Thoughts and Prayers

[Spirit]

Just now, Kevin said:

Kneeling/standing>Christians dying. 

 

totally

 

 

[Thomas]

17 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I just don't see how the two things are related.   The NVA was a standing army that backed the Vietcong with military hardware support.  I mean the soviets were funneling in support. 

If we were going to have an armed rebellion with china as a benefactor.  Wouldn't they just supply the weapons ?

Just generally, the idea that we need the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check seems silly to me. 

Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my end.

The Vietcong and later the NVA were utterly decimated militarily. First by the French and later the US. In every measurable way the US military was superior and won their battles decisively. It made little difference in the end. You cannot at the very least reliably solve a political failure with a military. After failing to remember this lesson we repeated it in Iraq and Afghanistan. So to hear some continue to say that we could solve any political dissent with a push of a button is disheartening to say the least.

[nate]

5 minutes ago, Geoff said:

I was expecting a thread like this after last weekend's mass church shooting in Tennessee.  Then I remembered it was just Christians who were shot and/or killed, so ... meh. 

 

 

The shooting in TN where one person died?

[Spirit]

Just now, nate said:

The shooting in TN where one person died?

 

Where 9 people were shot and one was killed?  Yeah

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

The Vietcong and later the NVA were utterly decimated militarily. First by the French and later the US. In every measurable way the US military was superior and won their battles decisively. It made little difference in the end. You cannot at the very least reliably solve a political failure with a military. After failing to remember this lesson we repeated it in Iraq and Afghanistan. So to hear some continue to say that we could solve any political dissent with a push of a button is disheartening to say the least.

I absolutely agree and did have not argued against that point.  But I don't understand what that has to do with the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. 

[Kevin]

2 minutes ago, nate said:

The shooting in TN where one person died?

 One death is still a death Nate. 

[nate]

Of course.

One compared to 60 is different though, in TN 9 people were killed or injured.  In this one over 600.

[Thomas]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

I absolutely agree and did have not argued against that point.  But I don't understand what that has to do with the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. 

I was arguing your contention about the futility of protecting yourself, not the need.

[Thomas]

30 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

The second amendment does NOT state the right to bear unlimited arms of any variety.

It also does state that the right is due to the need for a "well-regulated militia", which we have not had since the advent of the National Guard over a century ago. The British aren't coming.

Neither is the UN despite what conspiracy theorists might believe.

None of the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is absolute. The government can restrict it, for example, for public safety (not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or incitement to riot, being two examples of freedom of speech being restricted). Why should the second one be any different?

This argument used to be that the US government isn't coming after you. That seemed to change after Trump.

[Kevin]

Just now, nate said:

Of course.

One compared to 60 is different though, in TN 9 people were killed or injured.  In this one over 600.

I absolutely agree which is why I ask what was wrong with the gun control laws proposed after Sandy Hook? Honest question because I would be willing to hear all sides. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

[Spirit]

1 minute ago, nate said:

Of course.

One compared to 60 is different though, in TN 9 people were killed or injured.  In this one over 600.

 

I agree that both are horrible.

 

 

[nate]

Just now, Kevin said:

I absolutely agree which is why I ask what was wrong with the gun control laws proposed after Sandy Hook? Honest question because I would be willing to hear all sides. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Nothing except for the fact that the NRA is against it because the NRA gets all their money from gun manufacturers.

[Thomas]

Just now, nate said:

Nothing except for the fact that the NRA is against it because the NRA gets all their money from gun manufacturers.

You clearly have never seen a deluge of NRA spam.

[nate]

Just now, Geoff said:

 

I agree that both are horrible.

 

 

but you can understand why the news coverage was not as significant.

There have been 273 mass killings in the US this year, you must be outraged those didn't get as much coverage either.  http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-over-270-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-2017

[nate]

Just now, Thomas said:

You clearly have never seen a deluge of NRA spam.

It is like comparing John Smith's $10 campaign donation to the Koch brother's $10 million.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, nate said:

It is like comparing John Smith's $10 campaign donation to the Koch brother's $10 million.

It must amount to more than a rounding error considering how much they send out.

[red321]

26 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Man you are a "sides" kind of guy.  What are some of you ideas?  You don't havve to be an ass.

* Consistent national background check and 5 day waiting period. Spend money to ensure the system is accurate and quick. Require basic firearm safety tests, similar to getting a license. People who have been convicted of a felony, or violent crime either lose all rights to own firearms or a long period of time after the conviction (for example....5 years). This should also require checking a mental health database. Yes, I realize this is not fleshed out...this should be part of the conversation.

* Ban high capacity magazines. I'd say 7, but if you wanted to push for 10. There is no need for a high capacity magazine...if someone says they are using it for hunting and can't hit a deer with 10 shots...you shouldn't be hunting

* Make it more difficult to swap out magazines. California requires a separate button to be pushed to eject a magazine, slows down the process.

* Close gun show loopholes

* Allow CDC and government to study gun violence and ways to reduce gun violence

* Stronger penalties for those who perform straw purchases and resell guns

* Take a long hard look at military style assault weapons and weapons that are designed for efficient killing (as compared to hunting, self-defense, and sport shooting) and identify sensible policies as it relates to these type of weapons. 

 

 

These are a few ideas, I'm sure there are a lot more...the point being we should be having frank and realistic discussions instead of it devolving instantly into the government is trying to take my guns.

