Assault weapons ban: Question for supporters

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Here's the thing and that is you can ban the assault weapon and put people on lists and it will not stop those like Mateen because he would have just went the bomb making route like McVeigh, Rudolph and the Boston Bombers went.

The FBI along with the ATF and Homeland Security failed the people of Orlando and let be really honest this is not the first time nor will it be the last time.

Mateen could have been flagged by the FBI and had the ATF notify them when he bought weapons and massive amounts of ammo and started a new investigation and surveillance on the terrorist, but they did not.

So instead blaming the right to buy the firearm we need to focus on why the FBI, ATF and Homeland Security failed the people of Orlando and how to get them to do their job better in tracking the next lone wolf attack, and even then they will miss some...

"Here's the thing and that is you can ban the assault weapon and put people on lists and it will not stop those like Mateen because he would have just went the bomb making route like McVeigh, Rudolph and the Boston Bombers went." Right because you are a mind reader and expert on such things. Please. How many McVeighs have their been since that toadstool slaughtered children?

I just find it bizarre how people that cling to guns find a way to justify ANYTHING. That nefarious people are all brilliant and resourceful when the opposite is generally true. These people DON'T have access to high explosives which is why they have to find other ways to make bombs and the ones they make are of very poor quality and relatively not that destructive. Laws and handling regulations strictly limiting access to high explosives are responsible for that. The laws DO work.

It is a non-issue. If laws don't work why do we have any laws. Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do.

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

Knee jerking now?

You lack the knowledge on the subject and I pointed out for a goddamn fact that the laws do not stop people from committing crimes!

So explain how you can not explain what I wrote and just write that 80% of ignorant people want something based on being fucking pussies and I can not trust your word so link the 80% or stop lying!

You either don't read what I post all the way through or you ignore what I said, your choice of course. But why exactly would anyone listen to what you have to say if you don't return the courtesy?

Here is something for bleeding heart Liberals like you and that is the FBI investigated the killer in Orlando at least three times and knew he had made terrorist threats, claims to be connected to terrorist groups from Al Qaeda to Hezbollah and had been in contact with one known terrorist and they still did not flag this guy in the system to keep an eye on him, so why don't you put the blame where it belong and not on us gun owners that obey the damn law but the Government allowing this monster to walk around while knowing he was a goddamn threat!

I know why blame the real idiots in all this and it is easier to ignore reality and blame those that did nothing wrong in all of this!

Also why not enforce laws on the books and pass stricter sentencing guidelines that will make damn sure the criminal will not be able to get out any time soon to commit their crime again?

I know it is easier to blame those like me and call me a gun nut and demand I give up my Constitutional Rights when the government failed to do it goddamn job in the first damn place!

Knee jerking there for you?

Sure that is what you will claim but let admit had this happen under the former President regime you would be calling for heads to roll but seeing that President Obama is in office none of you Progressive limp wrist waste of life will call for investigation into the FBI, Homeland Security and the ATF failure but instead will call for laws that will not stop terrorism and will punish the innocent person instead.

It is like those loving the No-Fly list until their ass is on it and then they hate it with a goddamn passion. So go ahead and pass all the fucking laws you want and when the next attack happen I will ask you why your law was not obey and what is the next law you want pass because you're too stupid to realize criminals do not care about laws and terrorists will kill no matter what weapon they find to use!

 

[MikeK]

[...]"Here's the thing and that is you can ban the assault weapon and put people on lists and it will not stop those like Mateen because he would have just went the bomb making route like McVeigh, Rudolph and the Boston Bombers went."[...]

Right because you are a mind reader and expert on such things. Please. How many McVeighs have their been since that toadstool slaughtered children?

It doesn't take a mind reader or a dedicated expert to reach the logical conclusion that a variety of weapons are available to any determined killer.

There are several reasons why there haven't been more McVeighs, beginning with the time, cost and labor required to build such a massive device. As long as guns are available a mass killer can make his statement far more easily with a gun. But take away the guns, which will require extremely oppressive action by government, and you may rest assured there will be more bombs. Perhaps not as big as McVeigh's bomb, but I wouldn't bet on that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just find it bizarre how people that cling to guns find a way to justify ANYTHING.

