Seriously, what is going on?

[ttechdallas]

Bingo.

Perhaps you should re-read the outline of what is being proposed and enlighten me as to how that infringes upon your 2nd amendment rights in any form or fashion. It doesn’t. It is certainly your prerogative to object to them just as it is mine to support, which I am currently inclined as apparently so is the NRA.

Your comments though remind me why I believe the greatest threat to our 2nd amendment rights isn’t from the left but instead comes from within our ranks with this default argument that any gun regulation must be opposed because it is part of some sinister plan to take our guns away. That anyone who disagrees with you is either flawed in character, intelligence or a closet liberal who supports this plan. That is not a winning argument and pushes away far more people than it wins over.

Who exactly is this nameless, faceless “they” working on this plan to disarm citizens anyway? So powerful they can overrun our democracy, overrule our constitution, and apparently operate secretly within our own government yet not be accountable to its executive or legislative branches.

It isn’t the Republican party. It isn’t the Democratic party. This country faces so many existential threats that not even a liberal whack job like Bill DeBlasio as president, with his equally whacked brother and sister leading majorities in the house and senate would even consider trying to disarm Americans. It would start a civil war, require the military to turn against its citizens and make us so vulnerable to foreign enemies that we might as well just raffle off the keys to the highest bidder.

It isn’t the citizens. Even the majority of Democrats support the 2nd amendment. They just want to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. They don’t give a rat’s rear end about our guns. They don’t even believe there is an objective to take them away, outside some whacko’s on the fringe of their far left.

But keep up the argument, make sure nothing gets done, and insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, even those who agree with you on the importance of the 2nd amendment but maybe not on a particular issue or position. In 5 years, we’ll see how many more people's support of the 2nd amendment has weakened vs strengthened.

The demographics are already shifting away from us and we need to be winning people over to our side, not demonizing them. Because in 5 years we will be facing more stringent gun controls.

So insult away. I’ve already made a note to myself that it isn’t worth offering a different perspective on most subjects here.

[systemnt]

Perhaps you should re-read the outline of what is being proposed and enlighten me as to how that infringes upon your 2nd amendment rights in any form or fashion. It doesn’t. It is certainly your prerogative to object to them just as it is mine to support, which I am currently inclined as apparently so is the NRA.

Your comments though remind me why I believe the greatest threat to our 2nd amendment rights isn’t from the left but instead comes from within our ranks with this default argument that any gun regulation must be opposed because it is part of some sinister plan to take our guns away. That anyone who disagrees with you is either flawed in character, intelligence or a closet liberal who supports this plan. That is not a winning argument and pushes away far more people than it wins over.

Who exactly is this nameless, faceless “they” working on this plan to disarm citizens anyway? So powerful they can overrun our democracy, overrule our constitution, and apparently operate secretly within our own government yet not be accountable to its executive or legislative branches.

It isn’t the Republican party. It isn’t the Democratic party. This country faces so many existential threats that not even a liberal whack job like Bill DeBlasio as president, with his equally whacked brother and sister leading majorities in the house and senate would even consider trying to disarm Americans. It would start a civil war, require the military to turn against its citizens and make us so vulnerable to foreign enemies that we might as well just raffle off the keys to the highest bidder.

It isn’t the citizens. Even the majority of Democrats support the 2nd amendment. They just want to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. They don’t give a rat’s rear end about our guns. They don’t even believe there is an objective to take them away, outside some whacko’s on the fringe of their far left.

But keep up the argument, make sure nothing gets done, and insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, even those who agree with you on the importance of the 2nd amendment but maybe not on a particular issue or position. In 5 years, we’ll see how many more people's support of the 2nd amendment has weakened vs strengthened.

The demographics are already shifting away from us and we need to be winning people over to our side, not demonizing them.
So insulteh away. I’ve already made a note to myself that it isn’t worth offering a different perspective on most subjects here.

Youre free to do whatever you want with your freedoms.
Stay the **** away from mine.
Clear enough for you?
Probably not.

[Let's go Brandon!]

