Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

knee-jerk? are you kidding me with this bullshit? People were just slaughtered in a nightclub and people are just being touchy?

How in the hell can you sit there and continue to stonewall on this when we are pointing out huge holes that terrorists can drive right through? This is supposed to be your damn issue.

Sorry, but if can't can't even close THIS loophole, then the terrorists have won and are laughing at us and will do it again and again and agin and you'll just sit back and say "oh, but I'm afraid you might take my toys away"

someone posted some quote by a known terrorist who stated that getting guns in America is so easy that extremists would easily be able to buy them. I guess to that PP, the mere talk of stricter gun laws makes him so paranoid about the gov't taking away his precious gun that he'd rather let terrorists buy guns so easily than have stricter gun laws in this country.

So we are tightening gun laws due to muslim extremists believing they will massacre more Americans? Then the problem should be the muslim extremists who follow the koran by the book right? Look at other countries that despite being poor and having a lot of people have a very low homicide rate. Its cultural its not the guns at all!

Look at the shooters dad and the parents of the boston bombers. They came to the US but never assimilated to the culture. Outwardly they appeared nice and friendly but inside they were filled with hate. That culture passed on to their kids who never quite assimilated either.

The other countries that don't have as much gun deaths have strict gun laws, bozo. And yes, the US has a gun culture, so it is a problem with our culture that just loves to glorify guns. So, by your logic, then, we need to change our culture by getting rid of all guns.

Chris Murphy is awesome!!

Anonymous wrote:oh my gosh bunch of lemmings

1. background checks already exist for the most part

2. I can get behind the no fly list thing.... but remember doing that wouldn't have stopped ANY of the mass shootings

I'm not really pro or anti gun.

I just think government always messes up when they try to fix something or end up creating unintended consequences in the process. Why is this bill so long for example.

Finally somebody gets it. FINALLY. This massive bill contains who knows what and to hear some snotty senator snivel in a pissy voice "Well, you will just have to pass it to find out what's in it" should
send alarm bells ringing in the minds of every patriot.

no, I want people who are known terrorists not to get guns. I also want people with known mental deficiencies not to get guns. And I don't want known domestic abusers to get guns.

We cannot continue to act like nothing is wrong. Something is wrong here when you argue AGAINST closing these loopholes or at the very least figuring out how to connect the dots better on some of these people obtaining weapons to inflict this much damage.

I'm willing to accept that compromises might need to be made, but FFS, DO SOMETHING!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

knee-jerk? are you kidding me with this bullshit? People were just slaughtered in a nightclub and people are just being touchy?

How in the hell can you sit there and continue to stonewall on this when we are pointing out huge holes that terrorists can drive right through? This is supposed to be your damn issue.

Sorry, but if can't can't even close THIS loophole, then the terrorists have won and are laughing at us and will do it again and again and agin and you'll just sit back and say "oh, but I'm afraid you might take my toys away"

someone posted some quote by a known terrorist who stated that getting guns in America is so easy that extremists would easily be able to buy them. I guess to that PP, the mere talk of stricter gun laws makes him so paranoid about the gov't taking away his precious gun that he'd rather let terrorists buy guns so easily than have stricter gun laws in this country.

So we are tightening gun laws due to muslim extremists believing they will massacre more Americans? Then the problem should be the muslim extremists who follow the koran by the book right? Look at other countries that despite being poor and having a lot of people have a very low homicide rate. Its cultural its not the guns at all!

Look at the shooters dad and the parents of the boston bombers. They came to the US but never assimilated to the culture. Outwardly they appeared nice and friendly but inside they were filled with hate. That culture passed on to their kids who never quite assimilated either.

oh my gosh bunch of lemmings

1. background checks already exist for the most part

2. I can get behind the no fly list thing.... but remember doing that wouldn't have stopped ANY of the mass shootings

I'm not really pro or anti gun.

I just think government always messes up when they try to fix something or end up creating unintended consequences in the process. Why is this bill so long for example.

oh my gosh bunch of lemmings

1. background checks already exist for the most part

2. I can get behind the no fly list thing.... but remember doing that wouldn't have stopped ANY of the mass shootings

I'm not really pro or anti gun.

I just think government always messes up when they try to fix something or end up creating unintended consequences in the process. Why is this bill so long for example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

I wouldn't say it's a knee jerk reaction- the proposal has been around in some form for a while. More like opportunistic- people are paying attention right now due to the tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

knee-jerk? are you kidding me with this bullshit? People were just slaughtered in a nightclub and people are just being touchy?

How in the hell can you sit there and continue to stonewall on this when we are pointing out huge holes that terrorists can drive right through? This is supposed to be your damn issue.

Sorry, but if can't can't even close THIS loophole, then the terrorists have won and are laughing at us and will do it again and again and agin and you'll just sit back and say "oh, but I'm afraid you might take my toys away"

someone posted some quote by a known terrorist who stated that getting guns in America is so easy that extremists would easily be able to buy them. I guess to that PP, the mere talk of stricter gun laws makes him so paranoid about the gov't taking away his precious gun that he'd rather let terrorists buy guns so easily than have stricter gun laws in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

knee-jerk? are you kidding me with this bullshit? People were just slaughtered in a nightclub and people are just being touchy?

