What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Slobray]

So how do you keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people? Hope it works out? Allowing random shootings to continue? I understand that you/we want to keep our personal freedoms. However, I believe that if our society continues down the path we are on we will continue to see more and more of the random violence that plagues our society. Most people don't have the stomach to allow that to continue.

The strategy of "its my personal right" so I shouldn't have to do anything isn't working. The problem is complex. Our country continues to get divided. Compromise is the foundation of any society. Not willing to compromise? Then don't ask the other side to listen or respect your position.

To answer to your question about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people: Don't let dangerous people out on the street: lock them up. The vast majority of citizens are not dangerous, it's that tiny minority that are dangerous and causing the problems, so let's keep them away from the rest of us.

I already know what you're going to ask, so let me respond:

Conducting a background check for every firearm purchase will only catch known dangerous people, so if they're known to be dangerous, they should be put somewhere that they cannot harm others. If they are not known dangerous people, a background check won't do anything to stop them from getting guns. A few examples: Parkland, Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, Charleston, San Bernardino, Newtown, Ft. Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Tuscon, Virginia Tech, etc., (Yes, some of those villains should have been caught by BGC, the system failed there, but had they been locked up the minute that they were deemed dangerous, they wouldn't have been able to commit those heinous acts).

A couple of questions for you on the anti's favorite word: "compromise":

What is the other side willing to give us in return for this so-called "compromise"?
Or are you advocating a "compromise" for us to give up rights and/or freedoms without receiving anything in return?
Which technically isn't a "compromise"..........

I think we've been "compromised" enough with:

• The National Firearms Act
• The Federal Firearms Act of 1938
• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
• The Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act
• The Undetectable Firearms Act
• The Gun-Free School Zones Act
• The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

It's time for them to give us something, as all they do is take, take, take.



Ray

 

[Ura-Ki]

To answer to your question about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people: Don't let dangerous people out on the street: lock them up. The vast majority of citizens are not dangerous, it's that tiny minority that are dangerous and causing the problems, so let's keep them away from the rest of us.

I already know what you're going to ask, so let me respond:

Conducting a background check for every firearm purchase will only catch known dangerous people, so if they're known to be dangerous, they should be put somewhere that they cannot harm others. If they are not known dangerous people, a background check won't do anything to stop them from getting guns. A few examples: Parkland, Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, Charleston, San Bernardino, Newtown, Ft. Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Tuscon, Virginia Tech, etc., (Yes, some of those villains should have been caught by BGC, the system failed there, but had they been locked up the minute that they were deemed dangerous, they wouldn't have been able to commit those heinous acts).

A couple of questions for you on the anti's favorite word: "compromise":

What is the other side willing to give us in return for this so-called "compromise"?
Or are you advocating a "compromise" for us to give up rights and/or freedoms without receiving anything in return?
Which technically isn't a "compromise"..........

I think we've been "compromised" enough with:

• The National Firearms Act
• The Federal Firearms Act of 1938
• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
• The Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act
• The Undetectable Firearms Act
• The Gun-Free School Zones Act
• The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

It's time for them to give us something, as all they do is take, take, take.



Ray

AS always Ray, nailed it! I' afraid compromise is a one way street to full ban and confiscation ( which is the whole idea any way) so to take any thing back, and I do mean TAKE BACK it will have to be by force, a difficult pill to swallow, so that leaves us right here, at the edge of the abis looking down the barrel of I.p. 43 and 44, the most fragrant infringement ever to make it this far, and if it passes, we become instant felons 90 days later! While I'm not looking forward to that day, I'm prepared for it none the less!
This discussion should shift to that end, what do we do after we become felons, because at that point a BGC and any other so called "Compromise" becomes moot! Knuckle up folks, time to be doing patriot stuff!

 

[Caveman Jim]

While the gun-grabbers are bleating out their mantra, 102 Americans die each day in traffic accidents; 37,000 in the most recent year available.

Not a peep.

Exactly, just like how many people die per year from medical malpractice from doctors wrongful diagnosis or surgical FUBARS....

Not a peep...

 

[Juany]

To answer to your question about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people: Don't let dangerous people out on the street: lock them up. The vast majority of citizens are not dangerous, it's that tiny minority that are dangerous and causing the problems, so let's keep them away from the rest of us.