Listen. They can take your kids with a court order and no charges.

true

[Playa]

Perhaps you should re-read the outline of what is being proposed and enlighten me as to how that infringes upon your 2nd amendment rights in any form or fashion. It doesn’t. It is certainly your prerogative to object to them just as it is mine to support, which I am currently inclined as apparently so is the NRA.

Your comments though remind me why I believe the greatest threat to our 2nd amendment rights isn’t from the left but instead comes from within our ranks with this default argument that any gun regulation must be opposed because it is part of some sinister plan to take our guns away. That anyone who disagrees with you is either flawed in character, intelligence or a closet liberal who supports this plan. That is not a winning argument and pushes away far more people than it wins over.

Who exactly is this nameless, faceless “they” working on this plan to disarm citizens anyway? So powerful they can overrun our democracy, overrule our constitution, and apparently operate secretly within our own government yet not be accountable to its executive or legislative branches.

It isn’t the Republican party. It isn’t the Democratic party. This country faces so many existential threats that not even a liberal whack job like Bill DeBlasio as president, with his equally whacked brother and sister leading majorities in the house and senate would even consider trying to disarm Americans. It would start a civil war, require the military to turn against its citizens and make us so vulnerable to foreign enemies that we might as well just raffle off the keys to the highest bidder.

It isn’t the citizens. Even the majority of Democrats support the 2nd amendment. They just want to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. They don’t give a rat’s rear end about our guns. They don’t even believe there is an objective to take them away, outside some whacko’s on the fringe of their far left.

But keep up the argument, make sure nothing gets done, and insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, even those who agree with you on the importance of the 2nd amendment but maybe not on a particular issue or position. In 5 years, we’ll see how many more people's support of the 2nd amendment has weakened vs strengthened.

The demographics are already shifting away from us and we need to be winning people over to our side, not demonizing them. Because in 5 years we will be facing more stringent gun controls.

So insult away. I’ve already made a note to myself that it isn’t worth offering a different perspective on most subjects here.

Simply because it is the wrong treatment for the problem at hand. Have guns been in America as long as the white man? Are mass shooting a relatively modern problem, not completely, but it’s rate of occurrence is.

Here, in 3 mins this man sums it all up

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/multimedia/video/news/youtube_c2674705-960f-52ed-b8d8-9d2c34d514e4.html

[Artos]

We don't even have any official language to support or fight unless I missed something...as the article is written, it is way to vague & ugly for patriots to stand behind. I'll surrender my life membership to the NRA if they support any legislation that bypasses our liberty. I just don't see them standing behind anything without due process as membership would come unglued.

It's all semantics right now...those so willing to let go of their liberty for perceived public safety need to remember all the pieces were in place to stop most all these mass shootings. Most all of the data that failed to complete the process was in the hands of those you are placing trust to fix. I'm all for any ideas that assist, but not at the expense of any more diluted liberty.

Again, other than the vague article which has no teeth...what exactly are they trying to implement??

[ttechdallas]

Simply because it is the wrong treatment for the problem at hand. Have guns been in America as long as the white man? Are mass shooting a relatively modern problem, not completely, but it’s rate of occurrence is.

Here, in 3 mins this man sums it all up

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/multim...c34d514e4.html

No gun control is ever going to stop mass shootings - in schools or otherwise. It is a totally false and ignorant argument to suggest that someone so hellbent on killing people that that they plan it for 6-12 months is going to abandon their plan simply because they can't buy an AR-15 at Walmart.

I never suggested the order as described would prevent mass shootings. But there are a lot of other shootings involving mentally and emotionally unstable people. If a family member is so concerned about the mental state of a fellow family member that he or she fears for the safety of others because of access to weapons, I have no issue making it easier for them to have the weapons temporarily removed as long as an appropriate process is followed.

[Playa]

No gun control is ever going to stop mass shootings - in schools or otherwise. It is a totally false and ignorant argument to suggest that someone so hellbent on killing people that that they plan it for 6-12 months is going to abandon their plan simply because they can't buy an AR-15 at Walmart.

I never suggested the order as described would prevent mass shootings. But there are a lot of other shootings involving mentally and emotionally unstable people. If a family member is so concerned about the mental state of a fellow family member that he or she fears for the safety of others because of access to weapons, I have no issue making it easier for them to have the weapons temporarily removed as long as an appropriate process is followed.

