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.
As a Liberal Republican in my opinion the GOP should support a House and Senate Committee on the study of gun violence and allow the CDCC to conduct one as well, implement Universal Background checks with the exception of private transfers between family members and increase funding and research on the issue of mental health. I also would strongly support mandatory life sentences to those convicted of gun crimes that result in the injury and or death of an individual or individuals. We have to many people who get out of prison and choose to commit crimes and maybe if they had a lifelong sentence this wouldn't happen.
The CDC has done the study. The liberals didn't like the answer.
Maybe, though with the increase of mass shootings, it might be worth it for some intervention in mental health that prevents some from having access to guns.
But I am aware my ideas are liberal and never going to be accepted by the right wingers, therefore I would rather hear their ideas.
Hey, I'm just pointing out that in the pursuit to reduce shootings, don't throw everything else out of the window.
If medical history is determined through congressional action to be in the public interest, that means all medical history. You can't have access to gun owners medical health records (or deny them access to a constitutional right, if they do not voluntarily provide it), if you wish to maintain privacy in all other aspects.
That is as much a slippery slope for every other right, as well as the 2nd.
Look I know as a gun owner I'm weird, I'm pro-drug legalization (even the dangerous ones), pro-prostitution legalization, pro-choice, basically I'm for people being able to choose to live their lives as they see fit as long as it's not causing harm to others. However losing that right to privacy of medical history to limit gun ownership, makes me highly concerned not for gun rights, but for all rights that a government (local, state, federal) could use that principle to limit peoples exercise of free will.
Maybe, though with the increase of mass shootings, it might be worth it for some intervention in mental health that prevents some from having access to guns.
I do agree we need more attention on mental health issues. There needs to be some kind of communication in certain cases. There needs to be a thorough study on it by a panel of very qualified professionals. Something needs to be implemented to accomplish the issue without infringing on our constitutional rights.
New York Democrats debuted a bill in the U.S. House this week that would
mandate a $100 per-firearm tax on gun sales and equip them with a passive
identification capability.
Let the fricken NY Libs shove a RFID chip up their collective a$$es
As a Liberal Republican in my opinion the GOP should support a House and Senate Committee on the study of gun violence and allow the CDCC to conduct one as well, implement Universal Background checks with the exception of private transfers between family members and increase funding and research on the issue of mental health. I also would strongly support mandatory life sentences to those convicted of gun crimes that result in the injury and or death of an individual or individuals. We have to many people who get out of prison and choose to commit crimes and maybe if they had a lifelong sentence this wouldn't happen.
I would actually support these ideas, especially if we got rid of all the dumb drug laws that have people in prison for drug possession. We could free up a lot of room in prison for the people who should be serving long sentences.
Though the private transfer of guns between family members is one I would still be iffy about simply because one could buy a gun for their dangerously mentally unstable child to bypass the gun laws.
Hey, I'm just pointing out that in the pursuit to reduce shootings, don't throw everything else out of the window.
If medical history is determined through congressional action to be in the public interest, that means all medical history. You can't have access to gun owners medical health records (or deny them access to a constitutional right, if they do not voluntarily provide it), if you wish to maintain privacy in all other aspects.
That is as much a slippery slope for every other right, as well as the 2nd.
Look I know as a gun owner I'm weird, I'm pro-drug legalization (even the dangerous ones), pro-prostitution legalization, pro-choice, basically I'm for people being able to choose to live their lives as they see fit as long as it's not causing harm to others. However losing that right to privacy of medical history to limit gun ownership, makes me highly concerned not for gun rights, but for all rights that a government (local, state, federal) could use that principle to limit peoples exercise of free will.
Well that is what I support, that is why I keep asking for the right wingers to be the ones to come up with solutions because I am well aware the ideas I support will never gain right wing support unless we are talking about a woman's uterus.....then they seem to want to be all involved in those decisions....go figure.
background checks are already federal, not state. as for tightening background checks, how much tighter do you want them to be? want to buy a gun, you have to fill out 4473, and the dealer has to run the form, even at a gun show. you cant buy a gun on the internet and have it shipped directly to your home, it has to go to a licensed gun dealer, where you can then pick it up, AFTER filling out 4473 and having it checked.
which medical records? all of them? or just mental health records? dont forget about the hippa laws that also have to be followed.
remove guns from people who have domestic violence calls against them? is that before or after due process?
a requirement for training and storage? you do realize that violates the second amendment right? remember shall not be infringed? and while i agree that people should be trained in gun safety, right now you cannot add it as a requirement, sorry.
as for stopping the rampage shootings, i honestly do not know what can be done given the restrictions of the second amendment.
I could have not said this better myself
Filled out the form and background check yesterday.
Ive seen quite a few purchases placed on hold because of the need for deeper check. Yesterday, the salesman told us that someone who lost over a hundred pounds (weight on form and also on state driver's license) it took almost 3 days to be approved.
