I never post about Issues…this has me pissed off

[Ostatedchi]

As a gun owner:

I wish all firearms were registered in a national database. Before you start, we register our cars, our income, etc. so spare me the fear of the government knowing argument.

If you sell your gun, you are responsible for making sure the ownership change registration is complete.

So buy what you want, sell what you want.

If a weapon registered in your name is used in a violent crime, you are prosecuted as if you were the one who pulled the trigger.

Is it a scary prospect…absolutely. However it is a way to promote, if not mandate, responsibility. Responsibility in the storage and securing of the firearm. Responsibility in making sure anyone who you allow to handle the weapon knows how to safely do so.

None of this would eliminate gun violence. Especially not mass shootings. However we know many guns used in crimes were not purchased by the perpetrator. The guns are often stolen or purchased by a third party. I am all for reducing mass shootings, but I am also all for curbing gun violence in general.

I would happily register all of my firearms today.

And exactly none of the regulations proposed would be an effective solution to gun violence or spree shootings. Zero.

 

[panhndlpoke]

I haven’t read much of this thread and don’t plan to. There isn’t an argument for/against guns I haven’t heard. I have tens of thousands of dollars in weapons in my safes.

But if I thought that getting rid of all high capacity magazines and semiautomatic weapons would actually end mass shootings, I would do it. I don’t know how the government would pay me for my loss, but even if they wouldn’t, I would still do it if it ended the mass shootings.

I just don’t think it will.

 

[hulsey07]

I haven’t read much of this thread and don’t plan to. There isn’t an argument for/against guns I haven’t heard. I have tens of thousands of dollars in weapons in my safes.

But if I thought that getting rid of all high capacity magazines and semiautomatic weapons would actually end mass shootings, I would do it. I don’t know how the government would pay me for my loss, but even if they wouldn’t, I would still do it if it ended the mass shootings.

I just don’t think it will.

 

[lovethempokes]

These people are using the only way they know to get attention. This is what we have taught the next generation. If we had a society that would teach empathy instead of self-gratification, then, I think, these mass shootings would decrease. If it doesn't involve you then you don't care. You see this in people's work ethic. There is no going above and beyond to get jobs done. Society has progressed to the point that people don't have to struggle to get basic needs, so they focus on only satisfying their wants and other's feelings be damned.

 

[Jeff J.]

A civil discussion overall. That’s great.

Now raise your hand if you changed your mind on the subject based upon the thread content.

I had not revisited this thread since yesterday and seeing it had quickly gone to 5 pages I assumed I was way behind on moving it to the politics board.

There have been a few veers into politics, but overall has been pretty civil and while no minds have likely been changed, it likely has provoked some consideration of different view points.

Well done, all.

 

[BiloxiPoke]

My sister is a physicians assistant in Tulsa. Her clinic, and her team, were the ones targeted and killed by the shooter in Tulsa. She spends one day a week at another location, and just happened to be at that other office the day of the shooting. Two of those killed were at her wedding three months prior. I get the hitting close to home changing your perspective, and I’m glad your family wasn’t there. I have an 11 month at home and am sad when I think about the world he will grow up in.

I carry, and have three guns at home, and am pro second amendment, but something has to change.

Stepped away from this thread for a while and saw this post just now. Very scary stuff. Glad your sister is OK. Can’t imagine what that must have been like for her.

Wrong. Your statement is an incorrect statement of the law.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote 26]


We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).


It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Antonin Scalia in DC v. Heller.

Excellent post. 🔥

 

[kruxter]

I don't think it is possible without breaking the door.

Yes, we could lock people in their rooms with pennies. But it was a prank between friends. At least back in the day.

 

[dnhall]

There is no such thing as an “assault rifle”. It’s a made up term by gun control activists. You’re probably one who has no clue what the AR in AR-15 stands for.

This is a morality issue, point blank.

This is what we get when we remove God from daily life.

This is what we get when teachers, who are with children as much or more than parents, cannot set a child in line when they get out of line.

I own 2 AR-15 platform rifles and and an AR-10 and they are yet to kill a human.

Armorlite rifle….. military style semi-automatic high capacity magazine weapons. That’s what needs to be banned, registered, and controlled to make it tougher to spray large numbers of bullets in a short period of time at innocent people! AR-15s or AK 47s don’t belong on our streets and easy access to purchase them shouldn’t be allowed either!