Says he who uses the Orlando shooting as an argument for the reinstatement of the 1994 AWB even though he knows it would not have prevented the Orland shooting and will not prevent another.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

Knee jerking now?

You lack the knowledge on the subject and I pointed out for a goddamn fact that the laws do not stop people from committing crimes!

So explain how you can not explain what I wrote and just write that 80% of ignorant people want something based on being fucking pussies and I can not trust your word so link the 80% or stop lying!

You either don't read what I post all the way through or you ignore what I said, your choice of course. But why exactly would anyone listen to what you have to say if you don't return the courtesy?

Where is you link to support your 80% comment and I read your stupid comments and you yet to answer how the previous assault weapon ban stopped those crimes I have listed.

Mass shootings still happen under the old assault weapons ban, so did the criminal not get the memo they were not suppose to kill people?

I mean laws work so great that the ones this country has already keep many from committing crimes and leaving prisons empty.

Now hurry up and show your evidence because it seem you got caught in a lie and now want to switch that I am the one that knows nothing.

Oh and do you know what Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph used to build their bombs with or the Boston Bombers?

If you tell me what McVeigh used was not strong enough then tell that to those that lost loved ones in OKC, or those that lost someone in Atlanta because of Rudolph or those that lost someone in the Boston Bombings and tell them their loved ones should not have dies because your opinion is it is impossible to make a bomb strong enough to do any damage!

For you laws don't work, why have any.

Classic answer and you add nothing to reality of life!

You have yet to provide a link to your 80% comment so I am going to call you a liar because had you had a link you would have linked it with a smile on your face.

Stop using your opinion as fact and don't put up numbers without backing it up!

 

[IsaacNewton]

"Here's the thing and that is you can ban the assault weapon and put people on lists and it will not stop those like Mateen because he would have just went the bomb making route like McVeigh, Rudolph and the Boston Bombers went." Right because you are a mind reader and expert on such things. Please. How many McVeighs have their been since that toadstool slaughtered children?

I just find it bizarre how people that cling to guns find a way to justify ANYTHING. That nefarious people are all brilliant and resourceful when the opposite is generally true. These people DON'T have access to high explosives which is why they have to find other ways to make bombs and the ones they make are of very poor quality and relatively not that destructive. Laws and handling regulations strictly limiting access to high explosives are responsible for that. The laws DO work.

It is a non-issue. If laws don't work why do we have any laws. Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do.

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

Democrats just tried to introduce a bill that BANNED guns Isaac

There are people out there who are just itching for something like this to happen so they can reenter the fight to ban guns. No different than there are people out there who are reveling when something like this happens so they can restart the "you can't trust a Muslim" bullshit.

Why you would even pretend otherwise is beyond me.

In fact that is actually the crux of the whole problem. It used to be that extremist morons like that were the minority and the majority on both sides could pretty well just ignore them and get some things accomplished. But not any more. Now the moron extremists on BOTH sides are the majority and the minority is the people who could actually work together and get some shit done.

You want to solve this issue on both ends? Fine, easily done.

Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.

Now onto gun control

Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated.

"Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated."

Not unreasonable but 'run in' has to be specifically defined in law, you can't say 'run in'.

Most of this is what the average call for gun regulation is about. REGULATION. I'm not interested in banning all guns, most people aren't. Well regulated though is right in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has supported a limit to the 2nd amendment. The problem is the NRA opposes all of it, the leadership not the members who overwhelmingly support sensible regulations.

And the majority of Americans support sensible regulation. Usually approaching 90%.

So why does Congess sit on its hands.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

Democrats just tried to introduce a bill that BANNED guns Isaac

There are people out there who are just itching for something like this to happen so they can reenter the fight to ban guns. No different than there are people out there who are reveling when something like this happens so they can restart the "you can't trust a Muslim" bullshit.

Why you would even pretend otherwise is beyond me.

In fact that is actually the crux of the whole problem. It used to be that extremist morons like that were the minority and the majority on both sides could pretty well just ignore them and get some things accomplished. But not any more. Now the moron extremists on BOTH sides are the majority and the minority is the people who could actually work together and get some shit done.

You want to solve this issue on both ends? Fine, easily done.

Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.

Now onto gun control

Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated.

"Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated."

