Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-16-2018, 12:03 PM   #101
Mike D
Pope & Young
 
Mike D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Texas
Hunt In: Haskell County, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttechdallas View Post
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
Mike D is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 12:16 PM   #102
Playa
Pope & Young
 
Playa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lubbock
Hunt In: Coleman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttechdallas View Post
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.
Playa is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 01:23 PM   #103
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttechdallas View Post
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!
Ironman is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 01:43 PM   #104
jerp
Pope & Young
 
jerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Aledo
Hunt In: Shackleford Co.
Default

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.

Last edited by jerp; 03-16-2018 at 01:47 PM.
jerp is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 01:54 PM   #105
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
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?
Ironman is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 02:24 PM   #106
ttechdallas
Eight Point
 
ttechdallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Colleyville
Hunt In: Atoka County, OK
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Playa View Post
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.
As I am disappointed in the disingenuous nature of yours. I am neither on the left nor have I made a single even remotely false or misleading argument.

As for weapons removed, I would assume that would be anything designed as or resembling an actual weapon that was in their possession or the proximity of their living quarters, whether firearms or knives. I assume it would not include steak knives, scissors, electrical cords and the like.

Let me ask you a question, though. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, his own mother feared him while a neighbor reported to the police that he was planning to kill his mother. The police investigated, but finding no evidence of a crime, did nothing. What if both his mother and the neighbor had been made aware this option that would have allowed the police to remove any weapons. What the heck would the issue be if they chose to pursue it, whether it prevented Sandy Hook, the mom's death or not?

You know what, forget that. If it is as easy as some think that the police can already take weapons away based on existing laws, why aren't they? The Florida shooting was in a liberal county with a liberal sheriff. This was low hanging fruit. So would have been the Orlando nightclub shooter if you recall. If this master plan is so well known as many suggest, how is it even conceivable that both the FBI and local law enforcement could ignore these golden opportunities to go ahead and remove guns? Maybe because it isn't as easy as you want to imagine and maybe there is nothing wrong with making it easier when it is justified.
ttechdallas is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 02:35 PM   #107
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttechdallas View Post
As I am disappointed in the disingenuous nature of yours. I am neither on the left nor have I made a single even remotely false or misleading argument.

As for weapons removed, I would assume that would be anything designed as or resembling an actual weapon that was in their possession or the proximity of their living quarters, whether firearms or knives. I assume it would not include steak knives, scissors, electrical cords and the like.

Let me ask you a question, though. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, his own mother feared him while a neighbor reported to the police that he was planning to kill his mother. The police investigated, but finding no evidence of a crime, did nothing. What if both his mother and the neighbor had been made aware this option that would have allowed the police to remove any weapons. What the heck would the issue be if they chose to pursue it, whether it prevented Sandy Hook, the mom's death or not?

You know what, forget that. If it is as easy as some think that the police can already take weapons away based on existing laws, why aren't they? The Florida shooting was in a liberal county with a liberal sheriff. This was low hanging fruit. So would have been the Orlando nightclub shooter if you recall. If this master plan is so well known as many suggest, how is it even conceivable that both the FBI and local law enforcement could ignore these golden opportunities to go ahead and remove guns? Maybe because it isn't as easy as you want to imagine and maybe there is nothing wrong with making it easier when it is justified.
Once again. Why guns?
Ironman is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 02:38 PM   #108
systemnt
Pope & Young
 
systemnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Montgomery
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

The movie you are pulling all this **** from...sucked... and still at the end of it..even it revealed minority report tactics for predicting crimes is a violation of civil and constitutional rights.

The nazis pulled the same **** you are advocating.
Disarm to protect...disarm to control... disarm to eradicate

You are wrong in your interpretation of a constitutional right..you are wrong in the intentions of the ones writing this bill ..and you fail to learn from history.

Do the math

Last edited by systemnt; 03-16-2018 at 02:41 PM.
systemnt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 04:41 PM   #109
Mudslinger
Pope & Young
 
Mudslinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lubbock, TX
Hunt In: Kent Co., Stonewall Co., CO, Limpopo RSA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttechdallas View Post
As I am disappointed in the disingenuous nature of yours. I am neither on the left nor have I made a single even remotely false or misleading argument.

As for weapons removed, I would assume that would be anything designed as or resembling an actual weapon that was in their possession or the proximity of their living quarters, whether firearms or knives. I assume it would not include steak knives, scissors, electrical cords and the like.

Let me ask you a question, though. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, his own mother feared him while a neighbor reported to the police that he was planning to kill his mother. The police investigated, but finding no evidence of a crime, did nothing. What if both his mother and the neighbor had been made aware this option that would have allowed the police to remove any weapons. What the heck would the issue be if they chose to pursue it, whether it prevented Sandy Hook, the mom's death or not?

