Rather Than No Tolerance For Even Sensible Gun Policy, What Do You Think Is Reasonable? The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They...

woodguru

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red f**g behavior
...felonies

Red f**g laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a t*****r.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

National Council for Behavioral Health: Mass Violence in America, Causes, Impacts, and Solutions

Despite the fear and public scrutiny they evoke, mass shootings are statistically rare events. Mass
shootings accounted for less than two-tenths of 1 percent of homicides in the United States between
2000 and 2016. Even school shootings, the most tragic of such events, are infrequent. People are more
likely to intentionally k**l themselves with a gun than to be k**led by a gun in a mass shooting or other
type of homicide.

Lonewolf

woodguru wrote:

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red f**g behavior
...felonies

Red f**g laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a t*****r.

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right,... (show quote)

The world we grew up in people could handle guns we didn't have TV video games movies promoting violence Macon County exciting period. In the military is clown video games to get a trip to the point or seeing people k**led blown apart doesn't bother them. I also know from the nun coming back condesa rific battles are most often marked for life because of it do cats suffer from Ptsd.
Our solution to everything is to either throw money at it or make it legal which is fine for law-abiding citizens Ali keep forgetting criminals could give a s*** less about our laws so there lies the problem

ImLogicallyRight

woodguru wrote:

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red f**g behavior
...felonies

Red f**g laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a t*****r.

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right,... (show quote)

My questions to you is about escalating the controls if we were to except your supposed sensible rules. Would you accept a rule that they can never ask for any more controls on our guns?
Because as soon as they signed onto a law that you want, they would try to escalate it to even more controls. That is a fact and known as the slippery slope.

Also, you mention your $2500 gun that would be grandfathered in. Does that mean that you can never sell it or will it to your heirs or even give it away? Sounds like ultimately they would confiscate that gun without compensation or you would have to dispose of it on a black market.

Just asking.

ImLogicallyRight

Lonewolf wrote:

The world we grew up in people could handle guns w... (show quote)

Huh. Makes no sense. Are you drunk?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Just make any crime committed with a gun an automatic prison sentence and fine. Both go up the more serious the crime. Serve the entire hitch. No early parole. We have enough laws. Do you really thing criminals or whack jobs wanting to murder a bunch of people won’t find a way?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/

quote=woodguru]The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red f**g behavior
...felonies

Red f**g laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a t*****r.[/quote]

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

woodguru wrote:

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red f**g behavior
...felonies

Red f**g laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a t*****r.

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right,... (show quote)

We need a law that says anyone who owns any type of weapon, and anything that might be used as a weapon, gun, knife, rubber chicken, and is planning on committing a violent act with them anytime in the next decade......................must use said weapon upon on their own person first.

Gatsby

lpnmajor wrote:

We need a law that says anyone who owns any type of weapon, and anything that might be used as a weapon, gun, knife, rubber chicken, and is planning on committing a violent act with them anytime in the next decade......................must use said weapon upon on their own person first.

And just how do you recommend that such a law should be ENFORCED?

Laws that are not enforced, lead only to dis-respect for all laws.

Liberty Tree

Gatsby wrote:

And just how do you recommend that such a law should be ENFORCED?

Laws that are not enforced, lead only to dis-respect for all laws.

Pass gun laws, but keep in mind those bent on evil do no care what the laws are.

Abel

Lonewolf wrote:

The world we grew up in people could handle guns w... (show quote)

I suppose you had some idea in your head when you wrote this, but I have no bloody idea what it was.

woodguru

Blade_Runner wrote:

url=https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-content... (show quote)

The problem is that they are becoming more and more frequent, as are h**e crimes. Getting harsh about taking guns from people with anger management issues and keeping them from buying new ones happens to make it difficult for unhinged people who are the ones who are committing violent acts.

People who don't have a solid mental stability have no rights to have guns. Unless I missed a part of the constitution that would protect the rights of mentally unstable people with anger management issues to own guns and k**l people, they have no gun rights if we say they don't.

woodguru

ImLogicallyRight wrote:

My questions to you is about escalating the contro... (show quote)

I think that once what would be termed as reasonable measures are accepted and made into law, the numbers of moderates who supported them grows exponentially to where further measures to go more extreme are rejected by people like me and millions of others who supported reasonable but thoroughly reject more extremes. The absolute rejection of anything by the NRA and hard right is creating a backlash effect that is going to result in the dam breaking and more extreme measures than I would like to see being jammed through with the rest. I think it is a mistake not to support moderate levels.

The laws that grandfather existing guns in do not interfere with passing them to kids, having the gun that was already in possession and legal, these are bought and sold a lot under the table. That said I have a lot of friends with boatloads of guns, and there is a lot of trading and selling from one person to another.

Abel

lpnmajor wrote:

We need a law that says anyone who owns any type of weapon, and anything that might be used as a weapon, gun, knife, rubber chicken, and is planning on committing a violent act with them anytime in the next decade......................must use said weapon upon on their own person first.

