Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The reason gun control won't happen

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
A fundamental lack of understanding. For decades, liberals have been gleefully ignorant about the basics of how firearms work. Features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs were seen by congressional overseers as turning an ordinary rifle into a deadly 'assault rifle'. Although the lesson was quickly learned by Democrats and no further gun control was pushed nationally until recently, the rhetoric hasn't changed.

Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles. And all of this ignores the fact that more people are killed by knifes annually than rifles and that rifle murders are dwarfed by handgun murders. On top of this, even with supposed "compromises" gun owners aren't given anything other than being allowed to keep a smaller part of their rights. It's no surprise, then, that gun owners reject the proposals of ignorant morons who can't be bothered to learn about what they want to ban.

Occasionally, the liberal facade slips - references to Australia and the UK's gun laws pop up, which of course not only banned semi-automatic rifles but also confiscated them from all gun owners. It turns out, the people derided as being ignorant rednecks who want to grab guns because Obama is black are smarter than expected. They have fought against any gun control. Pushed at for so long, their natural reaction is "no".

In order for any gun law to ever be passed nationally, three things will need to happen:
1) Liberals will need to recognize a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including semi-automatic rifles.
2) Liberals will need to abandon their quest to ban any type of firearm, for any reason.
3) Liberals will need to understand the issue, including how firearms work.
4) Liberals will need to offer something to gun owners in return.

Of course, accepting the right to keep and bear arms admits government cannot intrude much. Abandoning quests to ban scary-looking guns leaves only hunting rifles and handguns, which are popular, and understanding how guns work renders cosmetic bans impossible. And offering something in return means an expansion of rights roughly equal to inconvenience. This limits gun control to mostly what we already have: a near-total ban on actual military-grade weapons (including fully-automatic rifles, rocket launchers, nukes, flamethrowers, etc.), a basic right to own any number of firearms for purposes including but not limited to hunting, defense, and sporting, a background check system before most gun purchases, and a permit system for gun owners who wish to concealed carry their guns.

In this scenario, what could be possible? I don't see any gun law moving forward without the following big carrots for gun owners:
*Expanded hunting rights on federal land.
*Revoking the NFA restrictions on certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles as well as suppressors
*Repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act
*National concealed carry reciprocity (provided the states meet a minimum safety requirement)

Of course, Democrats would never accept even two of these. So gun control will remain a pipe dream for Democrats: a wedge issue to fundraise off of.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:38:43 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
A fundamental lack of understanding. For decades, liberals have been gleefully ignorant about the basics of how firearms work. Features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs were seen by congressional overseers as turning an ordinary rifle into a deadly 'assault rifle'. Although the lesson was quickly learned by Democrats and no further gun control was pushed nationally until recently, the rhetoric hasn't changed.

Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles. And all of this ignores the fact that more people are killed by knifes annually than rifles and that rifle murders are dwarfed by handgun murders. On top of this, even with supposed "compromises" gun owners aren't given anything other than being allowed to keep a smaller part of their rights. It's no surprise, then, that gun owners reject the proposals of ignorant morons who can't be bothered to learn about what they want to ban.

Occasionally, the liberal facade slips - references to Australia and the UK's gun laws pop up, which of course not only banned semi-automatic rifles but also confiscated them from all gun owners. It turns out, the people derided as being ignorant rednecks who want to grab guns because Obama is black are smarter than expected. They have fought against any gun control. Pushed at for so long, their natural reaction is "no".

In order for any gun law to ever be passed nationally, three things will need to happen:
1) Liberals will need to recognize a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including semi-automatic rifles.
2) Liberals will need to abandon their quest to ban any type of firearm, for any reason.
3) Liberals will need to understand the issue, including how firearms work.
4) Liberals will need to offer something to gun owners in return.

Of course, accepting the right to keep and bear arms admits government cannot intrude much. Abandoning quests to ban scary-looking guns leaves only hunting rifles and handguns, which are popular, and understanding how guns work renders cosmetic bans impossible. And offering something in return means an expansion of rights roughly equal to inconvenience. This limits gun control to mostly what we already have: a near-total ban on actual military-grade weapons (including fully-automatic rifles, rocket launchers, nukes, flamethrowers, etc.), a basic right to own any number of firearms for purposes including but not limited to hunting, defense, and sporting, a background check system before most gun purchases, and a permit system for gun owners who wish to concealed carry their guns.

In this scenario, what could be possible? I don't see any gun law moving forward without the following big carrots for gun owners:
*Expanded hunting rights on federal land.
*Revoking the NFA restrictions on certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles as well as suppressors
*Repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act
*National concealed carry reciprocity (provided the states meet a minimum safety requirement)

Of course, Democrats would never accept even two of these. So gun control will remain a pipe dream for Democrats: a wedge issue to fundraise off of.

