Hillary wont be a friend of gun owners

[Hand Solo]

Okay...good point...so you agree that the root of this problem besides the obivous epidemic of gun violence in america is the industrial complex that has led to non-action from either side?

Sure seems to me like we´ve all become more and more militaristic and warlike every year since i can remember my childhood in the 70´s...on average, i mean. Or it certainly seems like it. I really feel certain that we´ve been slowly, methodically guided in this direction by folks with lots of power ($$$$$, that is).

I´m just hoping we never see some Freikorps hoodlums form up, claiming to be protecting our freedoms...freedom to comply and live within their ideals and their standards, of course.

 

[TwoBiFour]

Okay...good point...so you agree that the root of this problem besides the obivous epidemic of gun violence in america is the industrial complex that has led to non-action from either side?

Of course, same with big Pharma, Monsanto, Big Oil, etc etc
I'm not sure what disturbs me more, the fact that these corporations run our government or the fact that so many are blind and defend one side over the other. It's time for some real change in congress.

 

[jerichodidthis3]

Of course, same with big Pharma, Monsanto, Big Oil, etc etc
I'm not sure what disturbs me more, the fact that these corporations run our government or the fact that so many are blind and defend one side over the other. It's time for some real change in congress.

Precisely my point hence why I said industrial complex, morality and inalienable rights, all those flowery words are on a conveyer belt of a massive corporate machine of greed. In conclusion we must stop looking at the trees and see the forest. I am thinking of citizens of the great nation such as yourself, but we must take into consideration of those we lost and those who have lost someone. No one here it seems can relate to the parent or loved one of a mass shooting victim, they deserve a response, a justifiable thoughtful plan of action; in action is unacxeptable

 

[Alanm]

Okay...good point...so you agree that the root of this problem besides the obivous epidemic of gun violence in america is the industrial complex that has led to non-action from either side?

Not sure I would say it's an epidemic of gun violence....the ******* problem and ******* deaths have far surpassed gun violence.

The county I live in has a huge herion problem..way way bigger than gun violence....I would submit that if we could ever get a handle on the ******* problem that gun violence would definitely drop as well.

 

[TwoBiFour]

o one here it seems can relate to the parent or loved one of a mass shooting victim, they deserve a response, a justifiable thoughtful plan of action; in action is unacxeptable

I agree that currently no action is unacceptable. But we do need to come to agreement and draw a line someplace. If we "take action" every time there s a shooting then eventually we will be looking at an all out ban. We need to realize that gun violence will continue regardless of our actions on guns and we need to start looking at the multiples of other reasons that are causing gun violence rather than continued attacks on the tool used.

 

[MacNfries]

I am just curious as to what the training would be for non military in.your opinion.
Also your just pissed because you know deep down that the assault weapons is not going to banned nation wide and you know it

A similar "type" system as having a driver's license and owning a car, Alanm. Owning an AR-16 or any assault type weapon ought to come with as much a privilege as a right with Registration-Testing-Review-Revocation. And some of the ancillary attachments (such as a bumper stock) should not be allowed on civilian owned AR-AKs.

I don't think anyone is arguing common sense gun laws Mac

I'm not even bothering responding to your post, TwoBi ... "lie-deny-redirect" is all your post amounts to ... doesn't even warrant consideration, much less a response. REread post # 776 ... that's my response to your garble.
I'll encourage you to use your IGNORE button; its your RIGHT & PRIVLEGE .

 

[MacNfries]

I'm not sure what disturbs me more, the fact that these corporations run our government or the fact that so many are blind and defend one side over the other

But don't conservatives say "corporations are PEOPLE TOO?" Wasn't the purpose of Citizens United to open up the donations of Big Cash those corporations could give to their selective, bought-and-paid for politicians and parties? Since we're on the topic of gun control and the NRA ... isn't the fact that the NRA giving North Carolina's first term senator Tom Tillis over $4 million in donations and TV ad money an indication of their intent to buy senators who will support their cause? What's a few million to someone with the power to sway gun lobby legislation for a organization like the NRA? I can assure you, as I follow politics in NC pretty closely, that Tom Tillis would NOT have been elected had it not been for the money contributions of the NRA.

