if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Your right about “insert subject here”
How bout we just get rid of both, right to choose and right to bear arms and everyone gets to live.
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
I have said multiple times that I don't mind making it a little more difficult to acquire a gun as long as I can still own it.
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:
I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds
rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of
civilians.
I see no reason to add any further technical details to that. You either agree, or not.
Brian, you have to specifically name the model and features of the types of firearms you'd like kept out of Civilian hands. I can't agree with you otherwise. Oh, please also list the manufacturer and part numbers. I just want to make sure that you don't try to limit my rights when trying to ban guns I may want to use when my buddies and I want to have a get together at the range and fire off a few hundred rounds when we celebrate our freedom this July 4th. Thanks!
Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem. No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.
Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.
I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...
Agreed.
If the pro gun crowd was sincere about fixing gun violence in America, they wouldn't be sitting around waiting for the anti-gun crowd to get their terminology straight.
The thing is no one was criticized for terminology or not understanding semantics of guns. Literaly all I said was you don’t need a ban on an AR15 (or assault rifles) but ban the features you don’t like. That want people don’t modify other guns to effectively be an assault rifle. That was my contribution to the discussion that lead to me being called self-righteous, accused of trying to use semantics to drown out the issue, etc, or saying no one here writes the laws. I know no one here writes the laws, but they always find loopholes. It took the Vegas shooting for the people who do write the laws to learn about bump stocks that turn a semi auto into effectively a fully auto. Maybe if they had sought out feedback from gun owners it wouldn’t have taken 50+ dead to learn about that loophole.
I still don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to know that a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective as they hoped and to hear from a gun owner what would be a more effective measure.
If gun owners saw the potential problem with bump stocks in advance of the Vegas shooting, then why not proactively say "hey, these could be a problem and here's why" instead of waiting to be asked about them in the wake of another mass shooting?
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:
I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds
rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of
civilians.
I see no reason to add any further technical details to that. You either agree, or not.
Brian, you have to specifically name the model and features of the types of firearms you'd like kept out of Civilian hands. I can't agree with you otherwise. Oh, please also list the manufacturer and part numbers. I just want to make sure that you don't try to limit my rights when trying to ban guns I may want to use when my buddies and I want to have a get together at the range and fire off a few hundred rounds when we celebrate our freedom this July 4th. Thanks!
Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem. No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.
Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.
I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...
Agreed.
If the pro gun crowd was sincere about fixing gun violence in America, they wouldn't be sitting around waiting for the anti-gun crowd to get their terminology straight.
The thing is no one was criticized for terminology or not understanding semantics of guns. Literaly all I said was you don’t need a ban on an AR15 (or assault rifles) but ban the features you don’t like. That want people don’t modify other guns to effectively be an assault rifle. That was my contribution to the discussion that lead to me being called self-righteous, accused of trying to use semantics to drown out the issue, etc, or saying no one here writes the laws. I know no one here writes the laws, but they always find loopholes. It took the Vegas shooting for the people who do write the laws to learn about bump stocks that turn a semi auto into effectively a fully auto. Maybe if they had sought out feedback from gun owners it wouldn’t have taken 50+ dead to learn about that loophole.
I still don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to know that a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective as they hoped and to hear from a gun owner what would be a more effective measure.
If gun owners saw the potential problem with bump stocks in advance of the Vegas shooting, then why not proactively say "hey, these could be a problem and here's why" instead of waiting to be asked about them in the wake of another mass shooting?
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
Because building safer schools to some means more armed guards, armed teachers, more guns, more guns, more guns. And it's not limited to just schools. We would need the same for places of worship, movie theaters, grocery stores, concerts, shopping malls, and on and on and on... We would be playing right into the hand of staunch 2A supporters and the NRA. I like that you are searching for solutions, but I don't see this one as effective.
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
Because building safer schools to some means more armed guards, armed teachers, more guns, more guns, more guns. And it's not limited to just schools. We would need the same for places of worship, movie theaters, grocery stores, concerts, shopping malls, and on and on and on... We would be playing right into the hand of staunch 2A supporters and the NRA. I like that you are searching for solutions, but I don't see this one as effective.
Exactly....we just need to look toward other countries. What did they do? We all know the answer to that.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The video of the police outside of the school in Texas doesn’t shine a good light of this situation…
I haven't seen it but I heard the police defending themselves since a few of them were shot.
It's a tough situation. They should have been prepared for this type of situation but they clearly weren't.
Those are some special tactics to be experienced with though. Going into a situation blind just means a higher body count (most likely).
Very sad all around and just gives more support for gun control. Make it as hard as possible to get these weapons instead of making it ridiculously easy.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Does 2A allow for a right to body armor? Seeing how the 14A doesn’t guarantee a right to an abortion and the last time I checked, body armor wasn’t specifically mentioned in the constitution.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
Also, sorry I'm going to go off here, but are you really going to compare abortion to gun ownership? That is fucking asinine. Last I checked, legal abortions don't mean that I can kill another woman's unborn baby. Each mother has to make that decision on her own or with her partner and even then there are restrictions on when and how the abortion can happen. If gun owners were only going to ever kill themselves, then fuck, I guess this wouldn't even be an issue. Don't get me wrong, suicide by firearm is also a major problem in this country, but it's just another reason we need stricter gun laws.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats’ first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas,
failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic
terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions
surrounding hate crimes and gun safety.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House
quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo,
New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color.
He said it could become the basis for negotiation.