I already know what you're going to ask, so let me respond:

Conducting a background check for every firearm purchase will only catch known dangerous people, so if they're known to be dangerous, they should be put somewhere that they cannot harm others. If they are not known dangerous people, a background check won't do anything to stop them from getting guns. A few examples: Parkland, Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, Charleston, San Bernardino, Newtown, Ft. Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Tuscon, Virginia Tech, etc., (Yes, some of those villains should have been caught by BGC, the system failed there, but had they been locked up the minute that they were deemed dangerous, they wouldn't have been able to commit those heinous acts).

A couple of questions for you on the anti's favorite word: "compromise":

What is the other side willing to give us in return for this so-called "compromise"?
Or are you advocating a "compromise" for us to give up rights and/or freedoms without receiving anything in return?
Which technically isn't a "compromise"..........

I think we've been "compromised" enough with:

• The National Firearms Act
• The Federal Firearms Act of 1938
• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
• The Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act
• The Undetectable Firearms Act
• The Gun-Free School Zones Act
• The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

It's time for them to give us something, as all they do is take, take, take.



Ray

We should absolutely get something in return. That might be a topic for another post but I'd like a reciprocal concealed carry program. If I'm good in one state I should be good in all states. I'd trade background checks for that.

 

[Juany]

72 posts and 13 likes........your ideas are not popular or well thought of here.......I am sure there is a forum that would be more receptive to your ideas.

Is this a place where you have to agree with the group or you should go elsewhere? I really don't care if you don't like my ideas. If you can't challenge each other's ideas what the point of this forum. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[titsonritz]

Yes, get the media to stop sensationalizing the shooters. It happens a lot here (relatively speaking) because our media gives them an incentive to do so. The people who commit the mass shootings typically idolize the mass shooters the media shows all over the place.

Copycat crime is done because it gets them attention.

Bingo
NO NOTORIETY

 

[titsonritz]

ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS!

with vigor.

 

[Mister Bisley]

Bingo
NO NOTORIETY

This is great.

The mainstream media knows exactly what they are doing when they focus on the killer.

 

[titsonritz]

This is great.

The mainstream media knows exactly what they are doing when they focus on the killer.

Yes, they do and it is disgusting.

 

[notazombie]

...we will continue to see more and more of the random violence that plagues our society.

Who says it's random?

...and I'm done compromising.

 

[Caveman Jim]

We should absolutely get something in return. That might be a topic for another post but I'd like a reciprocal concealed carry program. If I'm good in one state I should be good in all states. I'd trade background checks for that.

They already got BGC... How are we going to get blood from a turnip?

 

[Mister Bisley]

They already got BGC... How are we going to get blood from a turnip?

Haven't you ever watched Harry Potter? With a magic wand

 

[Juany]

They already got BGC... How are we going to get blood from a turnip?

Universal background checks. Not currently law.

 

[notazombie]

Again, only apply to the honest and law abiding.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Universal background checks. Not currently law.

Was thinking of our state (WA & OR) already have it (a gun registry) & God help us if it ever gets to a Universal BGC.

 

[Mister Bisley]

We already have to get purchases ran through an FFL, which runs a NICS check. There is no gun show loophole or any other made up whine du jour

 

[Mister Bisley]

Again, only apply to the honest and law abiding.

He'll never get it

 

[titsonritz]

Universal background checks. Not currently law.

It is in Oregon. Here's the problem, if I want to borrow a gun from a friend we are supposed to a BGC to me and then another one going back. Sorry, that is BS and BGC are straight up worthless when it comes to stopping the bad guys from obtaining guns.

 

[Juany]

He'll never get it

Oh I get it. It may also deter/stop mentally ill/felon from easily getting a gun. That's a good thing. You having to be inconvenienced is what you're giving up in exchange.

 

[Goosebrown]

Then get rid of the 26th Amendment. If you're not an adult you shouldn't be voting.

Get rid of other amendments then while at it.

18 is not adult. Adult dies not equal voting. States get to set their age limits for lots of things. This is normal and you need to get past it. If you want to repeal the 26th amendment it works the way it would to repeal the 2nd.

While you're wanking over shall not be infringed we're going to get trampled