Want gun control? Fight smart.

[OldLady]

For the semi's that have magazines with the ability to fire 30 or 40 rounds in under ten seconds, the purchaser should have to have a class 3 license. That is effectively a machine gun.

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Now what are you talking about? Dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes? The AR shoots very rapidly, here is a demonstration.

I said dozens of rounds in a minute, and TN & Co. said all guns can do that and I'm incredibly ignorant and have no right to an opinion on gun control I'm so stupid. This whole argument started with my statement, which I have heard over and over again from people who know, that AR-15's are faster and more powerful than other rifles. I'm a no-nothing dipshit for saying that.
I still believe what I've heard, though. They were cops and hunters and people who know guns.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I would not. All the guns I have are hunting guns, I have no use for a weapon of war. A one time fee of $500 for a person not engaged in selling guns would be adequate. And they would have to start paying the annual fee, should they sell more than 3 guns in any one year.

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

What is your definition of Assault weapon......

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

LLMMAAOOO effectively just outlawed everything but revolvers and some shotguns.....yet again libs want to change definitions to further their agenda of disarming you...

You are full shit. That does not effect lever guns, bolt action rifles, pump guns, or guns like the single shot rifles.

 

[OldLady]

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

Yeah, I'M the one who's confused. Right.
I saw DIAL M for Murder. I know what you're up to.

 

[TNHarley]

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Now what are you talking about? Dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes? The AR shoots very rapidly, here is a demonstration.

I said dozens of rounds in a minute, and TN & Co. said all guns can do that and I'm incredibly ignorant and have no right to an opinion on gun control I'm so stupid. This whole argument started with my statement, which I have heard over and over again from people who know, that AR-15's are faster and more powerful than other rifles. I'm a no-nothing dipshit for saying that.
I still believe what I've heard, though. They were cops and hunters and people who know guns.

LOL you liar!
I said half of them could. It takes less than 3 seconds for me to change a 15 round magazine in my 9mm. It takes a few seconds to shoot through it. You do the math.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Well then ... Sorry, it has been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to hinder the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.
Your agreement on whatever price you think is acceptable is not required.

.

Wrong. You cannot own a fully auto .45 Thompson without a class 3 firearms license. And in 13 states, the states have laws against private citizens owning them. Those laws have not been declared unconstitutional, nor has the ban on ownership without the class 3 license. The same could be applied to the ownership of the assault weapons. I suggested a way that would allow private citizens of good character to own them without undue financial hardship. You want to go full bore on no limits at all, and you are going to end up with an outright ban of private ownership of guns such as the AR 15. That will be on your head, and no skin off my nose.

What is your definition of Assault weapon......

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

LLMMAAOOO effectively just outlawed everything but revolvers and some shotguns.....yet again libs want to change definitions to further their agenda of disarming you...

You are full shit. That does not effect lever guns, bolt action rifles, pump guns, or guns like the single shot rifles.

Did you or did you not just suggest a ban on the vast majority of guns sold today...be honest....numbers are easy to find

 

[TNHarley]

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

Yeah, I'M the one who's confused. Right.
I saw DIAL M for Murder. I know what you're up to.

No you dont. You cant even keep up with what you say on here. Starting to remind me of sonny

 

[OldLady]

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.

You do not want your gun rights changed. I have that. What about your other ideas?

 

[hunarcy]

Any firearm that can be fired a high rate, and has a magazine capability. That includes semi pistols, gatling guns, and semi's that can be loaded with high capacity magazines. That would actually allow the old Garand, as it had only an eight shot magazine, and you would have to alter it to have to a larger magazine. Such alteration would earn you a felony and jail term.

Well, Sorry ... I am not going to jail for your silly definition.
You might be able to get the people of your state to get behind that idea ... Not that I would care.

.

You would not go to jail for my definition, you would go to jail because of a federal law. And that law is coming. Most Americans are sick of seeing their children murdered for the sake of you fools wanting to shoot a silly gun.

While I am sure you speak for almost all Americans, I do not agree and believe the law you describe would be unconstitutional

 

[OldLady]

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

Yeah, I'M the one who's confused. Right.
I saw DIAL M for Murder. I know what you're up to.

