Las Vegas massacre.

1456810

Comments

  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,799
    I think it's kind of dumb that the NRA and congress thinks this whole push to ban bump stocks is some sort of middle ground or huge deal. They should have never been legal to begin with and banning them does nothing to gun sales or gun owners so of course they will agree to this. Is it a positive, yes, but it doesn't change anything related to the other 99% of gun related suicides, murders and shootings.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,820
    tbergs said:
    I think it's kind of dumb that the NRA and congress thinks this whole push to ban bump stocks is some sort of middle ground or huge deal. They should have never been legal to begin with and banning them does nothing to gun sales or gun owners so of course they will agree to this. Is it a positive, yes, but it doesn't change anything related to the other 99% of gun related suicides, murders and shootings.
    Many republicans stance on guns is extremely far right, so when something like the bump mod ban is proposed, it gives the impression of a big compromise. 
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 9,455
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 9,455
    tbergs said:
    I think it's kind of dumb that the NRA and congress thinks this whole push to ban bump stocks is some sort of middle ground or huge deal. They should have never been legal to begin with and banning them does nothing to gun sales or gun owners so of course they will agree to this. Is it a positive, yes, but it doesn't change anything related to the other 99% of gun related suicides, murders and shootings.
    You hit the nail right on the head.  This is to pacify some people, that's all.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,350
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    who is telling you what to do with them?
    register them nationally (at least the semi-autos) then shove them up the end of the large intestine if you desire. own 117 AKs spread them on your bed and roll around with them naked.

    okay you win, dont register your guns then register the ammunition, every single bullet!
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 16,866
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Like i've said before many many times we all will be here again & again spewing the same shit over & over again , massacres aren't going anywhere there will be plenty more to debate about ! Backgroung checks that's laughable gun training laughable both of these the Vegas shooter passed with flying colors ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,527
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
    Well then they feed that paranoia by continuing to say that's what they want. Those examples are just as much to blame for the lack of new gun laws as any republican in my opinion. When they state they are basically unwilling to compromise, that makes the opposition take the same stance.
  • jnimhaoileoinjnimhaoileoin Baile Átha CliathPosts: 2,474
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 2,476
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    Now you understand how "Drain the Swamp" was so effective with the Trumpian base.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 16,866
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    It sure seems that way ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • dignindignin Posts: 5,198
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    People with that kind of paranoia are the first to own guns and the last people who should have guns.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,799
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Why no on the national registry? Are you concerned that the registry will some day be used to identify everyone who has guns and then they can take them because they know you have them? If that's the mindset, what does it matter if they know for sure? You'll either be using them to defend yourself if you think it's some sort of government coup or what, everyone who owns a gun will be targeted so agents on behalf of the government will be sent to seize their stockpile?

    By the way, what does one do with 17 guns upon their death? Will them away? My dad probably has over 50 guns and a stockpile of ammo that I have no idea what I'm going to do with when he dies because I don't want them, but I also don't want them redistributed to people who may use them for harm. I get the gun culture to a degree because I grew up in it, but I don't because it seems paranoid for the excessive ownership.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,604
    if they make me register my car they will come and take it from me! it's that simple! I'm a card carrying member of AAA, and damn proud of it!

    "...from my cold paved driveway"
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 20,957
    edited October 6
    Worth repeating here, I believe:

    https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=CA2F48A6-DFAE-4999-93D1-ED2C7347DC37

    Washington
    —Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a number of Democrats today introduced the Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act, a bill to close a loophole that allows semi-automatic weapons to be easily modified to fire at the rate of automatic weapons, which have been illegal for more than 30 years.

    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 13,399
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.


    theres a record of sale for each purchase through legal means.

    until you get to private sales.......
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 9,455
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    I look at laws like the right to abortion. There's a bunch of people really, really trying to repeal that right. That topic gets people all sorts of churned up. If the opposition actually gets their way and takes that right away it might be a long time before it comes back again, which again, most of you would be just fine if guns were removed from everyday life. 

    @dignin I'm the exact person you'd like to own a firearm actually. Thanks for painting me as a nutjob. 
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,897
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    I look at laws like the right to abortion. There's a bunch of people really, really trying to repeal that right. That topic gets people all sorts of churned up. If the opposition actually gets their way and takes that right away it might be a long time before it comes back again, which again, most of you would be just fine if guns were removed from everyday life. 

    @dignin I'm the exact person you'd like to own a firearm actually. Thanks for painting me as a nutjob. 
    Exactly no private citizen is the person I’d like to own a firearm; and if the need changed, law enforcement only using Tasers would be ideal.

    That being said, I believe that there’s been a bad job done of raising confidence that adding checks and balances would reduce the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands. It’s like the guns are all bees released from a jar, and now there will need to be an attempt to collect them back in that jar. 

    Tempo, if there was a clearly articulated and logical way that checks and balances added to gun rights, which COULD impede or limit your ability to own, but would certainly reduce gun violence - would you support it?
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 20,957
    I'm looking forward to Tempo's answer to Ben's question as it is an excellent and difficult one.

    In the meantime- what if we work to making the U.S. the kind of place where people are less likely to have guns because they are less likely  to feel the "need" to have a gun?  There are plenty of other countries like this that could serve as an example.
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    Agreed
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • Guns cause paranoia. Paranoia causes people to buy guns. And the circle keeps going. Its to late. Usa has gone way past the point of no return as far as i see.
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • Guns cause paranoia. Paranoia causes people to buy guns. And the circle keeps going. Its to late. Usa has gone way past the point of no return as far as i see.

    At some point in time... a responsible generation is going to do the right thing.