 

 

[Adam]

3 minutes ago, red321 said:

* Consistent national background check and 5 day waiting period. Spend money to ensure the system is accurate and quick. Require basic firearm safety tests, similar to getting a license. People who have been convicted of a felony, or violent crime either lose all rights to own firearms or a long period of time after the conviction (for example....5 years). This should also require checking a mental health database. Yes, I realize this is not fleshed out...this should be part of the conversation.

* Ban high capacity magazines. I'd say 7, but if you wanted to push for 10. There is no need for a high capacity magazine...if someone says they are using it for hunting and can't hit a deer with 10 shots...you shouldn't be hunting

* Make it more difficult to swap out magazines. California requires a separate button to be pushed to eject a magazine, slows down the process.

* Close gun show loopholes

* Allow CDC and government to study gun violence and ways to reduce gun violence

* Stronger penalties for those who perform straw purchases and resell guns

* Take a long hard look at military style assault weapons and weapons that are designed for efficient killing (as compared to hunting, self-defense, and sport shooting) and identify sensible policies as it relates to these type of weapons. 

 

 

These are a few ideas, I'm sure there are a lot more...the point being we should be having frank and realistic discussions instead of it devolving instantly into the government is trying to take my guns.

 

 

Frank and realistic people don't get elected. The political capital the left receives as a result of the current "guns" situation isn't going to make them too eager to change things. It's their obamacare.

[Tank]

i agree with those bringing up the second amendment focusing on a well-regulated militia. things have changed since then. 

the media is complicit in how they report things. according to them, there seem to be only two camps of thought: the crowd that wants all guns taken away from everyone, and the group that wants any gun they desire to have. what's clearly missing in the middle ground, and that's where i believe a reasonable solution lies for us. 

we cannot have unrestricted access to weapons, nor can we try to remove all guns in this country. both of those are unreasonable.

so what do we do? clearly our current path isn't working, whatever side you fall on. but i still firmly believe there's somewhere in between that will satisfy both sides of the debate and move us forward as a country to reduce the amount of gun violence we continue to experience daily (really, 274 mass killings this year? holy crap!) while also allowing people to own guns for sport, home defense, or hunting. the NRA needs to get on board with this or be neutralized if they continue their BS approach.

@red321's suggestions are a great starting point.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Tank

[red321]

Just now, Adam said:

Frank and realistic people don't get elected. The political capital the left receives as a result of the current "guns" situation isn't going to make them too eager to change things. It's their obamacare.

how many candidates on the left are calling for confiscating all the guns...or even "radical" gun control? I'm sure there are some...though after Sandy Hook 15 Democrats voted against stricter gun control measures, in large part because of the NRA and knowing it would be a campaign issue

[Adam]

I don't know. But when you solve a problem, you immediately become less valuable. I've grown to be as cynical as anyone, but I can't help but assume the worst from our worst class of people (politicians). 

[red321]

2 minutes ago, Tank said:

i agree with those bringing up the second amendment focusing on a well-regulated militia. things have changed since then. 

the media is complicit in how they report things. according to them, there seem to be only two camps of thought: the crowd that wants all guns taken away from everyone, and the group that wants any gun they desire to have. what's clearly missing in the middle ground, and that's where i believe a reasonable solution lies for us. 

we cannot have unrestricted access to weapons, nor can we try to remove all guns in this country. both of those are unreasonable.

so what do we do? clearly our current path isn't working, whatever side you fall on. but i still firmly believe there's somewhere in between that will satisfy both sides of the debate and move us forward as a country to reduce the amount of gun violence we continue to experience daily (really, 274 mass killings this year? holy crap!) while also allowing people to own guns for sport, home defense, or hunting. the NRA needs to get on board with this or be neutralized if they continue their BS approach.

@red321's suggestions are a great starting point.

thanks tank...but again...where is this list of people saying all guns should be taken away? You may have specific individuals, but there is this idea the Democrats have stated all guns should be banned immediately, and yet I cannot recall that being proposed in legislation. Hell, Gabby Gifford isn't even calling for that.

[mtangelsfan]

20 minutes ago, red321 said:

* Consistent national background check and 5 day waiting period. Spend money to ensure the system is accurate and quick. Require basic firearm safety tests, similar to getting a license. People who have been convicted of a felony, or violent crime either lose all rights to own firearms or a long period of time after the conviction (for example....5 years). This should also require checking a mental health database. Yes, I realize this is not fleshed out...this should be part of the conversation.

* Ban high capacity magazines. I'd say 7, but if you wanted to push for 10. There is no need for a high capacity magazine...if someone says they are using it for hunting and can't hit a deer with 10 shots...you shouldn't be hunting

* Make it more difficult to swap out magazines. California requires a separate button to be pushed to eject a magazine, slows down the process.

* Close gun show loopholes

* Allow CDC and government to study gun violence and ways to reduce gun violence

* Stronger penalties for those who perform straw purchases and resell guns

* Take a long hard look at military style assault weapons and weapons that are designed for efficient killing (as compared to hunting, self-defense, and sport shooting) and identify sensible policies as it relates to these type of weapons. 

 

 

These are a few ideas, I'm sure there are a lot more...the point being we should be having frank and realistic discussions instead of it devolving instantly into the government is trying to take my guns.

 

 

I am pretty much ok with those

[red321]

problem solved...get it done...

[Adam]

Can we put "take a long hard look" into the bill?