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 flag behavior
...felonies

Red flag 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 traitor.

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 flag behavior
...felonies

Red flag 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 traitor.

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 killed 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

How's this for starters: enforce all of the thousands of gun laws that almost always are unenforced or the first to be plea bargained away. Second, investigate EVERY person who fails a background check, arrest and then prosecute them if they have violated any law. I guess you didn't watch the Democrat debates last night where Beto said "Of course we are going to take your guns". It certainly doesn't have to be EVERY leftist who wants to take your guns, it needs be only those leftists that are in control of the government. Since you are a gun owner and sound reasonably informed I know you aren't naive enough to think expressions like "slippery slope" and "The nose under the camel's tent" do not reflect the reality of leftist government control so I am really surprised you are so comfortable with banning ARs. You know, of course, that there are several other weapons at least as effective in close in mass shooting events than an AR; examples are pump action shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, lever action rifles and non-AR semi-automatic rifles. You must know also that if you allow an AR ban a very plausible argument can and definitely will be made to ban the weapons I just mentioned, among others. Just like in Australia and as is happening now in New Zealand, once you get this ball rolling it is very difficult to stop. And finally, remember the bottom line: the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect hunting, target shooting, gun collecting or defending oneself from criminals. The 2nd Amendment is intended to prevent the government from ever even beginning the process of gun confiscation, a process which will deny the citizenry the means to avoid being dominated by a budding dictatorial government. The beginning of this process is universal gun registration and confiscation of "dangerous" guns to enhance safety. Passing laws that criminals will not obey that make it more difficult for non-violent, law abiding citizens to possess and carry firearms makes everyone less safe.

The problem is that they are becoming more and more frequent, as are hate 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 kill people, they have no gun rights if we say they don't.

The 2nd amendment was not about hunting, shooting targets on your own property, collecting guns or even defending your home from criminals. The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep a free people free if the government ever became genocidal or despotic; the founders recognized the people needed to be as well armed as the government if they were to prevent what had been the usual course of human government at the time-dictatorial government that dominated their people and doled out limited rights as the King, Sultan, Monarch, Emperor or Sovereign desired. As with the last thousand years of human history one of the first acts of a government desiring to increase or maintain control of the people was to forbid the possession by the people of weapons in use at the time, be they swords, flintlocks, muzzle loaders, bolt action or semi-automatic. Now, pay attention here: the whole, entire, complete and ONLY purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent this early act of a dictatorially leaning government, i.e. the confiscation of arms; if it remained illegal in perpetuity for the US government to confiscate weapons it would never be able to enslave its people, no matter how hard the Democrat's try.

It is needed more today than ever in 240 years. The loony left will overrun America if we lose it.

The 2nd amendment was not about hunting, shooting targets on your own property, collecting guns or even defending your home from criminals. The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep a free people free if the government ever became genocidal or despotic; the founders recognized the people needed to be as well armed as the government if they were to prevent what had been the usual course of human government at the time-dictatorial government that dominated their people and doled out limited rights as the King, Sultan, Monarch, Emperor or Sovereign desired. As with the last thousand years of human history one of the first acts of a government desiring to increase or maintain control of the people was to forbid the possession by the people of weapons in use at the time, be they swords, flintlocks, muzzle loaders, bolt action or semi-automatic. Now, pay attention here: the whole, entire, complete and ONLY purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent this early act of a dictatorially leaning government, i.e. the confiscation of arms; if it remained illegal in perpetuity for the US government to confiscate weapons it would never be able to enslave its people, no matter how hard the Democrat's try.

It is needed more today than ever in 240 years. The loony left will overrun America if we lose it.

The 2nd amendment was not about hunting, shooting targets on your own property, collecting guns or even defending your home from criminals. The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep a free people free if the government ever became genocidal or despotic; the founders recognized the people needed to be as well armed as the government if they were to prevent what had been the usual course of human government at the time-dictatorial government that dominated their people and doled out limited rights as the King, Sultan, Monarch, Emperor or Sovereign desired. As with the last thousand years of human history one of the first acts of a government desiring to increase or maintain control of the people was to forbid the possession by the people of weapons in use at the time, be they swords, flintlocks, muzzle loaders, bolt action or semi-automatic. Now, pay attention here: the whole, entire, complete and ONLY purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent this early act of a dictatorially leaning government, i.e. the confiscation of arms; if it remained illegal in perpetuity for the US government to confiscate weapons it would never be able to enslave its people, no matter how hard the Democrat's try.

It is needed more today than ever in 240 years. The loony left will overrun America if we lose it.

Psychological test are only as good as the one submitting the test.
Psychologist can be bias and I know this to be factual.
So then what happens when the biased psychologist comes on to be your best friend "Gun psychological testing" and determines falsely that you have "Anxiety " because you told your friend that some nights you have difficulty sleeping.
Now because you have been determined by a "professional " that you have a "mental disorder " and this denies you the ability to have or bare arms.
The "biased " psychologist is doing their good liberal leftist part in the arms debate at your expense.
Now, think a liberal judge will overturn the psychologist? Think you will ever "legally " bare arms again?

This is one of dozens of scenarios that in real time can play out to deny the right to bare arms if a law like this were too be passed.

We have tons of laws and as we know. The cities and states with the stiffest laws have the highest gun crimes.

Jack