But
the vote failed nearly along party lines, raising fresh doubts about
the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun
safety measures. The final vote was 47-47, short of the 60 needed to
take up the bill, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine the only Republican
to vote in favor.
more at link.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
I have said multiple times that I don't mind making it a little more difficult to acquire a gun as long as I can still own it.
I know that and I’m sorry that I’m throwing all this emotion at you, truly I am. You didn’t pull the trigger, you don’t make the laws, I guess I should just log out so I don’t say something I really don’t mean or get banned for life. It’s not you….it’s everything, literally all aspects of this country are just on the wrong path.
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
Because building safer schools to some means more armed guards, armed teachers, more guns, more guns, more guns. And it's not limited to just schools. We would need the same for places of worship, movie theaters, grocery stores, concerts, shopping malls, and on and on and on... We would be playing right into the hand of staunch 2A supporters and the NRA. I like that you are searching for solutions, but I don't see this one as effective.
I understand what you’re saying, and you’re right, but if they said “hey we can afford to protect our schools but nothing else” I’d take the deal.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled? Yea, that’s what I thought.
No they can't and we went over this before...
No they can’t what? Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly? Serious question
Starter Pistol... Do we really want to do this?
No don’t do it because you’re making me sick. I thought people were about real change around here and your playing fucking word games. You’re all playing fucking word games while children are being shot to death. This is like being in the sandbox sticking your tongue out saying “I told you so!” except some of those ten year olds are dead now.
How about a portion of the NRA contributions to political campaigns gets redirected to making schools safe like Fort Knox? Not a pleasant thought but at least they won’t die. I haven’t seen too many suggestions that don’t talk about banning one weapon over another or stepping on peoples toes. Money talks…..I’m all in support of Ukraine so nobody go there….but how about we take loans out to build safer schools. If the tug of war known as gun control in America isn’t going change then we need new ideas as soon as possible
I have said multiple times that I don't mind making it a little more difficult to acquire a gun as long as I can still own it.
I know that and I’m sorry that I’m throwing all this emotion at you, truly I am. You didn’t pull the trigger, you don’t make the laws, I guess I should just log out so I don’t say something I really don’t mean or get banned for life. It’s not you….it’s everything, literally all aspects of this country are just on the wrong path.
We are here to talk about this stuff because at the end of the day I'm tired of hearing about these things too. We chip away at stuff hoping to get the common ground and a common sense gun law package. It'll happen.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats’ first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas,
failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic
terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions
surrounding hate crimes and gun safety.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House
quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo,
New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color.
He said it could become the basis for negotiation.
But
the vote failed nearly along party lines, raising fresh doubts about
the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun
safety measures. The final vote was 47-47, short of the 60 needed to
take up the bill, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine the only Republican
to vote in favor.
more at link.
We knew this wouldn't pass. I said so after reading the bill. It adds more government to our already clogged system so the GOP wouldn't do that. It's also a type of Patriot act where they can spy on our own. We ended up hating the Patriot act for that so this I would guess would be the same?
If they put Antifa rhetoric I bet that thing gets passed.
if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want.
some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.
I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.
Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.
In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.
I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.
Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.
Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way.
And then this is what the abortion debate becomes... Just change Firearm to abortion and there you have it.
Funny, all of that and that's your take away? I am not even advocating for an all out gun ban. We're way past that. You are the one who has mentioned being fearful of guns being taken away. Well, that's not gonna happen any time soon, at least definitely not in your lifetime. Have you seen the SCOTUS? However, abortion is about to be banned, so I guess all these conservatives who want abortion banned and guns freely allowed probably are fearful it could happen to them and knew they were lying the last several years when they said Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
I can't comment on every sentence...
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
Please stop. No state is going to ban firearms or come get your guns. They may restrict ownership. They may ban further sales of certain types but they're not going to confiscate or "take guns away." Waaaaaaaaaay too late for that.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
My grandchildren attend a fairly new daycare/pre-school that requires your hand print scanned to enter. One way in, one way out (with the exception of emergency exits). I’d rather not find out if it works but I’m thinking it’s a start.
Comments
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
If gun owners saw the potential problem with bump stocks in advance of the Vegas shooting, then why not proactively say "hey, these could be a problem and here's why" instead of waiting to be asked about them in the wake of another mass shooting?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
It's a tough situation. They should have been prepared for this type of situation but they clearly weren't.
Those are some special tactics to be experienced with though. Going into a situation blind just means a higher body count (most likely).
Very sad all around and just gives more support for gun control. Make it as hard as possible to get these weapons instead of making it ridiculously easy.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Senate GOP blocks domestic terrorism bill, gun policy debate
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats’ first attempt at responding to the back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas, failed in the Senate Thursday as Republicans blocked a domestic terrorism bill that would have opened debate on difficult questions surrounding hate crimes and gun safety.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color. He said it could become the basis for negotiation.
But the vote failed nearly along party lines, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun safety measures. The final vote was 47-47, short of the 60 needed to take up the bill, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine the only Republican to vote in favor.
more at link.
It is interesting to me, that one line.
States Rights are becoming a big deal now. If you can have abortion taken away as a state right you damn well sure can take a gun away. I would see California doing that for sure with NY following.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
If they put Antifa rhetoric I bet that thing gets passed.
Mace, I think it was Mace, said there was a large percentage of people who wanted to "ban firearms." I can't find any polling on what that percentage is. I'd appreciate a link to a known polling source and not some pro-NRA or gun rights advocacy group on what the actual percentage of Americans want to "ban firearms."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©