Not unreasonable but 'run in' has to be specifically defined in law, you can't say 'run in'.

Most of this is what the average call for gun regulation is about. REGULATION. I'm not interested in banning all guns, most people aren't. Well regulated though is right in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has supported a limit to the 2nd amendment. The problem is the NRA opposes all of it, the leadership not the members who overwhelmingly support sensible regulations.

And the majority of Americans support sensible regulation. Usually approaching 90%.

So why does Congess sit on its hands.

Wow, first it was 80% and now it is 90% and just your opinion as usual... Also when the Democratic Party had both houses and the white house why did they sit on their hands on this?

Why didn't Reid and Pelosi pass a law that President Obama would have signed?

Simple, they do not want to pass laws like that because the purple state democrats would be voted out of office!

 

[Ozone]

why are the same people who claim to be in favor of gun control also in favor of abortion and doctor assisted suicide? if you enjoy killing babies, and you enjoy killing old people, what should be expected of you if you take away people's ability to defend themselves? when we all get to meet face to face in the gulag, will we still get to have this discussion?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

Democrats just tried to introduce a bill that BANNED guns Isaac

There are people out there who are just itching for something like this to happen so they can reenter the fight to ban guns. No different than there are people out there who are reveling when something like this happens so they can restart the "you can't trust a Muslim" bullshit.

Why you would even pretend otherwise is beyond me.

In fact that is actually the crux of the whole problem. It used to be that extremist morons like that were the minority and the majority on both sides could pretty well just ignore them and get some things accomplished. But not any more. Now the moron extremists on BOTH sides are the majority and the minority is the people who could actually work together and get some shit done.

You want to solve this issue on both ends? Fine, easily done.

Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.

Now onto gun control

Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated.

"Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated."

Not unreasonable but 'run in' has to be specifically defined in law, you can't say 'run in'.

Most of this is what the average call for gun regulation is about. REGULATION. I'm not interested in banning all guns, most people aren't. Well regulated though is right in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has supported a limit to the 2nd amendment. The problem is the NRA opposes all of it, the leadership not the members who overwhelmingly support sensible regulations.

And the majority of Americans support sensible regulation. Usually approaching 90%.

So why does Congess sit on its hands.

WHy doesn't Congress act? Because they are useless lumps of shit. That's why. Why doesn't Obama use of his famous executive orders to do exactly what I just outlined? You know why? Because he wants to BAN guns, he doesn't want sensible regulation. he knows that Hillary , if elected, WILL try to ban guns, and if he passes an EO that actually lowers gun crime then she'll have a harder case to make in trying to ban guns. Either you don't get that, or your complicit in it. The Democrats who are in power want to BAN guns, not regulate them, they just know that as things stand now it won't happen. But if we continue on the path we're on now, in 5 years, maybe 10 years, there will be enough assholes in power to make it happen. That road to banning guns becomes a lot harder if you actually don't have any gun crime to complain about.

That is a fact. Further evidence is of this is the fact that a Democratic Mayor has not done a god damned thing to slow the gun violence in Chicago, not a thing.

They don't give a shit that hundreds of Americans , if not thousands , are being killed, it's all in the "good cause" of marching towards a gun ban.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

Democrats just tried to introduce a bill that BANNED guns Isaac

There are people out there who are just itching for something like this to happen so they can reenter the fight to ban guns. No different than there are people out there who are reveling when something like this happens so they can restart the "you can't trust a Muslim" bullshit.

Why you would even pretend otherwise is beyond me.

In fact that is actually the crux of the whole problem. It used to be that extremist morons like that were the minority and the majority on both sides could pretty well just ignore them and get some things accomplished. But not any more. Now the moron extremists on BOTH sides are the majority and the minority is the people who could actually work together and get some shit done.

You want to solve this issue on both ends? Fine, easily done.

Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.

Now onto gun control

Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated.

"Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated."

Not unreasonable but 'run in' has to be specifically defined in law, you can't say 'run in'.

Most of this is what the average call for gun regulation is about. REGULATION. I'm not interested in banning all guns, most people aren't. Well regulated though is right in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has supported a limit to the 2nd amendment. The problem is the NRA opposes all of it, the leadership not the members who overwhelmingly support sensible regulations.