I’m pretty sure the God I worship would pick human life over guns a hundred percent in terms of HIS PRIORITY! And as far as him being in our daily life true believers pray to him everyday! That doesn’t mean there aren’t those who don’t worship him or believe! They commit most of these mass shootings most likely. Since you can’t convert them you may need to make it tougher for them to get access to weapons of war to kill with or watch the carnage continue!

 

[BiloxiPoke]

*Armalite

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

“Got to do something”; even if it can be demonstrably shown that the solution would have changed nothing with regard to the shooting or shootings it supposedly would address.

Two masks are better than one to stop China Flu spread!

 

[CowboyPhil]

Armorlite rifle….. military style semi-automatic high capacity magazine weapons. That’s what needs to be banned, registered, and controlled to make it tougher to spray large numbers of bullets in a short period of time at innocent people! AR-15s or AK 47s don’t belong on our streets and easy access to purchase them shouldn’t be allowed either!

I’m pretty sure the God I worship would pick human life over guns a hundred percent in terms of HIS PRIORITY! And as far as him being in our daily life true believers pray to him everyday! That doesn’t mean there aren’t those who don’t worship him or believe! They commit most of these mass shootings most likely. Since you can’t convert them you may need to make it tougher for them to get access to weapons of war to kill with or watch the carnage continue!

And when a shooting involves a fully auto handgun, then those will need to banned also, correct?

 

[07pilt]

Yes, we could lock people in their rooms with pennies. But it was a prank between friends. At least back in the day.

No I mean I don't think it is possible to escape from the inside

 

[tcpoke]

And exactly none of the regulations proposed would be an effective solution to gun violence or spree shootings. Zero.

I admitted as much on the spree shooting issue. You obviously only partially read my post.

As for impact on gun violence, encouraging more responsible storage of firearms could not hurt.

 

[OSUMBA]

Again, I am not proposing a ban of any type of gun, I just think that it wouldn’t hurt to make it a little more difficult for them to be acquired. Especially the mentally ill. I mean Jesus, if somebody’s Facebook page says they are planning to shoot up a school, maybe we shouldn’t sell them a gun.

On this, we can agree. I am very pro 2nd amendment, but we have to find a way to vet people who purchase firearms that doesn't infringe on the basic persons ability to get them. If it means you have to wait a couple more days, then so be it. Need to get some logical level headed people at the table to figure this out. Many, if not most, of these shooters have had something in their past that would/should be a red flag. As others have pointed out, these type of weapons have been around for almost 100 years. Even the large magazine's. People have changed.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I admitted as much on the spree shooting issue. You obviously only partially read my post.

As for impact on gun violence, encouraging more responsible storage of firearms could not hurt.

Encouraging more responsible storage is totally fine. But how do you legislate that in a way that would (as the goal of this thread states) reduce or mitigate shooting deaths. It might help a very few accidental child deaths - and that’s a good thing. But it’ll do nothing to stop someone on a spree.

Antything proposed that would have some impact would have to be proactive. That’s a difficult proposition with the 2nd amendment and due process clause.

You can’t take someone’s rights away with out due process. But can you do so for something that they might do at some time in the future?

Propose a solution that doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment and due process that’ll actually be effective and then we’d have a real conversation. Until then, this is an exercise in mental masturbation.

 

[dignon003]

And when a shooting involves a fully auto handgun, then those will need to banned also, correct?

Full auto handguns are already illegal. They’re much more difficult to obtain. They aren’t used in these scenarios very often for that reason.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Armorlite rifle….. military style semi-automatic high capacity magazine weapons. That’s what needs to be banned, registered, and controlled to make it tougher to spray large numbers of bullets in a short period of time at innocent people! AR-15s or AK 47s don’t belong on our streets and easy access to purchase them shouldn’t be allowed either!

I’m pretty sure the God I worship would pick human life over guns a hundred percent in terms of HIS PRIORITY! And as far as him being in our daily life true believers pray to him everyday! That doesn’t mean there aren’t those who don’t worship him or believe! They commit most of these mass shootings most likely. Since you can’t convert them you may need to make it tougher for them to get access to weapons of war to kill with or watch the carnage continue!