Even with your stated caveats, you have not offered what sort of gun control measures would be acceptable to you or the NRA-- you seem to admit that the only acceptable measures already exist, so you are not really offering anything resembling a compromise on the issue going forward...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:46:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:38:43 AM, Fly wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
A fundamental lack of understanding. For decades, liberals have been gleefully ignorant about the basics of how firearms work. Features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs were seen by congressional overseers as turning an ordinary rifle into a deadly 'assault rifle'. Although the lesson was quickly learned by Democrats and no further gun control was pushed nationally until recently, the rhetoric hasn't changed.

Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles. And all of this ignores the fact that more people are killed by knifes annually than rifles and that rifle murders are dwarfed by handgun murders. On top of this, even with supposed "compromises" gun owners aren't given anything other than being allowed to keep a smaller part of their rights. It's no surprise, then, that gun owners reject the proposals of ignorant morons who can't be bothered to learn about what they want to ban.

Occasionally, the liberal facade slips - references to Australia and the UK's gun laws pop up, which of course not only banned semi-automatic rifles but also confiscated them from all gun owners. It turns out, the people derided as being ignorant rednecks who want to grab guns because Obama is black are smarter than expected. They have fought against any gun control. Pushed at for so long, their natural reaction is "no".

In order for any gun law to ever be passed nationally, three things will need to happen:
1) Liberals will need to recognize a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including semi-automatic rifles.
2) Liberals will need to abandon their quest to ban any type of firearm, for any reason.
3) Liberals will need to understand the issue, including how firearms work.
4) Liberals will need to offer something to gun owners in return.

Of course, accepting the right to keep and bear arms admits government cannot intrude much. Abandoning quests to ban scary-looking guns leaves only hunting rifles and handguns, which are popular, and understanding how guns work renders cosmetic bans impossible. And offering something in return means an expansion of rights roughly equal to inconvenience. This limits gun control to mostly what we already have: a near-total ban on actual military-grade weapons (including fully-automatic rifles, rocket launchers, nukes, flamethrowers, etc.), a basic right to own any number of firearms for purposes including but not limited to hunting, defense, and sporting, a background check system before most gun purchases, and a permit system for gun owners who wish to concealed carry their guns.

In this scenario, what could be possible? I don't see any gun law moving forward without the following big carrots for gun owners:
*Expanded hunting rights on federal land.
*Revoking the NFA restrictions on certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles as well as suppressors
*Repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act
*National concealed carry reciprocity (provided the states meet a minimum safety requirement)

Of course, Democrats would never accept even two of these. So gun control will remain a pipe dream for Democrats: a wedge issue to fundraise off of.

Even with your stated caveats, you have not offered what sort of gun control measures would be acceptable to you or the NRA-- you seem to admit that the only acceptable measures already exist, so you are not really offering anything resembling a compromise on the issue going forward...

The proposal, sponsored by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, failed to get the 60 votes for passage. The vote was 53-47, largely along party lines. Some Senate Democrats warned that the legislation's revised definition of who would be considered mentally ill could potentially still allow those with significant psychological issues to legally purchase guns....

ok a weak but passable excuse for not attempting even some measure of control....

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.

Absolutely no excuse here. this is a bill virtually identical to a proposal presented by the Dems.

Dems don't even want to pull the trigger on "partial" measures that would increase gun control, citing minutia as excuses for voting NO on gun control. It's all a big D.C. Barnum circus in an election year.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:47:30 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:38:43 AM, Fly wrote:
No Fly, no buy
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 5:22:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:47:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:38:43 AM, Fly wrote:
No Fly, no buy

They can deny us our high speed travel, but they absolutely cannot deny us our high speed projectiles!
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 6:20:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Even if all the guns were outlawed, the police would be about as successful as stopping people from buying them as they have been at stopping us buying drugs.
The majority of guns are used for hunting, a recreational activity where people have fun killing animals. Outlawing hunting is the hidden agenda behind gun control.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:03:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 6:20:52 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Even if all the guns were outlawed, the police would be about as successful as stopping people from buying them as they have been at stopping us buying drugs.
The majority of guns are used for hunting, a recreational activity where people have fun killing animals. Outlawing hunting is the hidden agenda behind gun control.

PETA conspiracy instead of concern of using fire arms for mass killing?
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:03:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 4:47:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:38:43 AM, Fly wrote:
No Fly, no buy

Not possible until background check loopholes closed.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 1:08:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 1:03:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:47:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 4:38:43 AM, Fly wrote:
No Fly, no buy

Not possible until background check loopholes closed.

