As I see it, the left wants to disarm the citizenry, and they poopoo the idea that armed citizens could stand up to the Government, as our military would be under their control, and far better armed. Think M1A2's, body armor, A-10's, Etc.! We would have the numbers, but not the weapons needed.

So this attempt to stifle the citizenry by confiscating "assault weapons," and eventually more types, should be defeated, not because of the possibility of i**********n, but because it is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. No background check should go any further than checking for convictions of a felony. If you bring in the psychologists and psychiatrists to evaluate a citizen's mental state you are going to have some extremely biased decisions, since many of these types cannot agree amongst themselves on many aspects of permanent or temporary mental flaws, and the effects of medications.

Many here have pointed out that disarming the citizenry leaves them incapable of defending themselves against intruders, and most other consequences as well. At 88 I see guns as my only equalizer!
On another thread it was stated that we should disarm Democrats, since they are the constant shooters! Hmmm! It seems that the list is now largely true, but with doubts as to the party affiliations in some cases.

Yes, I am a member of the NRA, I own many weapons legally, I am trained and I am efficient on the range, but in the stress of an encounter, I would probably need many rounds to ensure I hit what I am aiming at, say 12+1 or more, especially if there are several intruders which is the MO here very often!

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.

Wood guru, you are a fool if you believe that they (the liberal left) would stop at anything other than a full and complete disarmament of the US population. It is not about saving lives, or stopping mass shootings...it’s about population control. If you give them an inch they will take a mile. If it were really about safety and saving lives the laws that are currently on the books would be enforced, but they’re not. If every time a prohibited person who tried to purchase a gun were prosecuted there would have been nearly 8 million i*****l a***ns prosecuted in 2017...it’s a felony for someone who is prohibited to attempt to purchase a gun. If the death penalty were enforced, and enforced promptly that would stop a hell of a lot of murders (with or without guns). No, I won’t give an inch of my rights up.

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.

There is only one reasonable and sensible "gun policy", ENFORCE the laws that we do have.

Every year, Chicago confiscates, and "executes", 10,000 guns, and lets the 10,000 criminals

they were confiscated from, walk free; that is unreasonable and nonsensical.

When the path that you are on is not working, you need to change DIRECTION!

Prohibition of alcohol did not work, prohibition of illegal drugs does not work, it appears that you are

learning impaired, that might be a good place to start.