You are going to have ALOT of banning to do....Once you get over the AR hysteria on to the next item...It is amazing the different platforms they have for Glocks and what you can do with it as handgun and the accessories. No one will stop at just the "AR's".

 

[tcpoke]

Encouraging more responsible storage is totally fine. But how do you legislate that in a way that would (as the goal of this thread states) reduce or mitigate shooting deaths. It might help a very few accidental child deaths - and that’s a good thing. But it’ll do nothing to stop someone on a spree.

Antything proposed that would have some impact would have to be proactive. That’s a difficult proposition with the 2nd amendment and due process clause.

You can’t take someone’s rights away with out due process. But can you do so for something that they might do at some time in the future?

Propose a solution that doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment and due process that’ll actually be effective and then we’d have a real conversation. Until then, this is an exercise in mental masturbation.

I’m sure I am just missing it, but how did my proposal infringe upon the second amendment?

 

[CBradSmith]

My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way.

With the advent of social media and a screen for every hand, from which to compare, glamorize, grow envious of, belittle, and dehumanize, many at the fringes of society are further ostracized than ever before.

The bottom 10% (pick a threshold) in intelligence, attractiveness, ability to produce income, ability to relate, are not being looked out for.....as almost everybody else is on a magic carpet ride brought to you by Netflix, Bumble/Tinder, Instagram, twitter, Amazon, hollywood, MSM, e.t.c e.t.c

Single variable solutions, like "ban X" or "restrict y," seem to me as either simple minded, disingenuous, or not well though out. They don't tell a fraction of the story nor address the issues in the comprehensive way it ought to be addressed, which is mostly societal/cultural vs policy.

(Repeat of intro) My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I’m sure I am just missing it, but how did my proposal infringe upon the second amendment?

Not sure they do violate the 2nd amendment. They just wouldn’t do anything to prevent mass shootings. So it fails the test of an actual solution.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Full auto handguns are already illegal. They’re much more difficult to obtain. They aren’t used in these scenarios very often for that reason.

It’s illegal to have an automatic weapon that isn’t registered with the ATF. And has been for decades. No legally owned automatic weapon has been used to kill somebody in the U.S. by someone outside law enforcement in nearly 90 years.

 

[OKSTATE1]

My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way.

With the advent of social media and a screen for every hand, from which to compare, glamorize, grow envious of, belittle, and dehumanize, many at the fringes of society are further ostracized than ever before.

The bottom 10% (pick a threshold) in intelligence, attractiveness, ability to produce income, ability to relate, are not being looked out for.....as almost everybody else is on a magic carpet ride brought to you by Netflix, Bumble/Tinder, Instagram, twitter, Amazon, hollywood, MSM, e.t.c e.t.c

Single variable solutions, like "ban X" or "restrict y," seem to me as either simple minded, disingenuous, or not well though out. They don't tell a fraction of the story nor address the issues in the comprehensive way it ought to be addressed, which is mostly societal/cultural vs policy.

(Repeat of intro) My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way.

Parents started a long time ago telling kids they were perfect and that they could be anything they wanted to be. That is simply not true. Some kids learn around junior high kids are mean as hell to each other and everyone can not be whatever they to want to be. But some do not learn this until they are adults, and they are bitter and mad for not getting what they are "entitled" to. My day you got in trouble in school, you got it worse at home. Parents did not bitch to teachers or the school for disciplining kids. Matter of fact, most of my friends parents would discipline any friend that came over to visit their child and was out of line. Parents were ok with that. Bad behavior was seldom overlooked and was met with immediate consequences. If you did not get discipline at home you got it at school, and again the parents was ok with that. So, if you wanted to be a mean jerk you really needed to do it without adult supervision at home, the class room, or church. And if you were a mean bullying jerk without adults around and some parents called yours, you were in trouble.

If you sucked at baseball or any sport in my day you did not get to play just because you were on the team, you got in near run rule territory. But they made scrimmage work easier, and they kept the starters on their toes, their was a great value and even a hero type view of the kids that simply stuck it out for the love of the game and supporting the team. Finish what you start, give yourself up to a goal that is bigger than your personal achievement. What a life lesson.

