JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Since we're all talking--I'm not going to get into the argument above about the existence of school shootings--the phrase "mass shooting" should surely include shootings where at least some of the victims were targeted. There are very few mass shootings where all the victims are completely random. Murder of several people with a firearm random or not has the same result and the same common denominators--the use of a firearm and the criminality of the perpetrator--regardless of motivation. Maybe factor out gang shootings, but even those incidents of gun violence have innocent collateral victims. The phrase "going postal" that we all associate with the phenomena of mass shootings came from workplace revenge. The targeting of that newsroom in Baltimore was perpetrated by a guy who had a grudge because of reporting about his DV arrest even if he didn't kill the editor who ran it or the reporter who wrote it. Even Kip Kinkle was after revenge in some way when he attacked his school. To the victims of those attacks, the violence that ended their lives (or their loved ones) was just as unexpected and random seeming as the nice folks watching a concert in Las Vegas. From the perspective of the gun control advocates there is little to no difference. Mass shootings are just bigger more visible and newsworthy incidents of gun violence that can be used as evidence to shape policy, but anyone with a brain knows that most gun deaths in America are from suicide and less newsworthy shootings with fewer casualties.
As gun owners, if we want to remain credible in debates over whether gun control laws are reasonable or too burdensome (yes, I know some of us think that they're all tyranny....I'm not talking about you) we can't ignore facts that the general public sees as relevant and true when they shape the debate.

As an aside, this thread has veered radically off topic.

Any way you sugar coat control, control is control. There is no such thing as "common sense gun control" because control never makes common sense. THAT is where the liberals have you hood-winked. It is not within their agenda to stop gun violence. The statistics, for them, are merely a justification for the control.

I have spent nearly four decades researching, writing about, lobbying, interviewing professionals in the field, collecting data and drafting model legislation related to this issue. NOBODY on either side of the aisle is interested in lowering the numbers of firearm deaths without gun control. I can't count the numbers of people that have attempted to challenge me on unalienable Rights - many are gun owners. Even among the right, they join with the far left because they want to look like they are reasonable people, willing to weaken the Constitution in exchange for the validation of liberals.

Understand this and understand it well: Liberals do not want you to decrease the numbers of people killed by firearms. They want firearms gone. I have written model legislation that would significantly reduce gun violence without gun control, but since the solution doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, nobody is willing to read it. Oh, they will support hundreds of pages of nonsensical legislation written by pabulum puking liberals without bothering to read it, simply on the word of mainstream pundits, but a serious bill to impact gun violence without any gun control???? Not on your life.
 
Any way you sugar coat control, control is control. There is no such thing as "common sense gun control" because control never makes common sense. THAT is where the liberals have you hood-winked. It is not within their agenda to stop gun violence. The statistics, for them, are merely a justification for the control.

I have spent nearly four decades researching, writing about, lobbying, interviewing professionals in the field, collecting data and drafting model legislation related to this issue. NOBODY on either side of the aisle is interested in lowering the numbers of firearm deaths without gun control. I can't count the numbers of people that have attempted to challenge me on unalienable Rights - many are gun owners. Even among the right, they join with the far left because they want to look like they are reasonable people, willing to weaken the Constitution in exchange for the validation of liberals.

Understand this and understand it well: Liberals do not want you to decrease the numbers of people killed by firearms. They want firearms gone. I have written model legislation that would significantly reduce gun violence without gun control, but since the solution doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, nobody is willing to read it. Oh, they will support hundreds of pages of nonsensical legislation written by pabulum puking liberals without bothering to read it, simply on the word of mainstream pundits, but a serious bill to impact gun violence without any gun control???? Not on your life.

What's so ironic about your comment is that progressives/liberals think conservative policies are anti-freedom and designed to control people. They view Conservatives as wanting to socially engineer America to look like it did in about 1962. This control is related to bedroom issues, victimless "crimes", free speech (I mean actual government actions against those criticizing the government) etc. Conservatives want to control who people can sleep with, get married to, how to worship or not worship, fundamental choices about what families look like, whether to have children, what people can put in their bodies, and on, and on. Freedom is a matter of perspective.