There's a ton of reforms that need to happen.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
A fundamental lack of understanding. For decades, liberals have been gleefully ignorant about the basics of how firearms work. Features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs were seen by congressional overseers as turning an ordinary rifle into a deadly 'assault rifle'. Although the lesson was quickly learned by Democrats and no further gun control was pushed nationally until recently, the rhetoric hasn't changed.

Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles. And all of this ignores the fact that more people are killed by knifes annually than rifles and that rifle murders are dwarfed by handgun murders. On top of this, even with supposed "compromises" gun owners aren't given anything other than being allowed to keep a smaller part of their rights. It's no surprise, then, that gun owners reject the proposals of ignorant morons who can't be bothered to learn about what they want to ban.

Occasionally, the liberal facade slips - references to Australia and the UK's gun laws pop up, which of course not only banned semi-automatic rifles but also confiscated them from all gun owners. It turns out, the people derided as being ignorant rednecks who want to grab guns because Obama is black are smarter than expected. They have fought against any gun control. Pushed at for so long, their natural reaction is "no".

In order for any gun law to ever be passed nationally, three things will need to happen:
1) Liberals will need to recognize a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including semi-automatic rifles.
2) Liberals will need to abandon their quest to ban any type of firearm, for any reason.
3) Liberals will need to understand the issue, including how firearms work.
4) Liberals will need to offer something to gun owners in return.

Of course, accepting the right to keep and bear arms admits government cannot intrude much. Abandoning quests to ban scary-looking guns leaves only hunting rifles and handguns, which are popular, and understanding how guns work renders cosmetic bans impossible. And offering something in return means an expansion of rights roughly equal to inconvenience. This limits gun control to mostly what we already have: a near-total ban on actual military-grade weapons (including fully-automatic rifles, rocket launchers, nukes, flamethrowers, etc.), a basic right to own any number of firearms for purposes including but not limited to hunting, defense, and sporting, a background check system before most gun purchases, and a permit system for gun owners who wish to concealed carry their guns.

In this scenario, what could be possible? I don't see any gun law moving forward without the following big carrots for gun owners:
*Expanded hunting rights on federal land.
*Revoking the NFA restrictions on certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles as well as suppressors
*Repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act
*National concealed carry reciprocity (provided the states meet a minimum safety requirement)

Of course, Democrats would never accept even two of these. So gun control will remain a pipe dream for Democrats: a wedge issue to fundraise off of.

I agree with much of what you said, but a couple quick points jump out for me.

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right
2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)
3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...
4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.
5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

Discuss any point if you like.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:17:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
TO OP:

It's way simpler. The reason gun control as currently is pending in congress will not happen is because it is disasterously stupid, and too dangerous a precedent to set. This is literally for one purpose: to ensure that certain vulnerable democrats get reelected. There is no other reason.

The watch list proposal is the single stupidest thing that the Democratic party has come up with since the Clinton years.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:23:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
A fundamental lack of understanding. For decades, liberals have been gleefully ignorant about the basics of how firearms work. Features like barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs were seen by congressional overseers as turning an ordinary rifle into a deadly 'assault rifle'. Although the lesson was quickly learned by Democrats and no further gun control was pushed nationally until recently, the rhetoric hasn't changed.

Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles. And all of this ignores the fact that more people are killed by knifes annually than rifles and that rifle murders are dwarfed by handgun murders. On top of this, even with supposed "compromises" gun owners aren't given anything other than being allowed to keep a smaller part of their rights. It's no surprise, then, that gun owners reject the proposals of ignorant morons who can't be bothered to learn about what they want to ban.

Occasionally, the liberal facade slips - references to Australia and the UK's gun laws pop up, which of course not only banned semi-automatic rifles but also confiscated them from all gun owners. It turns out, the people derided as being ignorant rednecks who want to grab guns because Obama is black are smarter than expected. They have fought against any gun control. Pushed at for so long, their natural reaction is "no".

In order for any gun law to ever be passed nationally, three things will need to happen:
1) Liberals will need to recognize a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including semi-automatic rifles.
2) Liberals will need to abandon their quest to ban any type of firearm, for any reason.
3) Liberals will need to understand the issue, including how firearms work.
4) Liberals will need to offer something to gun owners in return.

Of course, accepting the right to keep and bear arms admits government cannot intrude much. Abandoning quests to ban scary-looking guns leaves only hunting rifles and handguns, which are popular, and understanding how guns work renders cosmetic bans impossible. And offering something in return means an expansion of rights roughly equal to inconvenience. This limits gun control to mostly what we already have: a near-total ban on actual military-grade weapons (including fully-automatic rifles, rocket launchers, nukes, flamethrowers, etc.), a basic right to own any number of firearms for purposes including but not limited to hunting, defense, and sporting, a background check system before most gun purchases, and a permit system for gun owners who wish to concealed carry their guns.