And the majority of Americans support sensible regulation. Usually approaching 90%.

So why does Congess sit on its hands.

Wow, first it was 80% and now it is 90% and just your opinion as usual... Also when the Democratic Party had both houses and the white house why did they sit on their hands on this?

Why didn't Reid and Pelosi pass a law that President Obama would have signed?

Simple, they do not want to pass laws like that because the purple state democrats would be voted out of office!

As I said you don't read other's posts. 80% of NRA members support sensible gun regulations, 90% of the general public do.

You don't read what I post or you ignore it. I now return the favor.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

Democrats just tried to introduce a bill that BANNED guns Isaac

There are people out there who are just itching for something like this to happen so they can reenter the fight to ban guns. No different than there are people out there who are reveling when something like this happens so they can restart the "you can't trust a Muslim" bullshit.

Why you would even pretend otherwise is beyond me.

In fact that is actually the crux of the whole problem. It used to be that extremist morons like that were the minority and the majority on both sides could pretty well just ignore them and get some things accomplished. But not any more. Now the moron extremists on BOTH sides are the majority and the minority is the people who could actually work together and get some shit done.

You want to solve this issue on both ends? Fine, easily done.

Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.

Now onto gun control

Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated.

"Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated."

Not unreasonable but 'run in' has to be specifically defined in law, you can't say 'run in'.

Most of this is what the average call for gun regulation is about. REGULATION. I'm not interested in banning all guns, most people aren't. Well regulated though is right in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has supported a limit to the 2nd amendment. The problem is the NRA opposes all of it, the leadership not the members who overwhelmingly support sensible regulations.

And the majority of Americans support sensible regulation. Usually approaching 90%.

So why does Congess sit on its hands.

You find it funny that the Democratic Party did nothing to pass laws you want passed when they were in power of the House, Senate and White House or will you claim they did not ever have that type of majority to get it done?

Why is it that President Obama want laws passed when the GOP is in power but did nothing when his own political party was in control of everything in Washington?

Come on smart one and it is like President Obama wanting immigration bill but did nothing when his political party was in power from 2009 to 2011...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

Democrats just tried to introduce a bill that BANNED guns Isaac

There are people out there who are just itching for something like this to happen so they can reenter the fight to ban guns. No different than there are people out there who are reveling when something like this happens so they can restart the "you can't trust a Muslim" bullshit.

Why you would even pretend otherwise is beyond me.

In fact that is actually the crux of the whole problem. It used to be that extremist morons like that were the minority and the majority on both sides could pretty well just ignore them and get some things accomplished. But not any more. Now the moron extremists on BOTH sides are the majority and the minority is the people who could actually work together and get some shit done.

You want to solve this issue on both ends? Fine, easily done.

Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.

Now onto gun control

Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated.

"Set background checks to include the same scrutiny as a low level security clearance would require. That includes an interview with the FBI. Once cleared to buy weapons , no one keeps track of what you buy.

Set flags so that if you have a run in with police your ability to buy a weapon is affected appropriately.

Pass a law that if you have a run in with police and you are found to have a gun without the proper permissions to own said gun, that is an extra felony.

Minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun or any crime committed in the ownership of a gun.

Sensible , reasonable, and sane. No sane person could argue with the effectiveness of proposed policies. AND most importantly no one's rights are violated."

Not unreasonable but 'run in' has to be specifically defined in law, you can't say 'run in'.

Most of this is what the average call for gun regulation is about. REGULATION. I'm not interested in banning all guns, most people aren't. Well regulated though is right in the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS has supported a limit to the 2nd amendment. The problem is the NRA opposes all of it, the leadership not the members who overwhelmingly support sensible regulations.

And the majority of Americans support sensible regulation. Usually approaching 90%.

So why does Congess sit on its hands.

Wow, first it was 80% and now it is 90% and just your opinion as usual... Also when the Democratic Party had both houses and the white house why did they sit on their hands on this?

Why didn't Reid and Pelosi pass a law that President Obama would have signed?

Simple, they do not want to pass laws like that because the purple state democrats would be voted out of office!

As I said you don't read other's posts. 80% of NRA members support sensible gun regulations, 90% of the general public do.

You don't read what I post or you ignore it. I now return the favor.