Never forget that Ronald Regan was a champion of gun control at the time Black Panthers were the first modern group to suggest that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.

As to the theory that liberals want to take all guns to have control over the people, that just doesn't square with reality. Some liberals along with some conservative parents and some law-and-order law enforcement types are legitimately concerned about gun violence in America. They don't want to take your guns so they are free to ship you off to a gulag in Arkansas. ;)

If you want folks to look at your model legislation throw it up here. I'll take a stab at reading it. Maybe it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker--no good legislation should--but you should get it out there. To some degree gun control is a sideways attempt to address gun violence that arises out of other social ills, like inadequate access to mental health tx, drug and poverty related crime, and other things that there is very little political will to fix, because it's very expensive (more taxes anyone?), and it's cheaper and easier to just restrict access to guns.
 
Last Edited:
. . . . Conservatives want to control who people can sleep with, get married to, how to worship or not worship, fundamental choices about what families look like, whether to have children, what people can put in their bodies, and on, and on. Freedom is a matter of perspective.

To some degree gun control is a sideways attempt to address gun violence that arises out of other social ills, like inadequate access to mental health tx, drug and poverty related crime, and other things that there is very little political will to fix, because it's very expensive (more taxes anyone?), and it's cheaper and easier to just restrict access to guns.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by what conservatives want to control. I don't care who someone sleeps with as long as they're both consenting adults. I don't care who someone gets married to (which is why government shouldn't be involved in marriage) but me thinking that homosexuality is immoral and not normal to the way God designed it doesn't mean that I hate a gay person. And it doesn't mean I have to accept it. Studies show that for a family with a mother and a father it is best for the kids development. And again, government shouldn't be involved in that or adoption if a gay couple wants to adopt. Privatize it. I've never heard a conservative say whether to have kids or not. And as far as putting stuff in our bodies, the war on drugs has been a colossal failure. Decriminalize and punish as harshly as possible when people endanger others because of their stupid choices. Freedom isn't perspective. Freedom is freedom. Government complicates everything and if they would step aside and let most everything be privatized then we'd have way less issues. Hence why so many conservatives in a majority love Trump.

It's not cheaper or easier to restrict access to guns. It's extremely difficult because lawsuits start flying out of every corner of the country which makes the fight expensive. Again, government gets involved and things go to crap. Gun control and gun violence aren't even on the same playing field because gun control applies almost entirely to lawfully armed citizens. Meanwhile criminals just go along with business as usual.

I think if D's could stop falling into the lie of the woke movement they'd see that conservatives (not R's) just want to be left alone and when there is a bad character we want them punished. That's basically it.
 
With no disrespect intended to those who do follow a religious tradition, in America, where the First Amendment really is the first freedom, if you're engaged in a public policy debate and you start talking about what God's plan is then you forfeit. ^^^^
 
As to the sources, Newsweek and the AP may be the MSM, but IMO are pretty middle of the road as far as political leanings.

You reveal a lot about yourself with this post.


Been to Chicago one time for a connecting flight. Good Lord willing it'll be the only time I ever go to that horrible city. Bunch of idiots running the town

My Son-in-law lives in Ark, and loves to go to Chicago. Says he loves the pizza and places to go... IDK. Seems strange to me.


They view Conservatives as wanting to socially engineer America to look like it did in about 1962.

1950 would be better. I don't want to live in the country that is being created. It's not USA, that's for sure.

But I don't agree that it is conservatives that are wanting to socially engineer... they just want things to not change in what they see as the wrong direction. However, the "progressives" are the ones that actually ARE doing social engineering. Via Universities, colleges, K12, music, TV, Hollyweird, MSM, etc. If it's a matter of perspective, I have to wonder how we explain all the cultural changes that have already happened.


This control is related to bedroom issues, victimless "crimes", free speech (I mean actual government actions against those criticizing the government) etc. Conservatives want to control who people can sleep with, get married to, how to worship or not worship, fundamental choices about what families look like, whether to have children, what people can put in their bodies, and on, and on. Freedom is a matter of perspective.