Dad, mom, players, and Coach was not mean to these kids, at least we were not. They usually just wanted to be a part of the gang and we treated the bench players well, they were our best cheerleaders. In HS we had a guy that loved football, classic skinny kid old school super "nerd", black coke bottle glasses, was legally blind. Could not get a DL because he was so blind. He was a trainer and equipment manager, we treated him like he was our MVP. Anyone picked on him at school, it was a big mistake, we had his back. Today he is rich Doctor. We made sure he got a good date to the Senior Prom.

But the other key thing was, it was OK to not be a great baseball player. It was OK to try do your best and learn from "failure" and deal with it at a young age and not 30 years old in mom's basement. It was OK, to be encouraged maybe you leave baseball and find something you ARE better at, to find your god given talent, we all have something to offer, some gift, you have to be lucky to have parents that help you find it and not force their kids to be what they want them to be.

Maybe that kid at the end of the bench finds out he is great at rowing, or maybe can play a musical instrument really well. We had a guy that dropped out of sports and loved being a magician, does it on paid basis to do this day. Not nationally known, but he found his gift that excites him and people are attracted to .

You didn't have dad and mom lying to their kid telling them how great they are and they should be playing and the Coach knows nothing. Or that their child is a straight A student and the teachers are all failing. Learning acceptance and accountability at young age does not happen. Parents are teaching you, you are a victim. You are great, you can be anything you want to be. When the lie hits them I am sure it is a very harsh dose of reality for some. We are born equal as human beings, we are not born equal in mental and physical god given ability. But we all have some gift we can offer to society, parents have to help you find it.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Parents started a long time ago telling kids they were perfect and that they could be anything they wanted to be. That is simply not true. Some kids learn around junior high kids are mean as hell to each other and everyone can not be whatever they to want to be. But some do not learn this until they are adults, and they are bitter and mad for not getting what they are "entitled" to. My day you got in trouble in school, you got worse at home. Parents did not bitch to teachers or the school for disciplining kids. Matter of fact, most of my friends parents would discipline any friend that came over to visit their child and was out of line. Parents were ok with that. Bad behavior was seldom overlooked and was met with immediate consequences. If you did not get discipline at home you got at school, and again the parents was ok with that. So, if you wanted to mean jerk you were really needed to do it without adult supervision at home, the class room, or church. And if you were a jerk and some parents called yours, you were in trouble.

If you sucked at baseball or any sport in my day you did not get to play just because you were on the team, you got in near run rule territory. But they made scrimmage work easier, and they kept the starters on their toes, their was a great value and even a hero type view of the kids that simply stuck it out for the love of the game and supporting the team. Finish what you start, give yourself up to a goal that is bigger than your personal achievement.

Dad, mom, players, and Coach was not mean to these kids, at least we were not. They usually just wanted to be a part of the gang and we treated the bench players well, they were our best cheerleaders. In HS we had a guy that loved football, classic skinny kid old school super "nerd", black coke bottle glasses, was legally blind. Could not get a DL because he was so blind. He was a trainer and equipment manager, we treated him like he was our MVP. Anyone picked on him at school, it was a big mistake, we had his back. Today he is rich Doctor. We made sure he got a good date to the Senior Prom.

But the other key thing was, it was OK to not be a great baseball player. It was OK to try do your best and learn from "failure" and deal with it at a young age and not 30 years old in mom's basement. It was OK, to be encouraged maybe you leave baseball and find something you ARE better at, to find your god given talent, we all have something to offer, some gift, you have to be lucky to have parents that help you find it and not force their kids to be what they want to be.

Maybe that kid at the end of the bench finds out he is great at rowing, or maybe can play a musical instrument really well. We had a guy that dropped out of sports and loved being magician, does it on paid basis to do this day. Not nationally known, but he found his gift that excites him and people are attracted to .

You didn't have dad and mom lying to their kid telling them how great they are and they should be playing and the Coach knows nothing. Or that their child is a straight A student and the teachers are all failing. Learning acceptance and accountability at young age does not happen. Parents are teaching you, you are a victim. You are great, you can be anything you want to be. When the lie hits him I am sure it is a very harsh dose of reality for some. We are born equal as human beings, we are not born equal in mental and physical god given ability.

Great post. We aren't teaching people how to cope with failure or hardship. So when they come up to it, they lash out - often violently. We don't have the personal skills to manage those emotions because they weren't taught.