No you dont. You cant even keep up with what you say on here. Starting to remind me of sonny

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

Yeah, I'M the one who's confused. Right.
I saw DIAL M for Murder. I know what you're up to.

No you dont. You cant even keep up with what you say on here. Starting to remind me of sonny

 

[hunarcy]

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.

You do not want your gun rights changed. I have that. What about your other ideas?

I believe that you waste your time trying to get rid of firearms.I wish you and other rational people would focus on fast and effective treatment of the mentally ill

 

[TNHarley]

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

Yeah, I'M the one who's confused. Right.
I saw DIAL M for Murder. I know what you're up to.

No you dont. You cant even keep up with what you say on here. Starting to remind me of sonny

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Stick your lying tongue on a frozen light pole, TN.

what am i lying about? You have been confused ALL day..

Yeah, I'M the one who's confused. Right.
I saw DIAL M for Murder. I know what you're up to.

No you dont. You cant even keep up with what you say on here. Starting to remind me of sonny

Yep. Doing what you have been doing in this whole thread where your senile ass wanted reasonable discussion

 

[BlackSand]

You would not go to jail for my definition, you would go to jail because of a federal law. And that law is coming. Most Americans are sick of seeing their children murdered for the sake of you fools wanting to shoot a silly gun.

Your definition is not federal law and never will be.
What you think most Americans think does not give you the ability to violate the Constitution.

If you want make your desires Constitutional ... You are going to have to change the Constitution.

Our state recently changed our State Constitution to strengthen our stance on our Second Amendment rights.
I don't know what Americans you are talking about with your rambling hyperbole ...
But the Amendment here passed the required vote by the People with a 79% approval rate.

.

 

[harmonica]

this guy here that killed the hunter was probably one of the biggest supporters/biggest mouths/etc for gun rights....supporter for law abiding citizens for guns...he has proven to be an idiot that should never have had a gun
HUNTING ACCIDENT: Man charged after coyote hunter accidentally shot to death by neighbor

 

[Mac1958]

I was going to compose a letter to these young whippersnappers today, telling them that they are the voice of hope, but only if they refrain from the usual screeching and name calling and hyperbolic empty rhetoric that passes for political "debate" these days. I didn't have to write it--David Brooks already did.
I wanted to share it with all of you, and hope/wish you will all read it and think about it.

DAVID BROOKS

Respect First, Then Gun Control
Image

Students and family members gathered at a makeshift memorial for the victims of last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla.CreditMark Wilson/Getty Images North America
Image

By David Brooks

Feb. 19, 2018
This has been an emotional week. We greet tragedies like the school shooting in Florida with shock, sadness, mourning and grief that turns into indignation and rage. The anger inevitably gets directed at the N.R.A., those who support gun rights, and the politicians who refuse to do anything while children die.

Many of us walked this emotional path. But we may end up doing more harm than good. If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it is that guns have become a cultural flash point in a nation that is unequal and divided. The people who defend gun rights believe that snobbish elites look down on their morals and want to destroy their culture. If we end up telling such people that they and their guns are despicable, they will just despise us back and dig in their heels.

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough just to vent and march. It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points. There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war.

So I’ve been thinking about a group that’s in the trust and respect business. Better Angels is a nonprofit led by David Lapp, David Blankenhorn and a prominent family therapist, Bill Doherty. The team members travel from town to town finding members of the Red and Blue Tribes and bringing them together for long, humbling conversations.

My Times colleague April Lawson has gotten involved with Better Angels and has been reporting back on its techniques.

One of the most successful parts of the structured conversations is built around stereotypes. Doherty, the head moderator, asks the people at each gathering to name five major stereotypes that the other side throws at them. The Republicans invariably list “racist” first, followed by, say, “uncaring,” “uneducated,” “misogynistic” and “science deniers.”


You have 2 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times


In a session Lawson attended, a Trump supporter acknowledged that the G.O.P. has had a spotty record on racial matters, but it’s important to him that Blues know that’s not why he holds his opinions.

Doherty says that the Reds feel shamed by the Blues to a much greater degree than the Blues realize. Reds are very reluctant to enter into a conversation with Blues, for fear of further shaming, but they often come to the table when they are told that this will be a chance to “de-monsterize” themselves.