With some exception... the above is bovine scatology. Progressives are winning the fight for American culture on all fronts. Conservatives control NONE of the centers that promulgate cultural change. Please stop whining when you are already winning.

And please stop picking on Arkansas, that's just bigoted.

BTW, this entire thread has gone where these threads always do... to massive rule violations regarding groups, labels, and non-firearm related poliltics.
 
No big deal the republican party had control of house and senate.
And they still let the bump stock ban go through.
In what way did the bump stock ban go through the house and senate? I'm honestly asking for information, because I didn't follow it closely but that's not how I thought it went.
 
What's so ironic about your comment is that progressives/liberals think conservative policies are anti-freedom and designed to control people. They view Conservatives as wanting to socially engineer America to look like it did in about 1962. This control is related to bedroom issues, victimless "crimes", free speech (I mean actual government actions against those criticizing the government) etc.
How very 1982 of them.
 
With no disrespect intended to those who do follow a religious tradition, in America, where the First Amendment really is the first freedom, if you're engaged in a public policy debate and you start talking about what God's plan is then you forfeit. ^^^^


You misread my statement me thinks. I wasn't arguing what it should be based on my faith. I'm saying most issues in America would be solved if government got out of the way. Including gun issues including violence and shootings. Guns and people aren't the issue. Government is.
 
Hey, I responded to some nice guy quoting my earlier post before I bailed here. This is all my opinion and observation. My complaint is that the issue of gun ownership and control has become a "culture war" issue that it really doesn't need to be. Rather than discuss real facts and how to address the concerns of the larger population that arise from something we value, most pro-2A guys just bag on liberals, complain about tyranny (but not facism...o_O) and preach to their own choir and the rest of the world paints gun owners with the ignorant redneck brush. Honestly it doesn't seem very helpful to the cause and it is a war of attrition that gun owners are probably going to lose, at least to the backstop set by the Supremes in Heller.

Finally who'd really want to live in 1950's America? Really?
 
most pro-2A guys just bag on liberals, complain about tyranny (but not facism...o_O) and preach to their own choir
Physician heal thyself.

Most 2A guys would be considered liberals in the classical sense, and no one here is likely to love fa(s)cism or tyranny. If you think that organizations like antifa are actually anti-fascist, consider whether you believe North Korea is a democracy. Stop with the name calling and make a point, if you have one.
 
Been to Chicago one time for a connecting flight. Good Lord willing it'll be the only time I ever go to that horrible city. Bunch of idiots running the town

I lived in downtown Chicago for a year and half back in 2003-2005 time frame. We had an apartment fairly close to Navy Pier. I was working for a start up and so I pretty much non-stop work for 5 or 6 days a week 10 to 12 hours or more. We did enjoy the restaurants while living there and we took the bus and the El trains. Blue line went to O'Hare and Orange Line went to Chicago Midway.

We still had our home in Washington so we would fly home ever 4 to 6 weeks to check on everything. Once moving expenses money ran out after over a year I got a job in Puget Sound and moved back. I did enjoy the Chicago deep dish pizza. We knew some areas even in downtown Chicago were not safe to go at night but during the day it was fine at that time.

Walking to work we had to cross over the Chicago River and in wintertime it was fairly cold and the wind would blow inside our coats. I definitely saw the sun more living in Chicago but I miss the mountains in Washington State. You could not pay me enough money to take a job in Chicago again.
 
(but not facism...o_O

Hmmm, I have an urge to be the Spelling Nazi. ;):p

There's tons of fascism today. And it is NOT coming from conservatives. They are being shut down at every turn, in the universities and colleges, in grade schools, in workplaces, in the public square of social media, in most social gatherings and even in churches. Most all conservatives are afraid to speak their opinions for fear of being cancelled in one way or another by the "woke" culture. You modern cultural revolution fascists are winning, give it a rest. (AntiFA uses anti-fascism as cover for their violent methodology and won't let others gather/rally... that's at least one example of the way the woke culture rolls.)