This is a high volume store, well over 3,000,000.00 in inventory. I asked how many purchases fail the background check. He said a minimum of 10-15 a week. BTW, that's the same failed checks at another lower volume store in our area.
Well that is what I think should be done, but I am aware that upsets my fellow right wingers which is why I would rather ask right wingers what should be done. Unfortunately they would rather sit on their hands doing nothing as more and more mass shootings happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Maybe, though with the increase of mass shootings, it might be worth it for some intervention in mental health that prevents some from having access to guns.
But I am aware my ideas are liberal and never going to be accepted by the right wingers, therefore I would rather hear their ideas.
i dont get upset when you and others make the suggestions you do, why should i? all your suggestions violate the constitution in one way or another. either you violate the "shall not be infringed" clause, or you violate the privacy clause, all because you want a little more secure feeling.
what you forget though is that regardless of what you suggest, nothing will change. lets say for instance all your suggestions go through, and we have stricter background checks, and medical records are included in those background checks, and the only way to legally transfer a firearm is to have even private citizens run a background check.
and lets even include gun registration, waiting periods, gun sales limits, etc.
the net effect of all that on gun crimes, and rampage shootings will be exactly zero at best, at worst we will see an increase in these things. why? because the criminals know that a law abiding citizen getting and carrying a firearm has just gotten harder, and that means they are LESS likely to face a firearm when they commit a crime, or commit a rampage shooting.
we create gun free zones, and security actually goes down. sandy hook, university of virginia, colombine, among other rampage shooting locations. what do all of these places have in common? they are all gun free zones.
in the end regardless of what we do, rampage shootings are still going to happen, and in numbers like they are happening now. but go ahead and spout your gun grabber ideas, and continue to tell us how getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will make places safer from rampage shootings, and other criminal activity, it makes great fiction.
utopia does not exist and never will, but go ahead and continue to push the idea, and let people know just how far in the clouds your head in the sand really is.
i dont get upset when you and others make the suggestions you do, why should i? all your suggestions violate the constitution in one way or another. either you violate the "shall not be infringed" clause, or you violate the privacy clause, all because you want a little more secure feeling.
what you forget though is that regardless of what you suggest, nothing will change. lets say for instance all your suggestions go through, and we have stricter background checks, and medical records are included in those background checks, and the only way to legally transfer a firearm is to have even private citizens run a background check.
and lets even include gun registration, waiting periods, gun sales limits, etc.
the net effect of all that on gun crimes, and rampage shootings will be exactly zero at best, at worst we will see an increase in these things. why? because the criminals know that a law abiding citizen getting and carrying a firearm has just gotten harder, and that means they are LESS likely to face a firearm when they commit a crime, or commit a rampage shooting.
we create gun free zones, and security actually goes down. sandy hook, university of virginia, colombine, among other rampage shooting locations. what do all of these places have in common? they are all gun free zones.
in the end regardless of what we do, rampage shootings are still going to happen, and in numbers like they are happening now. but go ahead and spout your gun grabber ideas, and continue to tell us how getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will make places safer from rampage shootings, and other criminal activity, it makes great fiction.
utopia does not exist and never will, but go ahead and continue to push the idea, and let people know just how far in the clouds your head in the sand really is.
Well, if I remember correctly, you asked me what would I do, I gave you that answer.
The chances someone is going to spend thousands for black market guns for mass shootings is highly unlikely. This is proven in countries like Australia where something like a mass shooting is a rare occurrence.
So lets take away the excuse that is it the "gun free zones" that cause mass shootings. Once there is no more "gun free zones" and mass shootings continue, what next is the GOP going to propose to held decrease mass shootings in this country?
This isn't about creating a "utopia," this is about making mass shootings a rarity like they use to be in the US, and how they are a rarity in so many other countries. We are clearly doing something wrong, and I am tired of people sitting on their hands pretending like there is nothing that can be done.
Well, if I remember correctly, you asked me what would I do, I gave you that answer.
The chances someone is going to spend thousands for black market guns for mass shootings is highly unlikely. This is proven in countries like Australia where something like a mass shooting is a rare occurrence.
So lets take away the excuse that is it the "gun free zones" that cause mass shootings. Once there is no more "gun free zones" and mass shootings continue, what next is the GOP going to propose to held decrease mass shootings in this country?
This isn't about creating a "utopia," this is about making mass shootings a rarity like they use to be in the US, and how they are a rarity in so many other countries. We are clearly doing something wrong, and I am tired of people sitting on their hands pretending like there is nothing that can be done.
So tell me... What has changed to cause the recent rash of mass shootings? The same guns were available in the past as are available now. Given that, could it be that there is something else going wrong in our society that is the root cause? Shouldn't we be looking at what has changed?
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.