 

[TwoBiFour]

I'm not even bothering responding to your post, TwoBi ... "lie-deny-redirect" is all your post amounts to ... .

How so? I encourage you to re-read the post, there is no lie - Deny or redirect at all in that post and in fact agree with much of what you are demanding - again your purpose here is to TROLL nothing more.

But don't conservatives say "corporations are PEOPLE TOO?"

That might be what THEY say - but it's NOT what I say. You are so hung up on party lines it is impossible for you see that there are some people out here that CAN think for themselves. Unlike you, I do not follow party lines.

I'll encourage you to use your IGNORE button; its your RIGHT & PRIVLEGE .

 

[Alanm]

A similar "type" system as having a driver's license and owning a car, Alanm. Owning an AR-16 or any assault type weapon ought to come with as much a privilege as a right with Registration-Testing-Review-Revocation. And some of the ancillary attachments (such as a bumper stock) should not be allowed on civilian owned AR-AKs.

I'm not even bothering responding to your post, TwoBi ... "lie-deny-redirect" is all your post amounts to ... doesn't even warrant consideration, much less a response. REread post # 776 ... that's my response to your garble.
I'll encourage you to use your IGNORE button; its your RIGHT & PRIVLEGE .

That is the problem....once you start requiring any testing and review then the government can then change the rules to whatever they want, hence making it nearly impossible to own one.

Take testing, what possible testing could there be. Let's be honest owning an AR is not like flying an airplane.....you can be very very competent with the weapon and know every part of it fairly quickly....what would testing do? As far as I know the issue that a lot of folks have with the AR has nothing to do with people not knowing how to handle and operate the weapon safely. You are just suggesting another way for the government to find a way to "regulate" the weapon.

 

[jerichodidthis3]

That is the problem....once you start requiring any testing and review then the government can then change the rules to whatever they want, hence making it nearly impossible to own one.

Take testing, what possible testing could there be. Let's be honest owning an AR is not like flying an airplane.....you can be very very competent with the weapon and know every part of it fairly quickly....what would testing do? As far as I know the issue that a lot of folks have with the AR has nothing to do with people not knowing how to handle and operate the weapon safely. You are just suggesting another way for the government to find a way to "regulate" the weapon.

not to be devil's advocate but don't we have testing and reviewing for other fields of not only occupation, possession of whatever, etc., in order to operate a certain machinery, or drive a certain vehicle. I don't wish to undermine how coveted the 2nd amendment is but it is clear to me, that right now we once again have to address that guns in America are serious issue. @Alanm, your distrust for the government as well as anyone who shares the same sentiment with you about the government on this forum is evident, and justified; but we have to not let our paranoia of Marshall law or complete government takeover remove us from our senses here. Our govt. is made up of civilians coming from various walks of life that make up the house and senate. Hence, there lies no monarchy, or bloodline hegemony that enacts their will on the people regardless. And like I said I am willing to make a concession with the AR-15, but like you said, such a weapon in the possession of an everyday citizen is one thing, but like you said and I quote, "you have to be very competent with the weapon...", I agree. But how do you measure one's competency to use an AR-15 other than some metric system or test that you apply universally or even state by state which adheres to federal guidelines to ensure the safety of the general public.

I mean every civilized develop country in every facet of its sovereign existence has a government of some sort, and yes there has to be trust between both government and the people, esp. with a democratic government. But right now, the government isn't the issue, hell it has nothing to do with mass shooters like aurora, Colorado, Virigina Tech, or even recently the Orlando shooting; federal law enforcement agencies may respond and acknowledge where and how to respond more efficiently, but the genesis isn't the government... its the people. So maybe we propose the people regulate other people? Well, than still the yellow brick road leads us back to what is an appropriate response to someone who is allegedly planning a shooting, and if so by the people's court how do we deal with such an individual or individuals? It sounds like the wild west all over again...rules and structures and procedures exist for a reason and we need some sort of presiding body to oversee we are ensured such due process and human decency exist in such a tultumous time. The govt won't always get it right, but I have to trust our govt will do their best to get it right, you may perceive this as a bit naïve but it isn't any less naive to think we can trust the everyday folks to make a sound reasonable judgment when under duress. FBI, ATF, DOJ, DHS, etc., are trained professionals who deal with such crisis and undergo may stringent tests to be considered proficient in these particular areas, if you feel we also should be as well...well @Alanm that means more testing.

