Seriously, what is going on?

[ttechdallas]

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.

[Ironman]

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?

[systemnt]

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

[Mudslinger]

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.

[100%TtId]

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.

[ttechdallas]

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.

[Ironman]

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!

[Mudslinger]

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?