Round and round we will go.... In this situation will the court remove all weapons from the home to include knives, tools and sports equipment?

Stop me if you have heard this one, but FBI stats show common household objects are used as weapons for murder almost 2-1.

So your control measure admittedly won’t curb mass murders and per the numbers isn’t the weaopon of choice for domestic/related murders, what have you accomplished, other than drape a “security blanket” over your head?

Did you even watch the video?

[muzzlebrake]

They as in no one will ever take my guns.....

What do you want to bet that there are folks that believe that that very statement qualifies me as being unfit to own fire arms

You don't need any guns as long as you have that 80lb Black Widow
And plenty of arras

[SaltwaterSlick]

You don't need any guns as long as you have that 80lb Black Widow
And plenty of arras

Agreed! I've seen him shoot! If "they" are hogs, it's even worse!!

[ttechdallas]

Round and round we will go.... In this situation will the court remove all weapons from the home to include knives, tools and sports equipment?

Stop me if you have heard this one, but FBI stats show common household objects are used as weapons for murder almost 2-1.

So your control measure admittedly won’t curb mass murders and per the numbers isn’t the weaopon of choice for domestic/related murders, what have you accomplished, other than drape a “security blanket” over your head?

Did you even watch the video?

I've seen that video a dozen times. I've actually shared it. It is spot on. Look, it is easy to diffuse the left's false arguments. They are all about stirring emotion and fear, whatever it takes to get to more on the left mad and/or scared enough to make sure they vote. The NRA does the same. I just got a NRA fund raising call which led with they're coming after your guns.

Others can buy that, I don't. There are two things hard to hide from. First, while the frequency of mass shootings has not increased, they are becoming exponentially deadlier largely due to much deadlier weapons and accessories. Second, there are a lot of gun murders and suicides arising from temporary conditions - depression, disputes, etc. - and access to a gun.

I don't see an issue making certain weapons harder to get or making it easier to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. It can save lives without infringing on my rights so I am not sure how it infringes on others. To the average person on the other side, our argument comes across as - if a reg can't prevent every gun related death, then it violates our rights because it "could" be used by a dishonest government to take all our guns away.

That doesn't fly with the average person on the other side. We need a better position and strategy. One that wins people over, not assumes they are the enemy. One way to do that is to be stronger advocates for effective regulations that could actually save lives while working to ensure they are written effectively so they cannot be easily abused.

[Mike D]

I've seen that video a dozen times. I've actually shared it. It is spot on. Look, it is easy to diffuse the left's false arguments. They are all about stirring emotion and fear, whatever it takes to get to more on the left mad and/or scared enough to make sure they vote. The NRA does the same. I just got a NRA fund raising call which led with they're coming after your guns.



Others can buy that, I don't. There are two things hard to hide from. First, while the frequency of mass shootings has not increased, they are becoming exponentially deadlier largely due to much deadlier weapons and accessories. Second, there are a lot of gun murders and suicides arising from temporary conditions - depression, disputes, etc. - and access to a gun.



I don't see an issue making certain weapons harder to get or making it easier to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. It can save lives without infringing on my rights so I am not sure how it infringes on others. To the average person on the other side, our argument comes across as - if a reg can't prevent every gun related death, then it violates our rights because it "could" be used by a dishonest government to take all our guns away.



That doesn't fly with the average person on the other side. We need a better position and strategy. One that wins people over, not assumes they are the enemy. One way to do that is to be stronger advocates for effective regulations that could actually save lives while working to ensure they are written effectively so they cannot be easily abused.

So how can you justify punishing or putting the millions of gun owners at risk for the actions of a few deranged individuals? The old punish the whole class for the stupidity of actions of an individual student.

There are processes already in place to prevent people who shouldn’t have access to them. Enforce them. More redundant and possibly further overreaching laws aren’t the answer. People just need to do their jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Playa]

Look, it is easy to diffuse the left's false arguments

I’m refreshed with your honesty that you can admit you are “left” on this issue and have false arguments.

I asked a pointed question regarding the removal of all weapons, it wasn’t rhetorical, I’d like your answer.