You know what, forget that. If it is as easy as some think that the police can already take weapons away based on existing laws, why aren't they? The Florida shooting was in a liberal county with a liberal sheriff. This was low hanging fruit. So would have been the Orlando nightclub shooter if you recall. If this master plan is so well known as many suggest, how is it even conceivable that both the FBI and local law enforcement could ignore these golden opportunities to go ahead and remove guns? Maybe because it isn't as easy as you want to imagine and maybe there is nothing wrong with making it easier when it is justified.
Listen to this for a minute. IF this Sandy Hook mother was so worried about her deranged son, why in the hell did she leave weapons NOT SECURED in her home? She is one of the ones that dropped the ball by allowing her son access to the guns just like the FBI and SO’s in Florida did. Even if she new about the law she could have taken care of the situation but did not and paid with her life snd was an enabler in a bunch of children’s deaths at Sandy Hook.
Mudslinger is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 04:52 PM   #110
100%TtId
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

If someone is so crazy and likely to cause themselves or others harm, instead of taking their firearms away from them, and by definition, infringing on a 2A right, why not have the individual committed to a mental hospital or institution that can properly care for the person?

Answer: we had laws specifically written to address this but the libs and ACLU fought them in court. They want crazies running loose but guns need to be confiscated. NFW.
100%TtId is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 05:18 PM   #111
ttechdallas
Eight Point
 
ttechdallas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Colleyville
Hunt In: Atoka County, OK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
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!
Where I live it is illegal to text while driving. It is now illegal to even read a text or anything else on a mobile device. All of those things are illegal.

We fall into an unwinnable trap when we compare school shooting deaths to other causes. The emotions are too great to ever win and here is why. Set aside for a moment the liberal politicians exploiting these for their own gain.

Most regular people on the other side don't get this "fear" some have that every gun reg is part of a grand plan to take all our guns away. To them, it is irrational that we would object to something that might save even just a few lives out of fear its real purpose is to be used against us.

Translate that to - I'm sorry all those kids were killed but it was a crazy person that did it, not the gun. If he had 2 15 round clips, instead of 1 30, it only takes 1.x seconds to switch out a clip so maybe 2 or 3 fewer shots. Maybe save one kid from getting shot. Not enough to justify the infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. I'm going to need those 30 round clips when the government comes to try to take my guns away.

Contrast that approach with - we have to look at all mass shootings the same way as all these are planned 6, 12, even 18 months ahead of time. No gun control is going to prevent someone that hellbent on killing people from doing it, whether they use guns or otherwise. The best we can do with controls is make it more difficult to obtain their weapons of choice and hope the process reveals the shooters plans to authorities so they can somehow stop it.

Look, I don't begrudge you your views or anyone else for their's. As I've said before, I think there is a better path to preserving our rights than arbitrarily rejecting anything and everything under the rationale provided by many here.
ttechdallas is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 06:11 PM   #112
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttechdallas View Post
Where I live it is illegal to text while driving. It is now illegal to even read a text or anything else on a mobile device. All of those things are illegal.

We fall into an unwinnable trap when we compare school shooting deaths to other causes. The emotions are too great to ever win and here is why. Set aside for a moment the liberal politicians exploiting these for their own gain.

Most regular people on the other side don't get this "fear" some have that every gun reg is part of a grand plan to take all our guns away. To them, it is irrational that we would object to something that might save even just a few lives out of fear its real purpose is to be used against us.

Translate that to - I'm sorry all those kids were killed but it was a crazy person that did it, not the gun. If he had 2 15 round clips, instead of 1 30, it only takes 1.x seconds to switch out a clip so maybe 2 or 3 fewer shots. Maybe save one kid from getting shot. Not enough to justify the infringement on my 2nd amendment rights. I'm going to need those 30 round clips when the government comes to try to take my guns away.

Contrast that approach with - we have to look at all mass shootings the same way as all these are planned 6, 12, even 18 months ahead of time. No gun control is going to prevent someone that hellbent on killing people from doing it, whether they use guns or otherwise. The best we can do with controls is make it more difficult to obtain their weapons of choice and hope the process reveals the shooters plans to authorities so they can somehow stop it.

Look, I don't begrudge you your views or anyone else for their's. As I've said before, I think there is a better path to preserving our rights than arbitrarily rejecting anything and everything under the rationale provided by many here.
We have preserved our rights (as much as possible) up to this point by fighting for them. I'm not about to stop fighting now. Let's look at statistics of what is killing our school aged kids, and have a meaningful discussion about that. LEAVE THE GUNS OUT OF IT!!

As far as them not getting this "fear" of the grand scheme of gun confiscation, I don't give a ****! I don't get THEIR fear of guns in general. See how that works? They want more gun control. I don't! It's that simple!

Last edited by Ironman; 03-16-2018 at 06:18 PM.
Ironman is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 03-16-2018, 06:31 PM   #113
Mudslinger
Pope & Young
 
Mudslinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lubbock, TX
Hunt In: Kent Co., Stonewall Co., CO, Limpopo RSA
Default

Has anyone looked at the 500,000 criminals that were purged from the FBI list from the Obuttlick DOJ during his 8 years in office and say that none of these criminals that were purged did not go out and buy a weapon when they should have been on the list to not been allowed to buy? This is about as bad as it gets, but remember, his time in office, so he boasts, had no real scandals while in office. Is this not a scandal or just normal for his time in office?
Mudslinger is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com