Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Insulting nonsense. The vast majority of gun owners are not "unhinged". And they don't sit around all day "plexing" on guns.
You clearly don't know anything about gun owners and who they really are.
I AM a gun owner. But I don't fetishize guns. I don't [censored]-off to Bushmaster advertisements. And I certainly don't give firearms to young people with Asperger's so bad that they cannot function in society.
I'm one of those gun owners who is ALL FOR sensible gun rules, background checks and similar. Why? I have nothing to hide; and I know the gub'mint isn't coming for my guns.
There are many, many people in America who have no business owning a spork, let alone a firearm. They can't handle it. Recent news shows this over and over. If we keep guns out of the hands of just a few of these freaks, some of the white-power-nitwits and the general RWNJ's, mission accomplished.
I'm one of those gun owners who is ALL FOR sensible gun rules, background checks and similar. Why? I have nothing to hide; and I know the gub'mint isn't coming for my guns.
No we cannot agree on that. I do hold the wine country and alcohol dealers and distributors accountable for the destructive nature of alcohol abuse. I've been quite dismayed that the hard liquor industry abandoned their long-time ban on TV advertising in favor of profits. Now, they spend 29 1/2 seconds selling alcohol with ads targeted at teens and 20-somethings, then excuse themselves with a 1/2 second barely audible "drink responsibly" at the end. Just like the firearm lobby, the alcohol industry has decided to put profits ahead of everything, and let the public be damned.
I won't answer this question, because I don't believe it's being asked sincerely by you or anyone else who asks it. I've seen from too many discussions on too many forums that pro-gun people don't want to have any sensible discussions about firearm regulations. This question is ALWAYS posed as bait so you and your cronies can point at it with a bunch of anecdotal "evidence" and cherry-picked stats to "prove why that won't work." So answering the question is nothing but an exercise in futility. I'm done with it. There is no reasonable discussion to have. And what you folks need to be concerned about is that I'm not unique. For every one of me talking on a forum, there are thousands like me who are fed up. The pro-gun lobby has been like a rubber band. You pull and pull thinking you can keep taking and taking and it's never going to snap. I have news for you. It will. And because of your intolerance for any kind of compromise, you're all going to get snapped in the face when enough people have had enough.
I wasn't singling you out as treating me with disrespect .............. I was referring to the entire tone of the conversation.
I'm not a fan of the NRA, but the gun control groups are no better. I was touting Gabby Giffords "Americans for Responsible Solutions" a few years back to my middle of the road friends. Her and her husband (who I considered a man amongst men) where testifying against evil assault weapons/large capacity magazines in DC, while contemporaneously buying an AR-15 for himself.
I agree that private sales should be regulated with a background check, but I still don't see any connection with that rule and prevention of mass shootings.
If your husband was a competitive handgun shooter in Connecticut and he favored a Pardini or a Bennelli or a Hammerli, to name a few, the government actually did ban those pieces. Once again if it doesn't affect you directly its easy to be cavalier about others rights. Once again I don't find the connection between Olympic-style pistols and mass murder. (Perhaps I met your husband on the line at Camp Perry years ago )
Once again I ask what is a viable solution to mass murder?
And I wasn't singling you out. Clearly the viable solution to stop mass murder in this Country would be to seize every gun - not something I would ever want to see happen, so instead of talking in terms of "solving" it, how about baby steps toward reducing the incidence? Just because we can't instantly cure cancer we don't reject treatments that might slow the spread or save some patients, right?
Some ideas - loosen HIPPA to allow mental health reporting for behavior that did not result in a formal commitment to a mental health institution, for individuals blocked through that process have a mechanism for them to visit a doctor and get a 'clearance'. (California suspends drivers licenses of people who have a medical condition that renders them unconscious and a procedure for reinstating the license, most people don't see it as an attack on their right to drive). If more mental health issues were reported, gun background checks would become far more meaningful, but even without that I think gun checks to deter some people from buying guns who shouldn't have them, here's an example That kid has been committed to a mental hospital but was able to legally buy a gun from a cop in Starbucks. Give the CDC the authority and funding to research gun violence and maybe we can learn enough to narrow this down and find solutions that don't get in the way of the rights of people to own guns.
There's no connection between competitive shooting and mass murders, I only mentioned it so that I wouldn't get pigeonholed as some kind of weirdo who wears a wreath of daisies while dancing to old John Denver songs I'm not trying to take anyone's guns away. Personally I don't understand why people need high cap magazines but it's way to late to even try to control their purchase or possession so I don't even mention it.
My husband never lived in Connecticut, only Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada & California & I don't think either of us are cavalier about other people's rights, if it comes across like that I apologize.
Nothing radical, nothing about taking your guns away.
Maybe, but that's not everyone:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoriBee62
...the more people like me become convinced there is simply no reasoning with you people and all guns should just be banned...
LoriBee62, can you give more details on this gun ban you speculate on? What would be included? Who would be included? How would it be executed? How well do you think this would go over? If there are 150,000,000 legally owned guns and 150,000,000 illegal guns out there, how will you get both groups of guns? Would you personally enlist in the army that would be required to forcibly remove firearms from the homes of citizens? Or would you leave that to others? Do you think they themselves should be armed while executing this seizure?
^ You're proving my point that RWNJ's can't wrap their heads around anything that isn't total prohibition.
It's an IF/THEN statement.
IF RWNJ's refuse to compromise on ANYTHING gun related, THEN there is a chance that a majority of people will become fed up and just ban guns entirely. It's called an "amendment" for a reason. Amendments can be themselves amended.
Maybe, but that's not everyone:LoriBee62, can you give more details on this gun ban you speculate on? What would be included? Who would be included? How would it be executed? How well do you think this would go over? If there are 150,000,000 legally owned guns and 150,000,000 illegal guns out there, how will you get both groups of guns? Would you personally enlist in the army that would be required to forcibly remove firearms from the homes of citizens? Or would you leave that to others?
You're kidding right? Those who propose banning and confiscating guns will be the last to participate. Nope... the irony is that they will try and use others who have guns to try and take guns from American citizens. Let's not forget, that should something like that EVER happen (which is unlikely), are they aware of the bloodshed, carnage, and outright civil unrest it would cause? Are they prepared for the fact that a lot of their fellow Americans could be killed over such an action?
I'm pointing out that when some people say they want "sensible gun control" and not "gun bans" that there definitely ARE those who DO want total gun bans, ALREADY. I know some of them in person. In fact my girlfriend would qualify as a Gun Control Nut. She and her entire family are vehement that no one should ever own a gun, no exceptions. They do exist. There are entire countries where gun ownership isn't allowed.
And I wondered what LoriBee thought said total gun ban would look like.
I am not "anti-gun," BTW …
I am a gun owner; former hunter; former NRA member …
Member of a law enforcement family
No, you are demonstrably anti-gun, and you are definitely not a gun owner, past or present. It's just your cover story so that ignorant people will think you have credibility on this issue. You use almost identical language to Bloomberg's paid trolls on Salon and HuffPo comment sections, and you parrot all of their talking points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
I'm not trying to take anyone's guns away. Personally I don't understand why people need high cap magazines but it's way to late to even try to control their purchase or possession so I don't even mention it. 
Let's not forget, that should something like that EVER happen (which is unlikely), are they aware of the bloodshed, carnage, and outright civil unrest it would cause? Are they prepared for the fact that a lot of their fellow Americans could be killed over such an action?