 

[MacNfries]

Alanm, maybe Texas will succeed this time in its desire to leave the union. They've been talking about it for ages ... secession. Now, with the Supreme Courts ruling on abortion, yesterday, enough Texans will finally say "enough" and take their toys and go home. Don't know, though, they sure have been using their fair share of FEMA and emergency services lately ... can Texans make it on their own?
... "Just think, Rick Perry might get to be a President afterall!"

 

[Alanm]

not to be devil's advocate but don't we have testing and reviewing for other fields of not only occupation, possession of whatever, etc., in order to operate a certain machinery, or drive a certain vehicle. I don't wish to undermine how coveted the 2nd amendment is but it is clear to me, that right now we once again have to address that guns in America are serious issue. @Alanm, your distrust for the government as well as anyone who shares the same sentiment with you about the government on this forum is evident, and justified; but we have to not let our paranoia of Marshall law or complete government takeover remove us from our senses here. Our govt. is made up of civilians coming from various walks of life that make up the house and senate. Hence, there lies no monarchy, or bloodline hegemony that enacts their will on the people regardless. And like I said I am willing to make a concession with the AR-15, but like you said, such a weapon in the possession of an everyday citizen is one thing, but like you said and I quote, "you have to be very competent with the weapon...", I agree. But how do you measure one's competency to use an AR-15 other than some metric system or test that you apply universally or even state by state which adheres to federal guidelines to ensure the safety of the general public.

I mean every civilized develop country in every facet of its sovereign existence has a government of some sort, and yes there has to be trust between both government and the people, esp. with a democratic government. But right now, the government isn't the issue, hell it has nothing to do with mass shooters like aurora, Colorado, Virigina Tech, or even recently the Orlando shooting; federal law enforcement agencies may respond and acknowledge where and how to respond more efficiently, but the genesis isn't the government... its the people. So maybe we propose the people regulate other people? Well, than still the yellow brick road leads us back to what is an appropriate response to someone who is allegedly planning a shooting, and if so by the people's court how do we deal with such an individual or individuals? It sounds like the wild west all over again...rules and structures and procedures exist for a reason and we need some sort of presiding body to oversee we are ensured such due process and human decency exist in such a tultumous time. The govt won't always get it right, but I have to trust our govt will do their best to get it right, you may perceive this as a bit naïve but it isn't any less naive to think we can trust the everyday folks to make a sound reasonable judgment when under duress. FBI, ATF, DOJ, DHS, etc., are trained professionals who deal with such crisis and undergo may stringent tests to be considered proficient in these particular areas, if you feel we also should be as well...well @Alanm that means more testing.

First I never said you have to be very competent....I said you can be very competent with the weapon in a short amount of time. Driving a semi is a lot more complicated than learning how to operate an AR safely.

Again safety is not the point of the left wingers on this board because if that's the case then let's have a one hour class or two hour class on how to handle an AR when you buy it....and leave the rest of the laws alone regarding assault weapons...but the left won't be satisfied with that but they also know once you can regulate the training you can regulate who owns one and how hard it is to obtain one.

 

[Alanm]

not to be devil's advocate but don't we have testing and reviewing for other fields of not only occupation, possession of whatever, etc., in order to operate a certain machinery, or drive a certain vehicle. I don't wish to undermine how coveted the 2nd amendment is but it is clear to me, that right now we once again have to address that guns in America are serious issue. @Alanm, your distrust for the government as well as anyone who shares the same sentiment with you about the government on this forum is evident, and justified; but we have to not let our paranoia of Marshall law or complete government takeover remove us from our senses here. Our govt. is made up of civilians coming from various walks of life that make up the house and senate. Hence, there lies no monarchy, or bloodline hegemony that enacts their will on the people regardless. And like I said I am willing to make a concession with the AR-15, but like you said, such a weapon in the possession of an everyday citizen is one thing, but like you said and I quote, "you have to be very competent with the weapon...", I agree. But how do you measure one's competency to use an AR-15 other than some metric system or test that you apply universally or even state by state which adheres to federal guidelines to ensure the safety of the general public.