At that session one Blue said she was really grateful to hear a Red acknowledge the Republican history on race. When Blues are asked about the stereotypes thrown at them, they tend to list “against religion and morality,” “unpatriotic” and “against personal responsibility” among their responses. They, too, relish the chance to clear the air.

After the stereotypes are discussed, the room feels different. As one Red in Ohio told Lawson, “I think we are all pretty clear on one thing: Don’t tell us who we are and what we think.” Another Red was moved almost to tears by the damage categories do. “We’re not just cookie-cutter people; we’re individuals. Just because you don’t like something, you don’t have to ridicule it — you probably don’t understand it,” she said. “When someone’s heart is full up with something, and then you demean it without even listening to them — I hate that.”

The discussions reveal other sensitivities. Some Blues didn’t want to enter a venue that had a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on the wall. To Reds that was a neutral flag from American history, but to Blues it carried all sorts of nasty associations. Reds were offended by the lawn signs that said, “Hate Has No Home Here.” The implication: Hate has no home in my house, but it does in yours.

In another exercise, Reds and Blues ask each other honest, nonleading questions. Blues may ask Reds, “Name a safety-net program you can support.” Reds may ask Blues, “How do you balance having a heart with keeping health care costs under control?”

By the end of the conversations, the atmosphere has changed. Nearly always somebody will say that the discussion was easy because only moderates were in the room, not the people who post crazy stuff on Facebook. The staff tries not to smile, knowing that some of the people were selected precisely because of the intense stuff they posted on Facebook.

“This is not a civility organization,” Blankenhorn told Lawson. Better Angels is aiming to build a group of people whose personal bonds with their fellow citizens redefine how they engage in the political system.

We don’t really have policy debates anymore. We have one big tribal conflict, and policy fights are just proxy battles as each side tries to establish moral superiority. But just as the tribal mentality has been turned on, it can be turned off. Then and only then can we go back to normal politics and take reasonable measures to keep our children safe.


Michelle Goldberg is off today.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on February 20, 2018, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Respect First, Then Gun Control. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Thanks for posting this.

Sadly, there is no room for anything but the usual screeching and name calling and hyperbolic empty rhetoric that passes for political "debate" these days, regardless of the issue.

We're far more fixated on "beating" the other "side" than on collaborating to fix our problems.
.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am waiting, TNHarley, for you to call OldRocks stupid and tell him he knows nothing about firearms, that all guns can do that.
C'mon, I'm waiting.

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Now what are you talking about? Dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes? The AR shoots very rapidly, here is a demonstration.

I said dozens of rounds in a minute, and TN & Co. said all guns can do that and I'm incredibly ignorant and have no right to an opinion on gun control I'm so stupid. This whole argument started with my statement, which I have heard over and over again from people who know, that AR-15's are faster and more powerful than other rifles. I'm a no-nothing dipshit for saying that.
I still believe what I've heard, though. They were cops and hunters and people who know guns.

Neither the pump .308 nor the lever .250 I own will fire dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes. Your have five shots, then you have to reload. In the years I hunted, I never emptied the magazine. In most cases, I took the deer home and had four unfired cartridges in my pocket from the gun.

The AR 15 fires a .22 caliber bullet at over 3000 fps. When it hits a person, the length of the bullet makes it tumble inside the victim, creating a horrible wound. It is a gun solely designed for killing other people, as many as possible, as fast as possible. And we have seen it's efficiency demonstrated in our schools and at an outdoor music concert.

 

[OldLady]

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.

You do not want your gun rights changed. I have that. What about your other ideas?

I believe that you waste your time trying to get rid of firearms.I wish you and other rational people would focus on fast and effective treatment of the mentally ill

I'd be happy to spend energy on that. I fought to expand Medicaid in our state so people could afford to see a $100/hr counselor. To keep funds for addiction treatment and to fund psychiatric crisis beds in our hospitals. We lost. But I'd be happy to fight some more. It's gonna be a sticky one and it is a very complicated one, since the vast majority of the mentally ill wouldn't hurt a fly. Can they also not have guns? Who decides and how? That was the crux of this current shooting scenario and it's an important question, for sure.

 

[TNHarley]

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Now what are you talking about? Dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes? The AR shoots very rapidly, here is a demonstration.

