NOT Gun Control

adamBomb said:
Uhmmm, have you looked at the President's twitter account? Not sure I would be blaming liberalism for morality/responsibility issues. Dude lies, makes fun of someone, puts people down, etc daily on there and he is supposed to be our leader. He lies 24/7. I went to a speech of his and he said he 'would not have time to play golf'. Yea how's that working? He is out there more than Obama and we are bucking the bill. So you want to know who to blame for kids these days, look no farther than our commander in chief. And he is as conservative as you get.
Click to expand...
When I was a kid, the President playing golf was what would today be called a meme.

That President was Dwight David Eisenhower. It was also widely believed that Ike was largely senile, and that he slept through many cabinet meetings. (Reagan, anyone?)

History has a tendency to repeat itself.

Trump has been in office for 13 months. Please explain how he is in any way responsible for "kids these days." What role did he play in raising the Sandy Hook shooter, the Parkland shooter, Dylan Roof, the Aurora theater shooter, the Texas church shooter, ...
 
Last edited:
Trump has been in office for 13 months. Please explain how he is in any way responsible for "kids these days." What role did he play in raising the Sandy Hook shooter, the Parkland shooter, Dylan Roof, the Aurora theater shooter, the Texas church shooter, ...
Click to expand...

You must have not read what I quoted. He was blaming liberalism on kids lack of morality and responsibility. I pointed out Trump because our president shows his lack of morality on a daily basis...so yea. To claim just liberals are at fault makes absolutely no sense. I never said and don't think its Trump's fault, rather, that to claim this isn't learned at the very top, from conservatives, is quite the faulty argument.

As for lies....
I would happily take Trumps lies over Clinton's any day of the week.
Click to expand...

You are saying you OK with a president that lies? This is like bizzaro world. What will it take to get Americans to be against all lies? I don't get how you can be OK with a presidents that lies. This is the problem with america. Maybe I am just expecting too much from our nation's leaders.
 
Lol....
Of course I have a problem with a president that lies.

Wake up and smell the coffee. This is Washington. The town is practically built on lies.

Don't you know when your being messed with? It's no wonder Twitter gets you all worked up.

Trump is not going to act on a level of hatred against America for the purpose of destroying it. But that isn't what this thread is about.
 
Enough with the "Blame Game". In the final analysis, the only one to "blame" is the person who committed the crime.

The topic is essentially: Do we appease the strident gun grabbers by encumbering 99.99% of the population, who didn't commit and will most likely never commit the type of crime that occurred in Florida, with even more regulation?

The fact that many won't see this as the actual question is neither here nor there. This is what you proponents of more regulation are actually saying.

What I want to know from those of you that want to further regulate firearms ownership, is how this will prevent another episode from happening? If what is being proposed will in fact not prevent another such atrocity, then your proposals/regulations are worthless.
 
I still don't understand how doing a better job of ID'ing prohibited persons and individuals who are a danger to themselves or others is any form of gun control.
Click to expand...

Any and every law that pertains to what guns are legal and what aren't or what person has to do or be in order to legally possess a gun is some form of gun control.

Every law is a form of control. If it involves guns, it is gun control.

How is that difficult to understand???

Whether or not a certain gun control law is needed, is useful, serves the stated purpose, or is an onerous infringement is a different question. Often several questions wrapped in each other.

If you want to know why so many of us object to the proposed increase in the depth of background checks, the answer is in several parts.

One of these parts is that until/unless you change a huge amount of existing law, the overwhelming bulk of the information gained through an exhaustive check simply is useless for making a legal determination of prohibited person status.

So we see the proposed expansion as a waste of money and resources.

Another part is just the history of gun control laws. We're tired of being lied to, and as we see it, every gun control law that we are told (over and over) will fix the problem or is a necessary first step, doesn't fix the problem.

How many first steps do we need to take? We've taken quite a few in the last few decades, but they don't seem to be getting us anywhere closer to the publically stated objective of stopping the violence.

Yes, there is a lot of "oh great one more law that doesn't do anything but cost me more time and money" feeling about it.

Go back and look at the time when one could legally buy a submachinegun over the counter or by mail, and the only paperwork involved was a sales receipt.

Where are the mass shootings in those days? Where are the news reports of dozens of children being gunned down? There are none.

The most famous mass shooting of that era is the St Valentine's Day Massacre. And it was gang on gang violence, not shooting up a crowd, or school.

We look at that, and then back to today, and see many, many more laws and restrictions on gun ownership, and yet, the violence is even worse.

Rational people understand that correlation is not causation, but its tough to get past the emotional feeling that does correlate these things together. What we see is one more law (or set of laws) that isn't going to help, and probably will somehow end up making things worse.
 
The mention in several posts about rx drugs needs a response. Over the years I have seen many posters allude to psychotropic drugs as catalysts that initiate or exacerbate violent or self destructive behavior. My opinion of those comments is, unless you are a medical doctor or pharmecuticals expert, chances are you are taking a bit of information and extrapolating to make a statement about these drugs. That is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
If you're not a doctor then move along right? Keep arguing amongst yourselves while the drug companies make billions and kids are killing them selves and others. Couldnt possibly be the mind alter crap we are pumping into our kids! No! Gotta be the video games.

Wake up! Do a teensy bit of digging for your self. Or have you succumb to the idea that a pill cures everything, so a pill couldn't be the problem.
 
