a heavily secured place it is almost always a public place where guns are restricted. The more we trust our instincts from God and ignore public opinion the better off we'll be.

 

[willdup]

The more we trust our instincts from God and ignore public opinion the better off we'll be.

If anyone is wondering what some of us are referring to when we express concern about the growing anti-democratic Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement in this country, this is exactly what we are talking about.

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

If anyone is wondering what some of us are referring to when express concern about the growing anti-democratic Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement in this country, this is exactly what we are talking about.

Yes, I know you are because you represent evil, those that do not defend Jesus are just as evil as the ones that openly oppose Jesus. You lack intestinal fortitude, Sir.

 

[nice marmot]

You lack intestinal fortitude, Sir.

you say that, and yet here he is ingesting bile and nonsense from you amd others, responding politely nevertheless.

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

you say that, and yet here he is ingesting bile and nonsense from you amd others, responding politely nevertheless.

You defend the indefensible.

 

[willdup]

you say that, and yet here he is ingesting bile and nonsense from you amd others, responding politely nevertheless.

I actually appreciate the fact that he didn’t even bother to argue against the assertion of being anti-democratic or authoritarian. The more people like him are willing to say what we know they actually believe, the easier it is to convince the independents and undecideds that much of today’s Republican Party are Christian radicals who are working day and night to impose their moral beliefs on every aspect of our lives.

 

[nice marmot]

You defend the indefensible.

I actually appreciate the fact that he didn’t even bother to argue against the assertion of being anti-democratic or authoritarian.

"Old white man surprised world doesn't want to be enslaved to his ideas, news at 11."

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

I actually appreciate the fact that he didn’t even bother to argue against the assertion of being anti-democratic or authoritarian. The more people like him willing to say what we know they actually believe, the easier it is to convince the independents and undecideds that much of today’s Republican Party are Christian radicals who are working day and night to impose their moral beliefs on our day to day life.

I'm not defending any political side or authoritarian beliefs. I simply defend Jesus Christ and his covenant. I will defend the Word until I leave this earth and I will not fear any fellow sinners because I have faith in Jesus' words.

 

[Dr. Curmudgeon]

"Old white man surprised world doesn't want to be enslaved to his ideas, news at 11."

Ah, the biased opinion from a person who Claims to be open minded. Carry on, sir/ma'am.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

Ah, the biased opinion from a person who Claims to be open minded. Carry on, sir/ma'am.

Deniers pretend actions which they decide are righteous to be an equal replacement for a personal relationship with God and having Him in their life. They do so because they fear the lack of control through surrender to Him.
What they (and many Christians) do not realize is that hell is not a distant place of torture and torment. It is "separation from God". It's that simple. Once they leave Him out of their daily life, hell begins. From there the road to every abomination is short.

 

[Zonadog]

This^^^^It is obvious that the current climate shelters the mentally ill as if they are the bravest people on the planet when in fact they are the most maladapted and biggest cowards on earth. You won't see them ever attack a heavily secured place it is almost always a public place where guns are restricted. The more we trust our instincts from God and ignore public opinion the better off we'll be.

If anyone is wondering what some of us are referring to when we express concern about the growing anti-democratic Christian Nationalist authoritarian movement in this country, this is exactly what we are talking about.

"Old white man surprised world doesn't want to be enslaved to his ideas, news at 11."

I really don't want to dive into this three way ya'll are having, but I need to point out one thing. The idea of opposing gun control is by definition NOT authoritarian. Restricting the rights of the public is authoritarian.

Exercising religious freedom, even to the extent of calling on a diety to guide political action is also not an authoritarian idea. By the same token, you are free to not listen.

The Constitutional restriction on government in the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the other way around.

In fact, Will and Marmot, the positions that you are advocating here are authoritarian. Curmudgeon's views in this thread are more libertarian.

 

[nice marmot]

The Constitutional restriction on government in the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the other way around.

huh? where am I here telling Mr. Curmudgeon he can't be miserable, or cumudgeonly, or righteous, or even self righteous?

But to your point, how is this not anti-democratic/authoritarian: "The more we trust our instincts from God and ignore public opinion the better off we'll be."

 

[willdup]

I really don't want to dive into this three way ya'll are having, but I need to point out one thing. The idea of opposing gun control is by definition NOT authoritarian. Restricting the rights of the public is authoritarian.

Exercising religious freedom, even to the extent of calling on a diety to guide political action is also not an authoritarian idea. By the same token, you are free to not listen.

The Constitutional restriction on government in the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the other way around.

In fact, Will and Marmot, the positions that you are advocating here are authoritarian. Curmudgeon's views in this thread are more libertarian.

huh? where am I here telling Mr. Curmudgeon he can't be miserable, or cumudgeonly, or righteous, or even self righteous?

But to your point, how is this not anti-democratic/authoritarian: "The more we trust our instincts from God and ignore public opinion the better off we'll be."

I think we veered out of the gun control topic into a broader discussion.

I’m nearly a libertarian purist when it comes to social issues. Worship who and how you prefer, smoke pot or not, express your sexuality in what ever way makes you happy. Go for it, as long as it only involves other consenting adults and other people are free to make their own choices.

The problem is when my expression of freedom impinges on the rights of others. Automobiles are highly regulated (despite their requirement for most of the country for day to day living) because they can become so dangerous when used incorrectly. Guns are not a requirement for most people to earn a living but they are a right. It seems reasonable to regulate them as we regulate cars, require registration, training and perhaps require insurance under some circumstances.

Regarding the back and forth with Curmudgeon, it seems he’d support the Christian theocracy that MTG keeps promoting which given the views expressed above I obviously disagree with. If I misunderstood his POV I apologize.