 

[dignon003]

It’s illegal to have an automatic weapon that isn’t registered with the ATF. And has been for decades. No legally owned automatic weapon has been used to kill somebody in the U.S. by someone outside law enforcement in nearly 90 years.

I never said they were legal. All I said was that they are more difficult to get and this not used very often. The kid in Uvalde bought his AR 6 days before the shooting and another 3 days before the second one with a modified trigger. He also bought 1,000 rounds of ammo.

If there were some purchase restrictions such as wait time between rifle purchases, 7 day wait and background check, registration, a tax on ammo…

Do you think any of those would be a deterrent?

I don’t see any of those being an infringement

 

[dignon003]

This morning there’s an OKC school on lockdown. Shooting at a bus stop, stemming from a fight earlier.

Shit show.

 

[Ostatedchi]

I never said they were legal. All I said was that they are more difficult to get and this not used very often. The kid in Uvalde bought his AR 6 days before the shooting and another 3 days before the second one with a modified trigger. He also bought 1,000 rounds of ammo.

If there were some purchase restrictions such as wait time between rifle purchases, 7 day wait and background check, registration, a tax on ammo…

Do you think any of those would be a deterrent?

I don’t see any of those being an infringement

None of that would be an effective deterrent to mass shootings. None.

 

[OKSTATE1]

I never said they were legal. All I said was that they are more difficult to get and this not used very often. The kid in Uvalde bought his AR 6 days before the shooting and another 3 days before the second one with a modified trigger. He also bought 1,000 rounds of ammo.

If there were some purchase restrictions such as wait time between rifle purchases, 7 day wait and background check, registration, a tax on ammo…

Do you think any of those would be a deterrent?

I don’t see any of those being an infringement

If the public would speak up? It would help. The Las Vegas shooting? How does NO ONE, not think taking 30 black large containers up to a hotel room is not suspicious? Hello Las Vegas hotel security with cameras everywhere. What about other hotel patrons?

The other problem you have now also, you have a great distrust of Police. People are scared to call because they think they make matters worse. The media has sold a ton of fear against the Police, for years. The active shooter training I had in OKC last week? OKC police said this is a big problem, people are not reporting suspicious behavior like they use to. It is a key part of their training. And young adults are totally clued out to their surroundings due to cell phones, and many adults as well.

Next, the see something say something? The public also does not report suspicious behavior for fear of being labeled as "profiling", or being perceived as discriminating against another child in their school no matter their race, or being afraid of being labeled a racist if it is an AA they believe exhibiting suspicious behavior.

We talk about we need more identification of these people before it happens, but we might be in the worst spot in the history of our country in reporting suspicious behavior. Any many if they see it, they assume someone else will make that call to Police.

 

[SquatchinPoke]

I personally think education on guns is the best solution. I was raised around guns as a little kid. I knew how to handle them and the results if not. I had to clean every gun every time I shot it growing up. My gramps bet gun safety into me.

Then we stop the hate and teach respect of others.

 

[BiloxiPoke]

None of that would be an effective deterrent to mass shootings. None.

Disagree. The dude in Tulsa bought his AR the morning of the shooting. Would he still have perpetrated the shooting spree even if he had to wait a longer time to acquire the weapon? Possibly. But any extra steps or timeframe in the intervening days could possibly prevent a tragedy. It’s worth trying. And if you want to buy a firearm and you need to wait a week or more, then I think most folks are adults who can handle that.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I never said they were legal. All I said was that they are more difficult to get and this not used very often. The kid in Uvalde bought his AR 6 days before the shooting and another 3 days before the second one with a modified trigger. He also bought 1,000 rounds of ammo.

If there were some purchase restrictions such as wait time between rifle purchases, 7 day wait and background check, registration, a tax on ammo…

Do you think any of those would be a deterrent?

I don’t see any of those being an infringement

AR’s sold in the U.S. are not fully automatic. If they have been converted to automatic and sold, then the law has already violated.

 

[nathajw]

AR’s sold in the U.S. are not fully automatic. If they have been converted to automatic and sold, then the law has already violated.

Come on man, don't cheapen their boogeyman. The dreaded AR....aka "assault rifle"....aka "weapon of war"!