In this scenario, what could be possible? I don't see any gun law moving forward without the following big carrots for gun owners:
*Expanded hunting rights on federal land.
*Revoking the NFA restrictions on certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles as well as suppressors
*Repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act
*National concealed carry reciprocity (provided the states meet a minimum safety requirement)

Of course, Democrats would never accept even two of these. So gun control will remain a pipe dream for Democrats: a wedge issue to fundraise off of.

I agree with much of what you said, but a couple quick points jump out for me.

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

Mine as well.

2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)

Depends on what you mean. Inner city culture and extreme right wingers? Sure.

3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...

I didn't say gun murders, I said rifle murders. In 2013 only 285 people were killed by rifles as opposed to 1,490 by knives and 5,782 by handguns. My point being: you are more likely to be murdered by a knife or handgun than a scary assault weapon. But handguns are very popular and harder to make up cosmetic bans on.

4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.

How so?

5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

If you are trying to ban something, you should at least have a basic understanding of what you are trying to ban.

https://youtube.com...

Discuss any point if you like.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 2:47:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I agree with much of what you said, but a couple quick points jump out for me.

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

Mine as well.

2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)

Depends on what you mean. Inner city culture and extreme right wingers? Sure.

I mean just about everywhere. Guns have become an unusual fetish for many Americans. The hunters of my fathers generation didn't suffer this fetish.


3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...

I didn't say gun murders, I said rifle murders. In 2013 only 285 people were killed by rifles as opposed to 1,490 by knives and 5,782 by handguns. My point being: you are more likely to be murdered by a knife or handgun than a scary assault weapon. But handguns are very popular and harder to make up cosmetic bans on.

Fair enough.


4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.

How so?

What is the purpose of a bayonet lug? What can it be used for?
What is the purpose of having easy to use magazines? What can it be used for?
What is the purpose of making a shorter gun (folding stock, short barrel)? What can it be used for?
What is the purpose of camouflage? What can it be used for?

Point is, for every thing you add to a gun, some tactical advantage is potentially added.
These are reasonable grounds to discuss limiting. Not all will be a good target to "ban", but dismissing them are "just cosmetic" is simply not right.


5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

If you are trying to ban something, you should at least have a basic understanding of what you are trying to ban.

https://youtube.com...

People can know well the effect. People who suffer from the effects. There is no other place we insist that people pass a test to have an opinion. If that were true, climate change would not be a topic at all.


Discuss any point if you like.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:04:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles.

To be honest, I only used this feature in Basic Training once and a few times at the range. It isn't practical even for suppresive fire to utilize automatic. I will say that it's very easy to get a quality trigger that makes your semi-automatic nearly automatic and legally.

The only thing that makes the AR more deadly than a pistol would be the range/accuracy as well as the magazine capacity. I'm sorry to say but it takes all but a second to switch magazines in a pistol though and they weigh very little and are more maneuverable in tight quarters and you can get extended magazines for pistols.

If they were to try and ban extended magazines, you can print your own magazines.

http://www.forbes.com...

A shotgun and 1-2 pistols would be very similar carnage in close quarters to the Pulse night club.

Criminals will always circumvent laws, and gun manufacturers will as well. Boston with Pressure cookers, Oklahoma with fertilizer, New York with planes, etc.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:09:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

It did...2 senate proposals shot down dead unanimously by Dems.
Explain that..explain why it was so vitally necessary for the Dem. Senators to insist unanimously on zero progress for gun control.
2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)

That's reasonable.

3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...
4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.
Not sure about this.
5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

Fair enough.
Discuss any point if you like.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:11:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:17:44 PM, YYW wrote:
TO OP:

It's way simpler. The reason gun control as currently is pending in congress will not happen is because it is disasterously stupid, and too dangerous a precedent to set. This is literally for one purpose: to ensure that certain vulnerable democrats get reelected. There is no other reason.

The watch list proposal is the single stupidest thing that the Democratic party has come up with since the Clinton years.

The actual sane, workable proposals were quickly shot down in the Senate, and then completely obfuscated from the public with the House shenanigans.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:16:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:09:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

It did...2 senate proposals shot down dead unanimously by Dems.
Explain that..explain why it was so vitally necessary for the Dem. Senators to insist unanimously on zero progress for gun control.

Well, look. I think the last week in both the Senate and house were a mess. Both sides are saying the others lacked effectiveness. Truth is, ALL sides lacked effectiveness. All the bills should have gone down, and they did.

2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)

That's reasonable.

3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...
4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.
Not sure about this.

Look back a couple posts. I go into a little detail.

