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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.