How in the hell can you sit there and continue to stonewall on this when we are pointing out huge holes that terrorists can drive right through? This is supposed to be your damn issue.

Sorry, but if can't can't even close THIS loophole, then the terrorists have won and are laughing at us and will do it again and again and agin and you'll just sit back and say "oh, but I'm afraid you might take my toys away"

I also had to laugh out loud at the "knee jerk". It's not like this was one mass shooting and we are overreacting to it. They have had years to come up with gun control legislation and NOTHING has passed. The Sandy Hook shooting happened in 2012. How is passing something now "knee jerk"? This is the NRA's strategy - delay, distract and wait for people to become complacent until the NEXT mass shooting. Sadly, it has been working beautifully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile we also still aren't dealing with the fact that we allow guns to be sold to people who are mentally ill...

What about it, Republicans?

right? since this is their big argument why it isn't about guns. How about we deal with this issue? I mean, seriously, put your money where your mouth is.

No, not gonna do it? See, you don't care about actually fixing any of it.

ACA has forced coverage for mental health, but again, the Republicans balked at this. Every solution that people try to come up with to address issues around the gun violence seems to be met with opposition by the party that I used to belong to. And worse, they seem to have *no solution*. I am so disgusted that this party has been taken over by right wing fanatics and a bozo presumptive leader.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

knee-jerk? are you kidding me with this bullshit? People were just slaughtered in a nightclub and people are just being touchy?

How in the hell can you sit there and continue to stonewall on this when we are pointing out huge holes that terrorists can drive right through? This is supposed to be your damn issue.

Sorry, but if can't can't even close THIS loophole, then the terrorists have won and are laughing at us and will do it again and again and agin and you'll just sit back and say "oh, but I'm afraid you might take my toys away"

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile we also still aren't dealing with the fact that we allow guns to be sold to people who are mentally ill...

What about it, Republicans?

right? since this is their big argument why it isn't about guns. How about we deal with this issue? I mean, seriously, put your money where your mouth is.

No, not gonna do it? See, you don't care about actually fixing any of it.

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

I know they are not trying to ban all the guns but the issue here is, and needs to be researched and made clear, not hidden in thousands of pages with small print like Obamacare was, is that this legislation "in the name of safety" does not lead later on to the negation of the 2nd Amendment.

That is my argument: knee-jerk gun control legislation is not the solution and if it is proposed as a solution it needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb to ensure a back-door repeal of the 2nd Amendment decades later is not achieved. The logic of "If we can ban this type of arm then we should be able to ban any and all arms" should not be a path that is followed because it exposes a citizenry to possible tyranny later on.

Anonymous wrote:13:16, there are several confusing things about your post, but I don't have time to argue them all.

The one thing I will say is that *no one* is trying to ban all guns. There are two proposals on the table: (1) Subject people to more background checks before buying guns in order to prevent terrorists and known criminals from buying them, and (2) Banning certain guns.

You can disagree with one or both of the above, but it's disingenuous to say people want to ban all, or even most, guns.

I'm pretty liberal, and I kind of hate the idea of owning guns even though my DH grew up owning them, but I actually understand and agree with some of the Constitutional issues (and even the more philosophical arguments) around gun control. But that doesn't make them insurmountable, and it seems like there is a compromise position between what the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats are proposing today. The truth is, mass murders aren't actually the biggest public concern with guns...though these tragedies do shed light on some of the issues and we would likely have fewer with better gun control...but that doesn't mean gun violence isn't basically an epidemic in this country that we should simply ignore.

IDK, as a parent, this is always on the back of my mind pretty regularly. I am in MoCo, and my one DC goes to a school somewhat close by to the area where that mass shooter was caught a few weeks ago, the one who shot his wife and several people, one at Westfield mall. I hardly did any work that day. I was glued to dcum looking for the lastest update (dcum news source for mcps was faster than mcps alerts I was getting). I think many parents these days are more worried about school shootings than they are about Islamic terrorists. I know the shooter didn't go after kids, but one happened in a school parking lot and another close to a different school. That is pretty scary.

My kids, nor I, have ever been near a terrorist attack. That's not to say that it will never happen, but shootings on school campuses (including college) are more common than terrorist attacks in this country. I saw some headline the other day that stated that of all the mass shootings that have happened in the past year, majority was in a school or business setting.

and this is the thing that gets to me about how now more people in the gov't are willing to look at the issue of gun control seriously.. that it took a terrorist attack to spur them to this level of action, whereas the killing of 20 5/6 yr olds didn't. I just don't understand these people's mindsets. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is some movement on this front, but the message I'm getting is: "we will tolerate the mass murder of children by an American, but we won't tolerate an extremist Muslim from killing 50 adults". This disgusts me to no end.