Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.

Should we prohibit 18 year olds from entering the military as well? Or do we just prohibit them from ownership of something they could potentially be forced into using (draft?)

If they serve our country, aren’t they vetted and trained to use these arms? Do they really need access to 1600 rounds in their personal lives? This argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the argument that there’s just moral depravity, and we need to solve that. Nor that are founding fathers wanted this. They never imagined in the salt rifle that could shoot 300 feet with 1600 rounds. They are rolling over in their graves.

Of course it "holds water." So I ask you again; do you think it's appropriate to ban them from personally owning something that are vetted and trained to use?

No, it does not hold water. This is not that. Assault rifles do not need to go into the hands of every 18-year-old just because a trained, vetted eighteen-year-old serves. If you would like military personnel to have them in their everyday lives (for WHAT?!), and that would help you do the right thing, fine. But the current status quo is criminal. Gun reforms need to take place.

Yes it does hold water.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for all the Bible bangers justifying this… really?! I think you might be on wrong side of Jesus.

Who brought up the bible or Jesus (besides you?)

I was watching that asshole from Alabama on Fox Sunday News this morning. That’s his answer to all of this. He’s had a good shot at fixing all the social ills his state, and he hasn’t. I hope he loses.

But the scary thing is, people voted for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.

Should we prohibit 18 year olds from entering the military as well? Or do we just prohibit them from ownership of something they could potentially be forced into using (draft?)

If they serve our country, aren’t they vetted and trained to use these arms? Do they really need access to 1600 rounds in their personal lives? This argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the argument that there’s just moral depravity, and we need to solve that. Nor that are founding fathers wanted this. They never imagined in the salt rifle that could shoot 300 feet with 1600 rounds. They are rolling over in their graves.

Of course it "holds water." So I ask you again; do you think it's appropriate to ban them from personally owning something that are vetted and trained to use?

No, it does not hold water. This is not that. Assault rifles do not need to go into the hands of every 18-year-old just because a trained, vetted eighteen-year-old serves. If you would like military personnel to have them in their everyday lives (for WHAT?!), and that would help you do the right thing, fine. But the current status quo is criminal. Gun reforms need to take place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

Where do you think people who commit crimes get guns? Even I, a liberal effete dcurbanmom, know of a gun collector whose personal arsenal was stolen, probably by someone his kids knew. Now that’s thousands of dollars in guns out on the street.

Anonymous wrote:No offense "moms," but you guys couldn't even unite to get a single federal law passed to protect you and your daughters' right to control your own reproductive system. You'll write about this tragedy for a few weeks, focusing on yourself as much as possible while you virtue signal, and then you'll go right back to being a useless busybody like 90% of the other moms in this country

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for all the Bible bangers justifying this… really?! I think you might be on wrong side of Jesus.

Who brought up the bible or Jesus (besides you?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.

Should we prohibit 18 year olds from entering the military as well? Or do we just prohibit them from ownership of something they could potentially be forced into using (draft?)

If they serve our country, aren’t they vetted and trained to use these arms? Do they really need access to 1600 rounds in their personal lives? This argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the argument that there’s just moral depravity, and we need to solve that. Nor that are founding fathers wanted this. They never imagined in the salt rifle that could shoot 300 feet with 1600 rounds. They are rolling over in their graves.

Of course it "holds water." So I ask you again; do you think it's appropriate to ban them from personally owning something that are vetted and trained to use?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. I support banning guns. But how will you get the million s of guns already you there? Do you really think people will just hand them over?

No. The new regulations have to include money to invest in buying back the illegal weapons. There are places where this has been done successfully.

So how much to buy back a weapon? If someone is already in possession of "an illegal weapon" it's going to take a lot of money to get them to turn it over. What do you think that price will be?

Keep in mind that many of these people see these weapons as the means to defend their family. You're essentially asking them to put a price on their child's safety and possibly even their life.

How much money would it take for YOU to sacrifice your child's life?

Why should everyone else's safety be held hostage so the paranoid hicks can feel safe? How many children have to die before we get rid of the guns? This disturbed 18yo was able to go buy two dangerous weapons with ease and then the "good guys with guns" just stood outside while children were slaughtered. The gun nut crowd is morally bankrupt.

Apparently, only “hicks” own guns.

Apparently, you don't want to focus on the point of the post. Hicks, city slickers, and everyone in between that are against gun control are the minority, not the significant majority.

Anonymous wrote:And for all the Bible bangers justifying this… really?! I think you might be on wrong side of Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.

Should we prohibit 18 year olds from entering the military as well? Or do we just prohibit them from ownership of something they could potentially be forced into using (draft?)

If they serve our country, aren’t they vetted and trained to use these arms? Do they really need access to 1600 rounds in their personal lives? This argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the argument that there’s just moral depravity, and we need to solve that. Nor that are founding fathers wanted this. They never imagined in the salt rifle that could shoot 300 feet with 1600 rounds. They are rolling over in their graves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.