[Ironman]

I've seen that video a dozen times. I've actually shared it. It is spot on. Look, it is easy to diffuse the left's false arguments. They are all about stirring emotion and fear, whatever it takes to get to more on the left mad and/or scared enough to make sure they vote. The NRA does the same. I just got a NRA fund raising call which led with they're coming after your guns.

Others can buy that, I don't. There are two things hard to hide from. First, while the frequency of mass shootings has not increased, they are becoming exponentially deadlier largely due to much deadlier weapons and accessories. Second, there are a lot of gun murders and suicides arising from temporary conditions - depression, disputes, etc. - and access to a gun.

I don't see an issue making certain weapons harder to get or making it easier to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. It can save lives without infringing on my rights so I am not sure how it infringes on others. To the average person on the other side, our argument comes across as - if a reg can't prevent every gun related death, then it violates our rights because it "could" be used by a dishonest government to take all our guns away.

That doesn't fly with the average person on the other side. We need a better position and strategy. One that wins people over, not assumes they are the enemy. One way to do that is to be stronger advocates for effective regulations that could actually save lives while working to ensure they are written effectively so they cannot be easily abused.

If you want "effective regulation that actually save lives", then why not push for laws banning texting and driving? Maybe pass laws against school aged children from overdosing on drugs, both of which cause more deaths among school aged children than guns ever have. If you look at statistics, gun deaths among school aged children is but a drop in the bucket, but yet, it is, and has been, the most heated subject. Why is that? If you can answer that question, then you KNOW EXACTLY why that is. It has absolutely nothing to do with saving children's lives....NOTHING!

[jerp]

I see a lot of knee-jerking on this issue based on a sketchy understanding of the proposed law. Nobody can get their guns confiscated due to a call on an anonymous tip line. A GVRO (gun violence restraining order) would allow a select group of people - family members, school principals, employers - to petition a local court. If clear, admissible evidence shows this person has made the credible threats and exhibited behavior like the Cruz kid did, the judge can temporarily order the removal of their guns. To be done properly the law would allow the accused to have a prompt hearing and can appeal.

It's obvious that law enforcement has dropped the ball in many of these cases allowing these killers to fall between the cracks. Do you really think just telling LE to "quit dropping the ball!" is going to do any good? Pretty much all of these wackos have demonstrated disturbing and/or violent behavior and telegraphed their intentions. They are done by predictable people. If a family member can get a GVRO I believe some of these tragedies can be stopped. Not all of them of course but some.

The key is getting the bills written properly so they both reduce bloodshed and preserve the 2nd Amendment. That is where the NRA/ILA comes in. It can be done. I read a comment yesterday that made a lot of sense. If you are worried about total gun confiscation it is not laws like this we should worry about - what we should worry about is more mass shootings. Rational or not, Constitutional or not, the outrage against these events is what could eventually turn the tide against us.

[Ironman]

I see a lot of knee-jerking on this issue based on a sketchy understanding of the proposed law. Nobody can get their guns confiscated due to a call on an anonymous tip line. A GVRO (gun violence restraining order) would allow a select group of people - family members, school principals, employers - to petition a local court. If clear, admissible evidence shows this person has made the credible threats and exhibited behavior like the Cruz kid did, the judge can temporarily order the removal of their guns. To be done properly the law would allow the accused to have a prompt hearing and can appeal.

It's obvious that law enforcement has dropped the ball in many of these cases allowing these killers to fall between the cracks. Do you really think just telling LE to "quit dropping the ball!" is going to do any good? Pretty much all of these wackos have demonstrated disturbing and/or violent behavior and telegraphed their intentions. They are done by predictable people. If a family member can get a GVRO I believe some of these tragedies can be stopped. Not all of them of course but some.

The key is getting the bills written properly so they both reduce bloodshed and preserve the 2nd Amendment. That is where the NRA/ILA comes in. It can be done. I read a comment yesterday that made a lot of sense. If you are worried about total gun confiscation it is not laws like this we should worry about - what we should worry about is more mass shootings. Rational or not, Constitutional or not, the outrage against these events is what could eventually turn the tide against us.

As you stated, pretty much all.....have telegraphed their intentions. That, alone, is enough to arrest them. Why pass more laws, when the ones we already have are not being utilized?