5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

Fair enough.
Discuss any point if you like.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:19:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:16:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:09:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

It did...2 senate proposals shot down dead unanimously by Dems.
Explain that..explain why it was so vitally necessary for the Dem. Senators to insist unanimously on zero progress for gun control.

Well, look. I think the last week in both the Senate and house were a mess. Both sides are saying the others lacked effectiveness. Truth is, ALL sides lacked effectiveness. All the bills should have gone down, and they did.

I disagree, did you actually read the Senate proposals on both sides? They read nothing like the House garbage.
The people are not served at all when zero progress is made on this issue. The Dems are unanimously against any progress in an election year.
Unanimously...think about it.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:22:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:17:44 PM, YYW wrote:
TO OP:

It's way simpler. The reason gun control as currently is pending in congress will not happen is because it is disasterously stupid, and too dangerous a precedent to set. This is literally for one purpose: to ensure that certain vulnerable democrats get reelected. There is no other reason.

The watch list proposal is the single stupidest thing that the Democratic party has come up with since the Clinton years.

You must hate Americans. 30,000 Amerucans are killed annually by guns. Mass killings are becoming increasing common because of the availability of weapons of war. Sensible gun control is needed to stem this increase in gun violence and that requires legislation. Get an education you retard.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:28:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:19:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:16:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:09:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

It did...2 senate proposals shot down dead unanimously by Dems.
Explain that..explain why it was so vitally necessary for the Dem. Senators to insist unanimously on zero progress for gun control.

Well, look. I think the last week in both the Senate and house were a mess. Both sides are saying the others lacked effectiveness. Truth is, ALL sides lacked effectiveness. All the bills should have gone down, and they did.

I disagree, did you actually read the Senate proposals on both sides? They read nothing like the House garbage.
The people are not served at all when zero progress is made on this issue. The Dems are unanimously against any progress in an election year.
Unanimously...think about it.

I know you want to read democratic conspiracy into it - they need the issue to bicker over. I doubt I will move you on that, or even care to try. ALL of the proposals were near worthless.

As I noted, I am not a huge fan of more gun control. If you want to do gun control, you have do just do it, and that is not going to happen. What I mean is, no semi-automatic anything. No exchangeable magazines. Confiscation. That is effective gun-control, and is not something that has more than single digit support in the US.

Work on actually changing the culture. I am not speaking of the "thugs". I am speaking of the near fetish we as Americans have with all things guns. The nonsense babbling about "good guy with a gun". The "packing - just in case". The "its a dangerous country, so...". The "I need a gun to fight off the tyrannical government". Its all just garbage.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:32:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:28:45 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:19:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:16:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:09:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

It did...2 senate proposals shot down dead unanimously by Dems.
Explain that..explain why it was so vitally necessary for the Dem. Senators to insist unanimously on zero progress for gun control.

Well, look. I think the last week in both the Senate and house were a mess. Both sides are saying the others lacked effectiveness. Truth is, ALL sides lacked effectiveness. All the bills should have gone down, and they did.

I disagree, did you actually read the Senate proposals on both sides? They read nothing like the House garbage.
The people are not served at all when zero progress is made on this issue. The Dems are unanimously against any progress in an election year.
Unanimously...think about it.

I know you want to read democratic conspiracy into it - they need the issue to bicker over. I doubt I will move you on that, or even care to try. ALL of the proposals were near worthless.

Even you agree that gun control needs to come from the right, but the fact is, Dems will never be allowed by Obama or Hillary to bring this to the presidential desk, especially in an election year. It would be Bill Clinton welfare reform all over again. It simply will never happen, no matter what the right brings to the table. A Bernie president could have made it happen though. I promise you that.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:43:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:32:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:28:45 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:19:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:16:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:09:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:14:43 PM, TBR wrote:

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

It did...2 senate proposals shot down dead unanimously by Dems.
Explain that..explain why it was so vitally necessary for the Dem. Senators to insist unanimously on zero progress for gun control.

Well, look. I think the last week in both the Senate and house were a mess. Both sides are saying the others lacked effectiveness. Truth is, ALL sides lacked effectiveness. All the bills should have gone down, and they did.

I disagree, did you actually read the Senate proposals on both sides? They read nothing like the House garbage.
The people are not served at all when zero progress is made on this issue. The Dems are unanimously against any progress in an election year.
Unanimously...think about it.

I know you want to read democratic conspiracy into it - they need the issue to bicker over. I doubt I will move you on that, or even care to try. ALL of the proposals were near worthless.

Even you agree that gun control needs to come from the right, but the fact is, Dems will never be allowed by Obama or Hillary to bring this to the presidential desk, especially in an election year. It would be Bill Clinton welfare reform all over again. It simply will never happen, no matter what the right brings to the table. A Bernie president could have made it happen though. I promise you that.

