It's time!

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2009
51,322
6,469
1,860
San Francisco Bay Area
Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).
 
Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

'k... we're at the table... what do you propose...?


eta: the stuff in your sig makes it hard for me to take you seriously... jes' sayin'... :)
 
Last edited:
Come and take my guns away, asswipe.

I don't understand why people cannot just be caring human beings, Americans. Even if you don't have children, surely you can have some degree of feeling for the parents whose children were gunned down yesterday.

I just heard that one of murdered little girls was going to be a angel in her school play.

Does anything touch you?
 
Come and take my guns away, asswipe.

I don't understand why people cannot just be caring human beings, Americans. Even if you don't have children, surely you can have some degree of feeling for the parents whose children were gunned down yesterday.

I just heard that one of murdered little girls was going to be a angel in her school play.

Does anything touch you?

This from the guy who can't wait for people to die violently so as to use it as a weapon against the GOP. Go fuck yourself dumbass.
 
How about restricting the US Gov't ability to run weapons to Mexico and in the Middle East?

All Oppressive Gov'ts go after the guns because a disarmed populace is easily controlled.
 
We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate.

That's because there is no way to prevent such tragic events. That's the point. Even in countries with outright bans on civilian ownership of firearms, it happens.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate.

That's because there is no way to prevent such tragic events. That's the point. Even in countries with outright bans on civilian ownership of firearms, it happens.

It happens too often in our country to be ignored or dismissed as a problem without a solution.
 
We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate.

That's because there is no way to prevent such tragic events. That's the point. Even in countries with outright bans on civilian ownership of firearms, it happens.

It happens too often in our country to be ignored or dismissed as a problem without a solution.

First, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the top 10 countries for homicide do not include the U.S.

Second, those countries that have banned civilian ownership of firearms saw their violent and gun crime rates INCREASE.

Third, you've offered NO solution!

What do you propose that would actually work in preventing what happened yesterday? You have some way to un-invent firearms?
 
Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

'k... we're at the table... what do you propose...?


eta: the stuff in your sig makes it hard for me to take you seriously... jes' sayin'... :)

The 'stuff' in my signature line is 1) my opinion and 2) based on my experience.

Do you believe it's okay to pay someone less than another - doing the same job - only because of their gender?

Do you think it's okay for a member of Congress to take money, goods, services or promises for their vote? Do you doubt quid pro quo exists in the halls of congress and in the chambers of local councils?

-0-

I propose that the states be allowed to establish some control over the types of weapons and ammunition sold within its borders; that the state have the power to restrict any firearm, magazine or ammunition type it feels represents a clear and present danger to its citizens or environment.

I propose political subdivisions within a state have the authority to restrict the possession, custody and control of firearms owned or possessed by state citizens outside their residence or place of business; visitors from out of state should be prohibited from having firearms in the possession or custody unless a temporary permit is obtained from the chief law enforcement officer of the county, city or special district.

I propose that the states be allowed to require anyone who resides in their state to be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody or control any firearm legal within the state and that said license be revocable for cause.
 
Uh, shall we get down to the FACTS of this?

The guns were legally registered to HIS MOTHER!

Were they properly safed and secure? Should we consider constraints on citizens having guns when a member of the household has mental problems? And, who will make that determination based upon what?

There are far too many questions about this that, as yet, remain unanswered. Shall we wait until they are? Or continue with stupid, uninformed rants? :cool:
 
There are some questions coming up about the guns registered to his mother.

How likely is it that a mother would have such high powered weaponry unsecured in a home where she knew she had a mentally disturbed son?
 
That's because there is no way to prevent such tragic events. That's the point. Even in countries with outright bans on civilian ownership of firearms, it happens.

It happens too often in our country to be ignored or dismissed as a problem without a solution.

First, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the top 10 countries for homicide do not include the U.S.

Second, those countries that have banned civilian ownership of firearms saw their violent and gun crime rates INCREASE.

Third, you've offered NO solution!

What do you propose that would actually work in preventing what happened yesterday? You have some way to un-invent firearms?
As usual, you show no link. Lets see what you are talking about.
Here is a quote, with a link:
"A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.
Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."

Gun Deaths: A Familiar American Experience - ABC News
So, I could give you my opinion and state some statistics, just like they are fact. But, you see, step, I have seen you use unsupported statistics and statements before. Lets see your source. Cause you know how much I value your opinion.
 
Last edited:
I don't know of any legal gun control measure that would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. That's not to say the laws shouldn't be tightened up some, maybe a future event such as this won't happen. And maybe schools better take a look at their security, did this place have cameras watching the entrance? But let's not kid ourselves, total prevention is probably not possible.
 
I propose that the states be allowed to establish some control over the types of weapons and ammunition sold within its borders; that the state have the power to restrict any firearm, magazine or ammunition type it feels represents a clear and present danger to its citizens or environment.

I propose political subdivisions within a state have the authority to restrict the possession, custody and control of firearms owned or possessed by state citizens outside their residence or place of business; visitors from out of state should be prohibited from having firearms in the possession or custody unless a temporary permit is obtained from the chief law enforcement officer of the county, city or special district.

I propose that the states be allowed to require anyone who resides in their state to be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody or control any firearm legal within the state and that said license be revocable for cause.

The state of Connecticut has those powers.
Fact: You have to be 21 years old to legally purchase and own a handgun in Connecticut.
Fact: Adam Lanza was 20 years old.

So far, all your proposals are met.

next........
 
Democrats want guns banned because they intend that the Bloods have guns, the Crips, MS-13, they will all have guns. Law abiding people won't have guns.

That's the intention. To democrats, winning a race war will be made much easier if white people don't have guns. The NRA is the new KKK haven't you heard.
 
I don't know of any legal gun control measure that would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. That's not to say the laws shouldn't be tightened up some, maybe a future event such as this won't happen. And maybe schools better take a look at their security, did this place have cameras watching the entrance? But let's not kid ourselves, total prevention is probably not possible.
Obviously you can not stop all gun violence. But, we are among the worst in the world in gun deaths. Maybe looking at why other countries have fewer deaths, by huge percentages, may be of help in deciding what could be done here. Saying that nothing could have been done is simply the same statement used over and over by the gun rights nuts.
 
Democrats want guns banned because they intend that the Bloods have guns, the Crips, MS-13, they will all have guns. Law abiding people won't have guns.

That's the intention. To democrats, winning a race war will be made much easier if white people don't have guns. The NRA is the new KKK haven't you heard.
Uh, I am a liberal. I own a number of guns. I hunt. I target shoot. If you want to make accusations, you should really get some understanding of how people feel about the issue. You may want to look up stupid, based on your post. And you also may want to look up prejudiced.
 
There are a plenty of gun laws already on the books. The problem is with the population. If a person is intending to do an evil act, if he or she does not have access to guns, they will plot their crime with explosives, poison, fire or some other such means. You can't control abnormal human behavior. Putting a ban on guns will never stop it. They will revert to other means. The question, more so than controlling guns, is how do you manage mentally ill people?
 

Forum List

Back
Top