 

[Ostatedchi]

Disagree. The dude in Tulsa bought his AR the morning of the shooting. Would he still have perpetrated the shooting spree even if he had to wait a longer time to acquire the weapon? Possibly. But any extra steps or timeframe in the intervening days could possibly prevent a tragedy. It’s worth trying. And if you want to buy a firearm and you need to wait a week or more, then I think most folks are adults who can handle that.

But if a proper, thorough background check can be accomplished instantly then the wait isn’t something that should be done. Are you going to prevent a battered woman from getting a firearm to protect herself from an abusive husband?

You might prevent some killings but enable others. Is the trade off worth it? Doubtful.

 

[CowboyJD]

Encouraging more responsible storage is totally fine. But how do you legislate that in a way that would (as the goal of this thread states) reduce or mitigate shooting deaths. It might help a very few accidental child deaths - and that’s a good thing. But it’ll do nothing to stop someone on a spree.

Antything proposed that would have some impact would have to be proactive. That’s a difficult proposition with the 2nd amendment and due process clause.

You can’t take someone’s rights away with out due process. But can you do so for something that they might do at some time in the future?

Propose a solution that doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment and due process that’ll actually be effective and then we’d have a real conversation. Until then, this is an exercise in mental masturbation.

Emergency mental health hearings for weapon seizure and banning of a specific limited duration with similar due process to that in victim protection orders wouldn’t violate the 2nd amendment and would be a good first step the mental health aspects of the issue.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Emergency mental health hearings for weapon seizure and banning of a specific limited duration with similar due process to that in victim protection orders wouldn’t violate the 2nd amendment and would be a good first step the mental health aspects of the issue.

Finally a workable and effective proposal. Totally in favor of this.

Pretty sure that's something already in place and wouldn't require new legluslation. If not, then let's get the legislation passed asap.

 

[CowboyJD]

My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way.

With the advent of social media and a screen for every hand, from which to compare, glamorize, grow envious of, belittle, and dehumanize, many at the fringes of society are further ostracized than ever before.

The bottom 10% (pick a threshold) in intelligence, attractiveness, ability to produce income, ability to relate, are not being looked out for.....as almost everybody else is on a magic carpet ride brought to you by Netflix, Bumble/Tinder, Instagram, twitter, Amazon, hollywood, MSM, e.t.c e.t.c

Single variable solutions, like "ban X" or "restrict y," seem to me as either simple minded, disingenuous, or not well though out. They don't tell a fraction of the story nor address the issues in the comprehensive way it ought to be addressed, which is mostly societal/cultural vs policy.

(Repeat of intro) My humble opinion is that we need to start treating each other better. We need to start looking for who is hurting. We need to invite the awkward kid or office mate to the team event or weekend outing. Everybody desires to feel the option of being included. Everybody has the desire to feel that they matter in some way.

What concrete suggestions do you have to get us all to start treating each other better.

 

[CowboyJD]

Finally a workable and effective proposal. Totally in favor of this.

Pretty sure that's something already in place and wouldn't require new legluslation. If not, then let's get the legislation passed asap.

In Oklahoma, we have a law PROHIBITING the use of such actions.

It’s definitely not something already in place and if there was federal law in place for it, I would be barred by state statute from utilizing it as a prosecutor as would local and state law enforcement agencies.

 

[dignon003]

AR’s sold in the U.S. are not fully automatic. If they have been converted to automatic and sold, then the law has already violated.

never said anything about an AR being full auto. Simply said he bought a gun with a modified trigger 3 days after buying his first AR and 1,000 rounds of ammo. I believe he bought the second one online.

 

[dignon003]

Come on man, don't cheapen their boogeyman. The dreaded AR....aka "assault rifle"....aka "weapon of war"!

No neither of those are a weapon of war. That would be my M-16 I used to carry when I was in the Air Force.

 

[BiloxiPoke]

In Oklahoma, we have a law PROHIBITING the use of such actions.

It’s definitely not something already in place and if there was federal law in place for it, I would be barred by state statute from utilizing it as a prosecutor as would local and state law enforcement agencies.

Imagine That ™️

 

[Ostatedchi]

In Oklahoma, we have a law PROHIBITING the use of such actions.

It’s definitely not something already in place and if there was federal law in place for it, I would be barred by state statute from utilizing it as a prosecutor as would local and state law enforcement agencies.

Then time for a change.