I mean every civilized develop country in every facet of its sovereign existence has a government of some sort, and yes there has to be trust between both government and the people, esp. with a democratic government. But right now, the government isn't the issue, hell it has nothing to do with mass shooters like aurora, Colorado, Virigina Tech, or even recently the Orlando shooting; federal law enforcement agencies may respond and acknowledge where and how to respond more efficiently, but the genesis isn't the government... its the people. So maybe we propose the people regulate other people? Well, than still the yellow brick road leads us back to what is an appropriate response to someone who is allegedly planning a shooting, and if so by the people's court how do we deal with such an individual or individuals? It sounds like the wild west all over again...rules and structures and procedures exist for a reason and we need some sort of presiding body to oversee we are ensured such due process and human decency exist in such a tultumous time. The govt won't always get it right, but I have to trust our govt will do their best to get it right, you may perceive this as a bit naïve but it isn't any less naive to think we can trust the everyday folks to make a sound reasonable judgment when under duress. FBI, ATF, DOJ, DHS, etc., are trained professionals who deal with such crisis and undergo may stringent tests to be considered proficient in these particular areas, if you feel we also should be as well...well @Alanm that means more testing.

My stance is basically this.....we live in a free country where people have the right to do what they want under the law....we can't start trying to criminalize people for something they MIGHT do. If your a law abiding citizens and.you want an AR you have every right to buy one.

Are people gonna do bad things....yes.....are we going to be able to stop all crime .....no. It's the way it's always been and will always be under a free society.

 

[jerichodidthis3]

My stance is basically this.....we live in a free country where people have the right to do what they want under the law....we can't start trying to criminalize people for something they MIGHT do. If your a law abiding citizens and.you want an AR you have every right to buy one.

Are people gonna do bad things....yes.....are we going to be able to stop all crime .....no. It's the way it's always been and will always be under a free society.

Were not talking about what people might not or might do, there is a clear threshold of probable cause for someone suspected of criminal behavior let alone terrorism. These are one segment of society in which we must focus on. Second, people with a history of mental illness. Violence or gun violations...gone no more guns for you.

Secondly, yes this is a free society but this freedom comes with a cost, and responsibility. You can possess a firearm amd exercise any religion you wish to practice, but if your freedoms infringe on my freedoms than we have a problem. If religion starts to influence public policy than we have a problem, if my right to bare arms comes with the flimpsy policies enacting safety and regulations and creates loopholes to allow unsavory individuals to get access to a firearm its not just me that is in jeopardy but you as well.

 

[Alanm]

Were not talking about what people might not or might do, there is a clear threshold of probable cause for someone suspected of criminal behavior let alone terrorism. These are one segment of society in which we must focus on. Second, people with a history of mental illness. Violence or gun violations...gone no more guns for you.

Secondly, yes this is a free society but this freedom comes with a cost, and responsibility. You can possess a firearm amd exercise any religion you wish to practice, but if your freedoms infringe on my freedoms than we have a problem. If religion starts to influence public policy than we have a problem, if my right to bare arms comes with the flimpsy policies enacting safety and regulations and creates loopholes to allow unsavory individuals to get access to a firearm its not just me that is in jeopardy but you as well.

I don't disagree......the problem is not that we don't have enough gun laws it's just they don't always work as intended....that needs fixed without a doubt.

 

[TwoBiFour]

but if your freedoms infringe on my freedoms than we have a problem.

I am sure you intend that statement to be in a bi-lateral sense and not in a manner that the Right must always comply to the Left.

This weekend when I start setting off Firework to my right celebrate my freedoms - my closest neighbor will be calling the police and complaining that I am infringing on his right for peace and quiet. I can most assure you that it will be the officer asking me to stop my fireworks and comply - instead of him telling the neighbor that I have this window in time to celebrate and the 4th will be over soon.

Even the best of regulations will break down at some point and a bad egg will get through, So where is your line jerichodidthis3? would these things talked about be enough? If and when there is another shooting involving an AR, Will you say we have proper laws in place and no further action is needed or will you be asking for more restrictions?

 

[jerichodidthis3]

I am sure you intend that statement to be in a bi-lateral sense and not in a manner that the Right must always comply to the Left.