We don't need any more laws. We have far too many now. More unenforced laws will not begin to relieve our problems.

Mass shootings are products of demented people, not any particular tool. Any tool, gun, hammer, ball bat, tire iron, knife or wh**ever can be used to assault someone, thus an AR rifle is not the only assault weapon, and it may be used for war, hunting, or target practice.

Children are being programmed to believe fantasy is real by the games they play and progressive Deep State agitprop taught in our public schools. Clean up the public education and get back to the basics, and get rid of extreme violence in movies and games. People are obsessed with games, entertainment, and food, and apparently have way too much free time on their hands to think up all these vicious activities. Idle minds are very dangerous.

Quit attacking the "tools" and begin helping the people who are mentally deficient. Proper education begins in the home, but unfortunately, too many parents have already been "progressively" programmed to the point that they believe socialism is the way to go; that erroneous mindset has to be addressed before they begin any home training of their children, else the children will be a copies of the demented parents rather than normal children. In spite of what the progs want us to believe, family, consisting of a male/female relationship (mother and father) raising children and paying attention to what is being taught to their children in public schools is very important. It will be several generations before the horrible damage that has been inflicted upon the USA by the Deep State Progs can be eradicated, but the sooner we start the sooner we can be free of their misguided i***tology. It's time to wake up and get started.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

woodguru wrote:

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right, is that anything is a slippery slope. They object to anything and everything...that is going down like a porn star fluffer. Moderate republicans, and there are a lot of them agree with the middle of the road, background checks that include police reports, mental health, histories of violence and anger issues.

So the dialog is about what is reasonable, if you are part of the pure opposition that fights against everything you will not have a voice, this will be done without you.

The ground that needs to be discussed are the things that can make differences, it isn't about anything being able to completely eliminate mass murders, it's about the things that can make a difference.

Background checks along with a wait period sufficient to check databases, that's the common sense ground that is being reported as having support out at as high as 90%. Ground for debate exists with what does background checks include... Those databases should include...
...police reporting of domestic violence reports, restraining orders, and general red f**g behavior
...felonies

Red f**g laws, which allow the police and FBI to intervene when unhinged behavior and threats are reported or detected on social media.

Magazine size limits, they actually are effective in that they make it harder to carry larger numbers of mags that have only ten shots in them. Their effectiveness is curtailed whe they are limited in some states but not others. Everyone I know that wants 20/30/and even 40 round mags has them because it's easy enough to get them in Nevada.

I am a gun owner, I recently bought an AR in a tiny caliber (.204 Ruger) for coyote and target shooting. I am against people being forced to give up an array of assault oriented rifles, I favor the approach California took when they banned assault rifles It banned new ones. It was later relaxed to a standard of safety features and magazine size limits, also better than a forced taking of all of them, that is a line too far. I oppose total bans and prefer allowing the modified ARs that are available in california, although total bans are what they are as long as they don't come with being forced to turn in existing ones, mine is a custom super accurate one that cost $2500. California did not try to take people's AR's when they banned them, they grandfathered in the ones people already owned.

The right rants on about the government wanting to take our guns, it's not all of them so that is a fear mongering rhetoric. The country has a long history of having bans on different military grade weapons, also things such as fully automatic and suppressors, which are prohibited in many states.

Rather than talking about the negative and what you are afraid is a slippery slope, talk about what is reasonable and acceptable to you. I'm curious how many people on the right will say what's acceptable, although I know that to say so is to be labeled by the hard right as a t*****r.

The fight by the hard right, and I say hard right,... (show quote)

I don't know which side I'd fall on definitely not the left, but the right? I feel no allegiance there. Anyway, you're looking for the solution to mass shootings? Here are what I've seen and heard. In my Nam group after the Parkland shootings (I was soon to learn it was all staged by Soros) "We don't need gun control, kid control" was what one said. What did all of the mass shooters have in common? No support from family. Psychotropic drugs. Video games. Loners. You get the idea. Profiles would be helpful here. A 'see something say something' campaign might also be helpful. The Vegas shootings-staged. I'll bet you didn't expect this. I do have a serious side.

woodguru

Liberty Tree wrote:

Pass gun laws, but keep in mind those bent on evil do no care what the laws are.

The way I have put it is that I will support reasonable gun laws, but I will defend myself and my guns against being taken away. Lets just say I have bought perhaps 60 or 70 guns in the last 15 years, I know for a fact I have sold 30 or so, many online and many to friends, for technical purposes lets just say I have no idea how many guns I have or where they are. My wife asked if I was afraid my AR I bought recently would be illegal at some point, I asked her so what if it is? She asked if I'd turn it in and I told her not a chance. People who think like this know how to hide their guns. At this point it's the ARs at risk, perhaps some semi autos...

The real risk is during a civil revolt, and martial law being declared, which would be the automatic response. The military and police would be responding to and against anyone who has a gun, republican, democrat, or apolitical.