I say it needs to come from the right, because it will never get support, or be accepted, until it is the right (populous) that wants it. This little-bit-here little-bit-there stuff is not very helpful.

As I said, if you want to talk gun control for real, you have to do some radical things. Things that are not even in the realm of acceptable in the US at this point. It must be a cultural change first. I see no other way,
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:44:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:04:09 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles.

To be honest, I only used this feature in Basic Training once and a few times at the range. It isn't practical even for suppresive fire to utilize automatic. I will say that it's very easy to get a quality trigger that makes your semi-automatic nearly automatic and legally.

Exactly right. In light of this explanation, why do gun advocates ALWAYS (even this very OP) engage in a purely semantic argument over EXACTLY what constitutes an assault rifle when-- horrors!-- a journalist refers to an AR-15 et al as an "assault rifle/weapon"?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:44:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 2:47:26 PM, TBR wrote:
I agree with much of what you said, but a couple quick points jump out for me.

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

Mine as well.

2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)

Depends on what you mean. Inner city culture and extreme right wingers? Sure.

I mean just about everywhere. Guns have become an unusual fetish for many Americans. The hunters of my fathers generation didn't suffer this fetish.

Guns have undoubtably become more popular, but their rise is almost directly proportional to efforts to take them away starting with the assault weapons ban.

3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...

I didn't say gun murders, I said rifle murders. In 2013 only 285 people were killed by rifles as opposed to 1,490 by knives and 5,782 by handguns. My point being: you are more likely to be murdered by a knife or handgun than a scary assault weapon. But handguns are very popular and harder to make up cosmetic bans on.

Fair enough.

This is actually one of my big criticisms of the gun-control movement: they are focusing on a class on weapons that are responsible for only a fifth as many murders as knives and only 5% as many murders as handguns. Rifles aren't inherently more deadly or dangerous than other weapons - but, since they look scary, it is easier to ban than a handgun. If the gun control lobby was honest, they would try and target handguns - responsible for the vast majority of gun murders. The problem there is handguns are very popular and it is difficult to propose cosmetic bans.

4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.

How so?

What is the purpose of a bayonet lug? What can it be used for?

It's used to affix a bayonet. How is banning it useful for stopping shootings? An affixed bayonet actually makes a gun harder to handle, harder to carry, and harder to shoot. If you stab someone with it, you are vulnerable because you can't really shoot anyone other than the guy you stabbed. It's not useful for a mass shooting.

What is the purpose of having easy to use magazines? What can it be used for?

What do you mean by 'easy to use'? The purpose of having a large magazine is to shoot more bullets. This is useful for hunting, sporting, and defense.

What is the purpose of making a shorter gun (folding stock, short barrel)? What can it be used for?

The purpose would be to easier transport. This is useful for hunting and sporting, and doesn't make the weapon any more dangerous. A folding stock doesn't magically turn a hunting rifle into a deadly assault weapon.

What is the purpose of camouflage? What can it be used for?

Camouflage not only looks cool, it is also very useful for hunting.

Point is, for every thing you add to a gun, some tactical advantage is potentially added.
These are reasonable grounds to discuss limiting. Not all will be a good target to "ban", but dismissing them are "just cosmetic" is simply not right.

Except most of these are cosmetic. A pistol grip and a folding stock don't magically transform an ordinary hunting rifle into a deadly military-grade high-powered assault rifle.

5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

If you are trying to ban something, you should at least have a basic understanding of what you are trying to ban.

https://youtube.com...

People can know well the effect. People who suffer from the effects. There is no other place we insist that people pass a test to have an opinion. If that were true, climate change would not be a topic at all.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. I'm saying gun owners won't take you seriously and seriously consider your proposal if you have no idea what you are trying to ban. If you want to ban barrel shrouds, you better well know what they are. If you want to ban "automatic weapons", you look like a fool because automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930s. If you want to ban "military-grade weapons", focusing on the AR-15 is dumb because no military in the world uses it. You see what I mean? If you aren't willing to put even the slightest effort into understanding the issue and what you are trying to ban, I'm not going to be willing to take your proposal seriously.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:04:09 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles.

To be honest, I only used this feature in Basic Training once and a few times at the range. It isn't practical even for suppresive fire to utilize automatic. I will say that it's very easy to get a quality trigger that makes your semi-automatic nearly automatic and legally.

The only thing that makes the AR more deadly than a pistol would be the range/accuracy as well as the magazine capacity. I'm sorry to say but it takes all but a second to switch magazines in a pistol though and they weigh very little and are more maneuverable in tight quarters and you can get extended magazines for pistols.

If they were to try and ban extended magazines, you can print your own magazines.

http://www.forbes.com...

A shotgun and 1-2 pistols would be very similar carnage in close quarters to the Pulse night club.