Last edited:
The mention in several posts about rx drugs needs a response. Over the years I have seen many posters allude to psychotropic drugs as catalysts that initiate or exacerbate violent or self destructive behavior. My opinion of those comments is, unless you are a medical doctor or pharmecuticals expert, chances are you are taking a bit of information and extrapolating to make a statement about these drugs. That is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

One doesn't need to be a doctor or pharma expert to understand well enough when the maker includes the information in the literature they publish and give to doctors. And, they do, though it may take some digging to sort it out.

There is a certain percentage of people, who do not react to various drugs in the expected way. Sometimes, its the opposite of the intended effect. The maker's literature acknowledges this, (or did for Prozac in the 90s when I checked). They didn't emphasize it, but they did state that there were a small percentage of people who would get agitated, paranoid, manic, and possibly violent, and if such symptoms were observed, the med should be discontinued.
 
The vast majority of mass shooters passed the background check.
Click to expand...
Yes, most of them passed the existing background check system, hence, the need to fix it. If it is funding for LE devoted to the task or an expansion of the current system, so be it.

Expanding that system will demonstrably not stop mass shootings.
Click to expand...
You have no way of knowing this.

It can’t even stop people who are already prohibited people. When there is another mass shooting after you’ve folded what then?
Click to expand...
So, we should do nothing?

I don't believe fixing a problem (and most will agree that there is a problem) is appeasement or compromise.
 
I just lost a post I have been working on for a couple of hours. Stupid &#@$* phone!

Intrusive background checks and the ability to deny individual rights without due process is too high a price to pay for the illusion of safety.

There are many, including some here, who claim guns are the problem. Many of them would take all guns with few exceptions, except for the elite folks who know what's best for the rest of us. Taking our guns is not about safety. It is about power and control. They don't give a rip about liberty or our right to defend ourselves.

I have lost patience with those who use grieving parents and children to advance their agenda. There is much that can be done to make our schools and our citizens safer. Infringing the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is not going to do it.
 
Yes, most of them passed the existing background check system, hence, the need to fix it. If it is funding for LE devoted to the task or an expansion of the current system, so be it.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but has been pointed out in at least 10 or so posts on this thread is that they passed the existing background check BUT WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO ACCORDING TO CURRENT EXISTING LAWS OR HAD BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR WERE (or should have been) UNDER INVESTIGATION. They passed even though they were technically prohibited persons, and should have flagged in NICS, and they didn't. VA Tech shooter, Texas church shooter, and the Charleston shooter are very well known and notable examples. This is a systematic failure. If our current background check system has allowed this to fall through the cracks, why we would not expect even more failures when you make the system more complex? Why should the average citizen embrace more advanced, more complex background checks when the current (relatively simple) system has repeatedly failed to be efficient and accurate?

The answer, of course, is they shouldn't. And why are our advanced background checks proponents glazing over the glaringly obvious failures in our current system?
 
^^
So, the system needs fixing, right??
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely, but absolutely not by adding training and registration, social media perusing, or any of the other suggestions more costly and more complex than the current system. I would absolutely support accountability and increased accuracy of the current system. Until the current system works as it should, and there are repeated examples that it is ineffective through clerical reporting errors (not the limited scope of the check), I would not dare support any more complex or advanced in scope background check measures.

Are you still proposing AI social media investigations, training requirements, registration, and other nonsense when the feds can't even effectively administrate the current (much simpler) system?
 
Last edited:
5whiskey said:
They passed even though they were technically prohibited persons, and should have flagged in NICS, and they didn't. VA Tech shooter, Texas church shooter, and the Charleston shooter are very well known and notable examples.
Click to expand...

The Charleston shooter passed because of the requirement that the background check be performed within three days and if not, the person can take possession of the gun. In his case, a fourth day would've been needed. BUT, that is not a glitch in the system, it's a feature that was added on purpose. It was created in response to gun controllers wanting to use the F.B.I. basically as a way to ban gun purchases or make them very difficult, because the F.B.I. could drag its feet and string out background checks to unreasonable lengths of time.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the F.B.I. did in fact do this in Obama's last year with the background check appeals process, for people who had been wrongly flagged by the system and thus had to appeal their case, and were banned from purchasing a gun until the F.B.I. processed the appeal. The F.B.I. was found to have stopped the appeals process claiming lack of funds.
 
From reading through these seven pages it would seem the general consensus is that the fault is in the application, implementation, and enforcement of the current system, not the system itself.

Isn't that the point to start?
 
Onward Allusion said:
I don't believe fixing a problem (and most will agree that there is a problem) is appeasement or compromise.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you've recommended anything that would fix a problem.

Narrowing the scope of a right is a compromise with those who would narrow the scope of that right.
 
turkeestalker said:
From reading through these seven pages it would seem the general consensus is that the fault is in the application, implementation, and enforcement of the current system, not the system itself.

Isn't that the point to start?
Click to expand...

Some may believe that, but I wouldn't call it a general consensus. In fact, the idea that such a system will always work is flawed. The accuracy of an individual's personal records will always be questionable, and often out-of-date. And even if accurate, those records are not necessarily a reliable indicator of future actions on the part of an individual.

I'm not saying that the system should be scrapped. I am saying that, even with improvements (or "fixing"), it will never reach an acceptable level of effectiveness for those opposed to gun ownership.

So it's not really a good starting point in my view.
 
BBarn said:
And even if accurate, those records are not necessarily a reliable indicator of future actions on the part of an individual.
Click to expand...

I don't think going the "Minority Report" route is a good idea. Imposing penalties/punishment on someone for what they *might* do is poor policy, IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top