    They will get behind meaningful legislation that they know will not produce personal gratification in terms of immediate results. They will do so because they want their children to grow and prosper in a country where they can watch new releases in theaters, go to elementary school, and attend country music festivals without getting shot by some freak with a machine gun (yes... I know the weapons used in these events are not actually 'machine guns' but they may as well have been).

    Short of door to door confiscation... no legislation can remedy what ails the country in its current state. But strong laws can make a difference for Americans 20 years from now. I bet the people mowed down in Vegas wish their parents had pushed for obvious laws that would have kept awesome killing tools out of the hands of a deranged mutant.

    It has to start somewhere. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Guns cause paranoia. Paranoia causes people to buy guns. And the circle keeps going. Its to late. Usa has gone way past the point of no return as far as i see.

    It has to start somewhere. 
    As long as America remains staunch about the constitutional right to bear arms they will forever have problems like this.
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • True
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • brianlux said:
    I'm looking forward to Tempo's answer to Ben's question as it is an excellent and difficult one.

    In the meantime- what if we work to making the U.S. the kind of place where people are less likely to have guns because they are less likely  to feel the "need" to have a gun?  There are plenty of other countries like this that could serve as an example.
    I agree again
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 20,957
    Guns cause paranoia. Paranoia causes people to buy guns. And the circle keeps going. Its to late. Usa has gone way past the point of no return as far as i see.
    I agree.  It sure looks like this is going to get worse before it gets better.
    Guns cause paranoia. Paranoia causes people to buy guns. And the circle keeps going. Its to late. Usa has gone way past the point of no return as far as i see.

    At some point in time... a responsible generation is going to do the right thing.

    They will get behind meaningful legislation that they know will not produce personal gratification in terms of immediate results. They will do so because they want their children to grow and prosper in a country where they can watch new releases in theaters, go to elementary school, and attend country music festivals without getting shot by some freak with a machine gun (yes... I know the weapons used in these events are not actually 'machine guns' but they may as well have been).

    Short of door to door confiscation... no legislation can remedy what ails the country in its current state. But strong laws can make a difference for Americans 20 years from now. I bet the people mowed down in Vegas wish their parents had pushed for obvious laws that would have kept awesome killing tools out of the hands of a deranged mutant.

    It has to start somewhere. 
    I agree with this as well.  There are a lot of good people in the world.  We're better off surrounding ourselves as much as possible with good and caring people and set an example ourselves where and when we can.  I always look for hopeful improvements in this weary world!
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 9,455
    benjs said:
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    I look at laws like the right to abortion. There's a bunch of people really, really trying to repeal that right. That topic gets people all sorts of churned up. If the opposition actually gets their way and takes that right away it might be a long time before it comes back again, which again, most of you would be just fine if guns were removed from everyday life. 

    @dignin I'm the exact person you'd like to own a firearm actually. Thanks for painting me as a nutjob. 
    Exactly no private citizen is the person I’d like to own a firearm; and if the need changed, law enforcement only using Tasers would be ideal.

    That being said, I believe that there’s been a bad job done of raising confidence that adding checks and balances would reduce the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands. It’s like the guns are all bees released from a jar, and now there will need to be an attempt to collect them back in that jar. 

    Tempo, if there was a clearly articulated and logical way that checks and balances added to gun rights, which COULD impede or limit your ability to own, but would certainly reduce gun violence - would you support it?
    Of course I would entertain the conversation.  

    What would you propose?  I'm all ears.

    The part that gets me though is it "impedes" yet "adds" to gun rights?

    I will throw this back to your court and I will listen.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 9,455
    brianlux said:
    I'm looking forward to Tempo's answer to Ben's question as it is an excellent and difficult one.

    In the meantime- what if we work to making the U.S. the kind of place where people are less likely to have guns because they are less likely  to feel the "need" to have a gun?  There are plenty of other countries like this that could serve as an example.
    This is a GREAT reply.

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 13,399
    benjs said:
    tbergs said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    I look at laws like the right to abortion. There's a bunch of people really, really trying to repeal that right. That topic gets people all sorts of churned up. If the opposition actually gets their way and takes that right away it might be a long time before it comes back again, which again, most of you would be just fine if guns were removed from everyday life. 

    @dignin I'm the exact person you'd like to own a firearm actually. Thanks for painting me as a nutjob. 
    Exactly no private citizen is the person I’d like to own a firearm; and if the need changed, law enforcement only using Tasers would be ideal.

    That being said, I believe that there’s been a bad job done of raising confidence that adding checks and balances would reduce the prevalence of guns in the wrong hands. It’s like the guns are all bees released from a jar, and now there will need to be an attempt to collect them back in that jar. 

    Tempo, if there was a clearly articulated and logical way that checks and balances added to gun rights, which COULD impede or limit your ability to own, but would certainly reduce gun violence - would you support it?
    Of course I would entertain the conversation.  

    What would you propose?  I'm all ears.

    The part that gets me though is it "impedes" yet "adds" to gun rights?

    I will throw this back to your court and I will listen.


    checks and balances are whats added to existing rights.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • The car seems to be the new gun here in the UK. Some other nut job drives into people today outside history museum central london. Its just complete madness everywhere i fear for my childrens world
    brixton 93
    astoria 06
    albany 06
    hartford 06
    reading 06
    barcelona 06
    paris 06
    wembley 07
    dusseldorf 07
    nijmegen 07

    this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 20,957
    The car seems to be the new gun here in the UK. Some other nut job drives into people today outside history museum central london. Its just complete madness everywhere i fear for my childrens world
    I understand no one was killed but the driver was detained.  Do they know why he did that?
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
Sign In or Register to comment.