Criminals will always circumvent laws, and gun manufacturers will as well. Boston with Pressure cookers, Oklahoma with fertilizer, New York with planes, etc.

My dad actually made an interesting argument. Wouldn't you rather the shooter in Orlando have actually had an automatic weapon? The entire magazine would have been expended in a second. He would've had to reload earlier and far more often, which could have resulted in less deaths.

I don't necessarily buy it, but it's an interesting point.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:47:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:22:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:17:44 PM, YYW wrote:
TO OP:

It's way simpler. The reason gun control as currently is pending in congress will not happen is because it is disasterously stupid, and too dangerous a precedent to set. This is literally for one purpose: to ensure that certain vulnerable democrats get reelected. There is no other reason.

The watch list proposal is the single stupidest thing that the Democratic party has come up with since the Clinton years.

You must hate Americans. 30,000 Amerucans are killed annually by guns. Mass killings are becoming increasing common because of the availability of weapons of war. Sensible gun control is needed to stem this increase in gun violence and that requires legislation. Get an education you retard.

ROFLMAO I'll bet you didn't even graduate high school
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:48:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:43:21 PM, TBR wrote:

I say it needs to come from the right, because it will never get support, or be accepted, until it is the right (populous) that wants it. This little-bit-here little-bit-there stuff is not very helpful.


Tibby, take a look at this:

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.

Do you really, truly believe this proposal would have made zero impact?
Do you also believe it would not lay the foundation for more gun control?

Mind you the main public outcry in Orlando was that the Feds were watching Mateen, and were unable to take his guns away. And the Dems blamed the NRA and the Reps for that....publicly blamed them over and over..saying the Dems have no chance to fix that loophole...

How do you justify a unanimous NO vote from the left???
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:53:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:46:24 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:04:09 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 6/23/2016 6:54:05 PM, TN05 wrote:
Standard rifles like the AR-15 are turned into "high-powered military grade assault rifles" - even though the AR-15 is actually a fairly weak gun, is not used by any military in the world, and lacks the automatic fire feature inherent in all assault rifles.

To be honest, I only used this feature in Basic Training once and a few times at the range. It isn't practical even for suppresive fire to utilize automatic. I will say that it's very easy to get a quality trigger that makes your semi-automatic nearly automatic and legally.

The only thing that makes the AR more deadly than a pistol would be the range/accuracy as well as the magazine capacity. I'm sorry to say but it takes all but a second to switch magazines in a pistol though and they weigh very little and are more maneuverable in tight quarters and you can get extended magazines for pistols.

If they were to try and ban extended magazines, you can print your own magazines.

http://www.forbes.com...

A shotgun and 1-2 pistols would be very similar carnage in close quarters to the Pulse night club.

Criminals will always circumvent laws, and gun manufacturers will as well. Boston with Pressure cookers, Oklahoma with fertilizer, New York with planes, etc.

My dad actually made an interesting argument. Wouldn't you rather the shooter in Orlando have actually had an automatic weapon? The entire magazine would have been expended in a second. He would've had to reload earlier and far more often, which could have resulted in less deaths.

I don't necessarily buy it, but it's an interesting point.

Also, besides from less accuracy, fully autos are prone to overheat and jam easily if not used in controlled bursts.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 3:58:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:44:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/24/2016 2:47:26 PM, TBR wrote:
I agree with much of what you said, but a couple quick points jump out for me.

1) It is my firm belief that any gun control will need to come from the right

Mine as well.

2) I don't think it is necessary to have ANY additional gun control, what is needed is a change in culture (see smoking)

Depends on what you mean. Inner city culture and extreme right wingers? Sure.

I mean just about everywhere. Guns have become an unusual fetish for many Americans. The hunters of my fathers generation didn't suffer this fetish.

Guns have undoubtably become more popular, but their rise is almost directly proportional to efforts to take them away starting with the assault weapons ban.


I disagree with this, but can understand where you are coming from. I think the narrative about guns has changed very substantially, and there is more than just backlash from the AWB.

3) You are so wrong with the knife thing. Gun deaths dwarf knife deaths
https://www.fbi.gov...

I didn't say gun murders, I said rifle murders. In 2013 only 285 people were killed by rifles as opposed to 1,490 by knives and 5,782 by handguns. My point being: you are more likely to be murdered by a knife or handgun than a scary assault weapon. But handguns are very popular and harder to make up cosmetic bans on.

Fair enough.

This is actually one of my big criticisms of the gun-control movement: they are focusing on a class on weapons that are responsible for only a fifth as many murders as knives and only 5% as many murders as handguns. Rifles aren't inherently more deadly or dangerous than other weapons - but, since they look scary, it is easier to ban than a handgun. If the gun control lobby was honest, they would try and target handguns - responsible for the vast majority of gun murders. The problem there is handguns are very popular and it is difficult to propose cosmetic bans.