This weekend when I start setting off Firework to my right celebrate my freedoms - my closest neighbor will be calling the police and complaining that I am infringing on his right for peace and quiet. I can most assure you that it will be the officer asking me to stop my fireworks and comply - instead of him telling the neighbor that I have this window in time to celebrate and the 4th will be over soon.

Even the best of regulations will break down at some point and a bad egg will get through, So where is your line jerichodidthis3? would these things talked about be enough? If and when there is another shooting involving an AR, Will you say we have proper laws in place and no further action is needed or will you be asking for more restrictions?

I didnt know I had to be so specific when I talked about rights...clearly fireworks dont require constitutional lawyers and experts to dissect whether you have a right to let off some fireworks or not. That to me sound like the local or municipal ordinance will decipher that issue. Besides were talking about GUNS.

Throwing eggs is juvenile but shooting an firearm isnt, esp when the repurcussions are death. The issue isnt shredding the constitution or bending it a little, its about having a thoughtful, responsibile policies implemented to safe guard the republic. This isnt a trivial matter like fire works. Were talking about instruments of death giving to the general public. Okay than there comes great responsibility.

A proposed legislation is going to require bipartisan support regardless. So that means even those who want accessiblilty to military styled weapons or not, will have to.sit down and come up with a comprehensive plan of action. Its inevitable and any form of mitigation or re-directing will not take presence to the crisis we have occurring right now this very moment.

 

[pauly]

Were not talking about what people might not or might do, there is a clear threshold of probable cause for someone suspected of criminal behavior let alone terrorism. These are one segment of society in which we must focus on. Second, people with a history of mental illness. Violence or gun violations...gone no more guns for you.

Secondly, yes this is a free society but this freedom comes with a cost, and responsibility. You can possess a firearm amd exercise any religion you wish to practice, but if your freedoms infringe on my freedoms than we have a problem. If religion starts to influence public policy than we have a problem, if my right to bare arms comes with the flimpsy policies enacting safety and regulations and creates loopholes to allow unsavory individuals to get access to a firearm its not just me that is in jeopardy but you as well.

Well said absolutely correct.

 

[Alanm]

I didnt know I had to be so specific when I talked about rights...clearly fireworks dont require constitutional lawyers and experts to dissect whether you have a right to let off some fireworks or not. That to me sound like the local or municipal ordinance will decipher that issue. Besides were talking about GUNS.

Throwing eggs is juvenile but shooting an firearm isnt, esp when the repurcussions are death. The issue isnt shredding the constitution or bending it a little, its about having a thoughtful, responsibile policies implemented to safe guard the republic. This isnt a trivial matter like fire works. Were talking about instruments of death giving to the general public. Okay than there comes great responsibility.

A proposed legislation is going to require bipartisan support regardless. So that means even those who want accessiblilty to military styled weapons or not, will have to.sit down and come up with a comprehensive plan of action. Its inevitable and any form of mitigation or re-directing will not take presence to the crisis we have occurring right now this very moment.

Instruments of death.....and explosives are not. You ever been around some big fireworks.....

 

[TwoBiFour]

I didnt know I had to be so specific when I talked about rights...clearly fireworks dont require constitutional lawyers and experts to dissect whether you have a right to let off some fireworks or not. That to me sound like the local or municipal ordinance will decipher that issue. Besides were talking about GUNS.

Throwing eggs is juvenile but shooting an firearm isnt, esp when the repurcussions are death. The issue isnt shredding the constitution or bending it a little, its about having a thoughtful, responsibile policies implemented to safe guard the republic. This isnt a trivial matter like fire works. Were talking about instruments of death giving to the general public. Okay than there comes great responsibility.

A proposed legislation is going to require bipartisan support regardless. So that means even those who want accessiblilty to military styled weapons or not, will have to.sit down and come up with a comprehensive plan of action. Its inevitable and any form of mitigation or re-directing will not take presence to the crisis we have occurring right now this very moment.

A bunch of big words but didn't answer the question.
The Fireworks was a reference to the fact that it seems the right must always comply with the left because OUR freedoms always seem to infringe on YOUR freedoms, and that's the problem. I wasn't trying to draw a correlation between fireworks and guns, but nice of you to try and spin it that way.

But as usual, dance around the real question.