You can fucking read when someone tell you that you need to link your numbers and not pass your numbers off as fact!

Where is your goddamn link to support your numbers?

Reason you will not post a link is because you know you are a lying fool!

Also you did not address the fact that President Obama did not care about gun control when Democrats had control of the house and Senate so why should the GOP do what the Democratic Party refused to do?

 

[MikeK]

actually , there ARE people in THIS thread even who are straight up calling for not just gun bans, but confiscations.

I will wager heavily that none of these pathetic individuals know anything about guns, that all of them are afraid of guns, and that none of them are inclined to defend themselves or their loved ones under any circumstances. When threatened they think 911, not 9mm.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

actually , there ARE people in THIS thread even who are straight up calling for not just gun bans, but confiscations.

I will wager heavily that none of these pathetic individuals know anything about guns, that all of them are afraid of guns, and that none of them are inclined to defend themselves or their loved ones under any circumstances. When threatened they think 911, not 9mm.

911 does no good when you live in rural America and the nearest LEO is thirty minutes away, but hey LEO will be on it way so just pray that the criminal leave you alive after they shoot you with their illegally obtained gun...

 

[JimBowie1958]

As with all legislation you write the best law you can, then amend or change it later if needed.

How anyone can support a person that is on the FBI watch list and has been investigated by the FBI for terrorist activites buying a gun, ANY gun, is just insane. If you can't start with a short list of the most suspicious then where exactly do you start? Really, you are going to defend this dirtbag having access to an assault weapon? Or a BB gun for that matter?

Bizarre.

There must be more than an investigation by the FBI.

For Christs Sake, you Democrats are running a person for PRESIDENT that is under FBI investigation!

 

[MikeK]

[...]
Ship all refugees to one of the many abandoned military bases we have around this country and keep them there, where they are safe from those who would harm them at home (PS no men between the ages of 16-40, they can stay home and fight for their country) while there we can safely vet them before allowing them to roam the country freely.

There that solves that.
[...]

Well said!

There is something very peculiar, and somewhat menacing, about the fact that 75% of the so-called "asylum seekers" are military age males. Did these guys just turn their backs on their mothers, sisters, wives and/or daughters and head for safety?

Your recommendation is perfectly appropriate. There is far more to be concerned about with these Muslim foreigners than FDR had cause for concern with and for interning Japanese Americans during WW-II. Under our existing circumstances, which includes the very real threat of ISIS infiltration, past and recent Muslim terrorist activity, and the barbarous conduct of Muslim refugees in Germany, Sweden and Europe. The fact that our government is ignoring these concerns is outrageous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No response?

 

[Conservative65]

As with all legislation you write the best law you can, then amend or change it later if needed.

How anyone can support a person that is on the FBI watch list and has been investigated by the FBI for terrorist activites buying a gun, ANY gun, is just insane. If you can't start with a short list of the most suspicious then where exactly do you start? Really, you are going to defend this dirtbag having access to an assault weapon? Or a BB gun for that matter?

Bizarre.

Has someone on the FBI watch list been convicted of a crime? I thought you lefties supported innocent until proven guilty. Guess not when it involves your general hate of guns.

 

[2aguy]

Here's the thing and that is you can ban the assault weapon and put people on lists and it will not stop those like Mateen because he would have just went the bomb making route like McVeigh, Rudolph and the Boston Bombers went.

The FBI along with the ATF and Homeland Security failed the people of Orlando and let be really honest this is not the first time nor will it be the last time.

Mateen could have been flagged by the FBI and had the ATF notify them when he bought weapons and massive amounts of ammo and started a new investigation and surveillance on the terrorist, but they did not.

So instead blaming the right to buy the firearm we need to focus on why the FBI, ATF and Homeland Security failed the people of Orlando and how to get them to do their job better in tracking the next lone wolf attack, and even then they will miss some...

"Here's the thing and that is you can ban the assault weapon and put people on lists and it will not stop those like Mateen because he would have just went the bomb making route like McVeigh, Rudolph and the Boston Bombers went." Right because you are a mind reader and expert on such things. Please. How many McVeighs have their been since that toadstool slaughtered children?