Now wait. That is exactly what YOU are doing. You want to pick out rifles, and ignore the totality from guns. That is... dishonest.

However, I agree with you on the handguns. If we wanted to really do gun-control, it would be painful, and there just isn't close to enough support for any of it. (see my reply to gray above).


4) "Cosmetic" differences are VERY valid placed to put restrictions - I will discuss if you like.

How so?

What is the purpose of a bayonet lug? What can it be used for?

It's used to affix a bayonet. How is banning it useful for stopping shootings? An affixed bayonet actually makes a gun harder to handle, harder to carry, and harder to shoot. If you stab someone with it, you are vulnerable because you can't really shoot anyone other than the guy you stabbed. It's not useful for a mass shooting.

What is the purpose of having easy to use magazines? What can it be used for?

What do you mean by 'easy to use'? The purpose of having a large magazine is to shoot more bullets. This is useful for hunting, sporting, and defense.

What is the purpose of making a shorter gun (folding stock, short barrel)? What can it be used for?

The purpose would be to easier transport. This is useful for hunting and sporting, and doesn't make the weapon any more dangerous. A folding stock doesn't magically turn a hunting rifle into a deadly assault weapon.


What is the purpose of camouflage? What can it be used for?

Camouflage not only looks cool, it is also very useful for hunting.

Point is, for every thing you add to a gun, some tactical advantage is potentially added.
These are reasonable grounds to discuss limiting. Not all will be a good target to "ban", but dismissing them are "just cosmetic" is simply not right.

Except most of these are cosmetic. A pistol grip and a folding stock don't magically transform an ordinary hunting rifle into a deadly military-grade high-powered assault rifle.

I am not saying it is useful, or a good target for a ban. What I object to is gun-supporters dismissing these things as "cosmetic only". They are TACTICAL. They have use otherwise you wouldn't care about them. They are, regardless of effectiveness, reasonable grounds for discussion within the umbrella of "gun-control".

The folding stock you want so you can stick your gun in your trunk, CAN be used to help someone conceal it better. All these things DO have negative uses as well as perceived positive. It should be noted that your right to have a gun does not give you a right to put a knife on it, or have any gun you like.


5) You DON'T get to kick all people out of the argument because they don't know the finer points of firearms. This pisses me off every time. It IS the right of every old lady to have an opinion on these things without knowing every bit of ammo.

If you are trying to ban something, you should at least have a basic understanding of what you are trying to ban.

https://youtube.com...

People can know well the effect. People who suffer from the effects. There is no other place we insist that people pass a test to have an opinion. If that were true, climate change would not be a topic at all.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. I'm saying gun owners won't take you seriously and seriously consider your proposal if you have no idea what you are trying to ban. If you want to ban barrel shrouds, you better well know what they are. If you want to ban "automatic weapons", you look like a fool because automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930s. If you want to ban "military-grade weapons", focusing on the AR-15 is dumb because no military in the world uses it. You see what I mean? If you aren't willing to put even the slightest effort into understanding the issue and what you are trying to ban, I'm not going to be willing to take your proposal seriously.

Right. This is an issue to me. I have been in many arguments where the only point the gun-supporter wanted to make was to find some bit of gun related trivia so he could dismiss the others argument. It is very common when gun-supporters are talking to women. I have seen it time and time again. No, you don't need to know about the details of magazines to not only have an opinion, but to have an opinion that SHOULD be listened to by the other side. A mother, a doctor, or anyone else who may not know the trivia may have lots of information that is very valid - and is dismissed by gun-supporters in an inccredibly arrogant way.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2016 4:02:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/24/2016 3:48:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/24/2016 3:43:21 PM, TBR wrote:

I say it needs to come from the right, because it will never get support, or be accepted, until it is the right (populous) that wants it. This little-bit-here little-bit-there stuff is not very helpful.


Tibby, take a look at this:

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.

I know it well. You have been on a kick about this one since the vote.


Do you really, truly believe this proposal would have made zero impact?
Virtually none.

Do you also believe it would not lay the foundation for more gun control?
Nope. What it would have done is provided cover for Republicans during the election.


Mind you the main public outcry in Orlando was that the Feds were watching Mateen, and were unable to take his guns away. And the Dems blamed the NRA and the Reps for that....publicly blamed them over and over..saying the Dems have no chance to fix that loophole...
I have said the entire week has been an unproductive mess. Yea, I blame the NRA and republicans, but this bill is not good enough, and the Dem bill was just terrible.


How do you justify a unanimous NO vote from the left???
I don't! I am telling you that they ALL sucked.