I assume you are referring to my comment about rolling things back to 1950... I responded directly to your comment about 1962, please give me the respect of addressing me when you are referring to my comments. Yes I would like to live in the 50s. It was a great life! The new millennium sucks big time. I imagine when you get older, you might be saying "Gee I wish we could go back to the way things were in 2008". It's not an uncommon thought, but you show your true self when you make fun (that's how people of a certain ideology tend to shut people down, and one of the reasons why we can no longer have decent discussions as equals) of older people that think things were better before, that don't like the changes the modern eras have brought, while complaining that gun owners won't recognize the thinking/feelings of those that are truly concerned about gun violence. (As if conservative gun owners aren't concerned.)
 
Last Edited:
I lived in downtown Chicago for a year and half back in 2003-2005 time frame. We had an apartment fairly close to Navy Pier. I was working for a start up and so I pretty much non-stop work for 5 or 6 days a week 10 to 12 hours or more. We did enjoy the restaurants while living there and we took the bus and the El trains. Blue line went to O'Hare and Orange Line went to Chicago Midway.

We still had our home in Washington so we would fly home ever 4 to 6 weeks to check on everything. Once moving expenses money ran out after over a year I got a job in Puget Sound and moved back. I did enjoy the Chicago deep dish pizza. We knew some areas even in downtown Chicago were not safe to go at night but during the day it was fine at that time.

Walking to work we had to cross over the Chicago River and in wintertime it was fairly cold and the wind would blow inside our coats. I definitely saw the sun more living in Chicago but I miss the mountains in Washington State. You could not pay me enough money to take a job in Chicago again.

My SIL also mentioned the nightlife. He loves Blues music and goes to a number of places where they still do Chicago Blues. Good stuff. but still....
 
Hmmm, I have an urge to be the Spelling Nazi. ;):p

There's tons of fascism today. And it is NOT coming from conservatives. They are being shut down at every turn, in the universities and colleges, in grade schools, in workplaces, in the public square of social media, in most social gatherings and even in churches. Most all conservatives are afraid to speak their opinions for fear of being cancelled in one way or another by the "woke" culture. You modern cultural revolution fascists are winning, give it a rest. (AntiFA uses anti-fascism as cover for their violent methodology and won't let others gather/rally... that's at least one example of the way the woke culture rolls.)

I assume you are referring to my comment about rolling things back to 1950... I responded directly to your comment about 1962, please give me the respect of addressing me when you are referring to my comments. Yes I would like to live in the 50s. It was a great life! The new millennium sucks big time. I imagine when you get older, you might be saying "Gee I wish we could go back to the way things were in 2008". It's not an uncommon thought, but you show your true self when you make fun (that's how people of a certain ideology tend to shut people down, and one of the reasons why we can no longer have decent discussions as equals) of older people that think things were better before, that don't like the changes the modern eras have brought, while complaining that gun owners won't recognize the thinking/feelings of those that are truly concerned about gun violence. (As if conservative gun owners aren't concerned.)

I wasn't making fun of you (though I do tend to be a naturally sarcastic prick, so I get why you might think so), but I do disagree with you.

"Cancel culture" is in my opinion just conservatives being the snowflakes they complained of a few years ago. Fascism comes from government. If folks are being told by others "what you have to say to us or what you do to us is offensive so we aren't going to listen to you or support you with our dollars", that's not new in America. Those folks are free to continue to have and promote those views--government isn't going to stop it--but there might be consequences. People have been voting with their feet and dollars for years now.

I didn't live in the 50's but from what I can tell the level of conformity would have made my skin crawl. I don't personally know anybody who'd willingly go back unless they could take an age reduction too. I also wouldn't have wanted to live in 1950's America if I was anything other than white, Christian and middle class. At this point, I'm not that young, and I've go no desire to go back to 1980, or 1990 (though about 1998 Portland was in a particularly sweet spot balancing expense with nightlife, food and live music, but that can't happen again....)

Thanks for the spelling lesson. Hope I got it right this time. ;)
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top