I just find it bizarre how people that cling to guns find a way to justify ANYTHING. That nefarious people are all brilliant and resourceful when the opposite is generally true. These people DON'T have access to high explosives which is why they have to find other ways to make bombs and the ones they make are of very poor quality and relatively not that destructive. Laws and handling regulations strictly limiting access to high explosives are responsible for that. The laws DO work.

It is a non-issue. If laws don't work why do we have any laws. Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do.

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

and again, there are people in THIS thread who are calling for not just bans on future sales, but confiscation of guns already privately owned.

Does anyone consider 'people in this thread' as having power to actually accomplish that? I operate under an assumption that we are talking about public and/or political figures. And you can find someone that supports ANYTHING in general. I'm talking about the political voices who merely cite even NRA members where 80% are in favor of stringent background checks and other sensible checks and balances.

And of course that is not true.....uninformed people support the universal background check because they hear those words and they sound good...if they knew that anti gun leaders know universal background checks will do nothing...but they need them to get to universal gun registration...and also to hinder the gun owning activities, hunting, having people watch your guns when you go on vacation, making criminals out of family members selling guns to relatives...

If you told them the actual facts behind universal background checks they wouldn't support them.

 

[2aguy]

Cling to my guns?

Good to know you have that view of me.

The assault ban did so well with Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the 9/11/2001 hijackers didn't it?

How about Jonesboro, and Columbine shooting and how well did a the gun ban worked?

So seeing you believe those fucking laws work so well with criminals then why do they ignore them or use other weapons to carry out their attacks?

I know how dare I point out the reality of your laws that you want and how they do very little to curb the violence in life because the fact is the only person you want to punish is the person obeying the law because the criminal can give a flying fuck about your stupid little law!

Now what is your goddamn answer this time and remember I am clinging to my two shotguns you believe is evil because you believe the law will protect you and criminals will obey the law!

You, like others here, suffer from a knee-jerk reaction syndrome where you don't actually read what someone else posts.

"Nobody is calling for banning all guns. 80% + of people are calling for strong regulation to keep as many guns out of the hands of these people as possible, which is the best any law can do."

Knee jerking now?

You lack the knowledge on the subject and I pointed out for a goddamn fact that the laws do not stop people from committing crimes!

So explain how you can not explain what I wrote and just write that 80% of ignorant people want something based on being fucking pussies and I can not trust your word so link the 80% or stop lying!

You either don't read what I post all the way through or you ignore what I said, your choice of course. But why exactly would anyone listen to what you have to say if you don't return the courtesy?

Where is you link to support your 80% comment and I read your stupid comments and you yet to answer how the previous assault weapon ban stopped those crimes I have listed.

Mass shootings still happen under the old assault weapons ban, so did the criminal not get the memo they were not suppose to kill people?

I mean laws work so great that the ones this country has already keep many from committing crimes and leaving prisons empty.

Now hurry up and show your evidence because it seem you got caught in a lie and now want to switch that I am the one that knows nothing.

Oh and do you know what Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph used to build their bombs with or the Boston Bombers?

If you tell me what McVeigh used was not strong enough then tell that to those that lost loved ones in OKC, or those that lost someone in Atlanta because of Rudolph or those that lost someone in the Boston Bombings and tell them their loved ones should not have dies because your opinion is it is impossible to make a bomb strong enough to do any damage!

For you laws don't work, why have any.

No...laws work after someone breaks them...you punish them. You nuts want laws to work like Pre-crime...where you use laws to prevent people from an illegal activity....and that is not how it works.....

We are all for criminals who use guns illegally going to jail....and violent felons caught with guns going to jail....we already have those laws and those laws actually work when democrats implement them...federal gun prosecutions are down over 30% under obama, and state level prosecutors don't want to take the time to prosecute straw buyers....

 

[Conservative65]

As with all legislation you write the best law you can, then amend or change it later if needed.

How anyone can support a person that is on the FBI watch list and has been investigated by the FBI for terrorist activites buying a gun, ANY gun, is just insane. If you can't start with a short list of the most suspicious then where exactly do you start? Really, you are going to defend this dirtbag having access to an assault weapon? Or a BB gun for that matter?

Bizarre.

Good Question. It is the same as:
How can anyone support a person that is being investigated by the FBI for President?

Liberal application of the "rules" is subjective.