I said dozens of rounds in a minute, and TN & Co. said all guns can do that and I'm incredibly ignorant and have no right to an opinion on gun control I'm so stupid. This whole argument started with my statement, which I have heard over and over again from people who know, that AR-15's are faster and more powerful than other rifles. I'm a no-nothing dipshit for saying that.
I still believe what I've heard, though. They were cops and hunters and people who know guns.

Neither the pump .308 nor the lever .250 I own will fire dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes. Your have five shots, then you have to reload. In the years I hunted, I never emptied the magazine. In most cases, I took the deer home and had four unfired cartridges in my pocket from the gun.

The AR 15 fires a .22 caliber bullet at over 3000 fps. When it hits a person, the length of the bullet makes it tumble inside the victim, creating a horrible wound. It is a gun solely designed for killing other people, as many as possible, as fast as possible. And we have seen it's efficiency demonstrated in our schools and at an outdoor music concert.

How many firearms arent designed for killing? LOL Seriously?

 

[OldLady]

most guns cant fire that quick, OL. His wording was better than yours.
But he was wrong about it being "effectively a machine gun" simply reading the definition will tell you that. Definitions matter or they would be the same thing...
Also, i never told you all guns can shoot dozens of rounds in minutes. I said about half could. If not more.

You're a misogynistic piece of shit bully hypocrite. Go piss in the wind

Lol you dumbass. There is a huge difference in saying 3-40 rounds in ten seconds and dozens of rounds in a couple minutes DERPTY DERP DERP
Keep on showing your ignorance about guns guns. Its REAL fun watching people want to take away rights that they DONT EVEN UNDERSTAND.
BTW, you missed a buncha commas, english teacher

Now what are you talking about? Dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes? The AR shoots very rapidly, here is a demonstration.

I said dozens of rounds in a minute, and TN & Co. said all guns can do that and I'm incredibly ignorant and have no right to an opinion on gun control I'm so stupid. This whole argument started with my statement, which I have heard over and over again from people who know, that AR-15's are faster and more powerful than other rifles. I'm a no-nothing dipshit for saying that.
I still believe what I've heard, though. They were cops and hunters and people who know guns.

Neither the pump .308 nor the lever .250 I own will fire dozens of rounds in a couple of minutes. Your have five shots, then you have to reload. In the years I hunted, I never emptied the magazine. In most cases, I took the deer home and had four unfired cartridges in my pocket from the gun.

The AR 15 fires a .22 caliber bullet at over 3000 fps. When it hits a person, the length of the bullet makes it tumble inside the victim, creating a horrible wound. It is a gun solely designed for killing other people, as many as possible, as fast as possible. And we have seen it's efficiency demonstrated in our schools and at an outdoor music concert.

And at crowded night clubs. And in an office building during a Christmas party.
It's the tool of choice, seems like.

 

[Old Rocks]

Did I mention limiting any rights in that question? If you feel the mentally ill need to be locked up, fight for it.

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.

Sorry, that has been the current approach, and all too many people have died in schools, churches, and outdoor music concerts. We have to find a way to prevent crazies from getting their hands on these weapons. I have suggested a manner of doing so without an outright ban on the weapons. You fellows keep on preventing a reasonable way of preventing the murderers from getting these weapons, and there will be an outright ban on the assault weapons.

 

[TNHarley]

You referenced there not being a lot of discussion about limiting gunrights until people started abusing the privilege of ownership, I pointed out that such discussion to limit my rights because of the actions of others was wrong. I didn’t point out that firearms ownership is a right, not a privilege.

You brought up rights, not me.

The whole discussion is about rights

The OP was about how to approach each other about gun violence in order to have an effective discussion and hopefully come to some sort of agreement on solutions. Guns are only one piece of that.

Then approach the subject from a position of respecting my rights, unless I have misused them.

Sorry, that has been the current approach, and all too many people have died in schools, churches, and outdoor music concerts. We have to find a way to prevent crazies from getting their hands on these weapons. I have suggested a manner of doing so without an outright ban on the weapons. You fellows keep on preventing a reasonable way of preventing the murderers from getting these weapons, and there will be an outright ban on the assault weapons.

That has NOT been the "current approach"
Good gawd man, where have you been?