Gun Debate is pointless

[DvlDog4WVU]

The left demonizes the right for their stance on guns. They refuse to listen to people more knowledgeable about the material being discussed and the issues that won't be solved by solutions coming out of the left. The right, knowing that these initiatives are pointless and will do nothing to counter the issue, see the left as doing nothing but attacking and trying to reel in the 2nd amendment. The left pushes low hanging fruit wrought with 2nd and 3rd order effects which have constitutional implications. The right points these out and toes the line. Rightfully so.

The right pushes things up all the time and the left ***** all over it. The left sees this as expanding gun availability to individuals and doesn't believe it will work. Fine. The left fires back and tries to reel this in.

So this goes on and on for 40 years and counting. Every initiative the left has tried has failed to curtail gun violence when implemented outside of the Brady Bill. Out of the box ideas the right has tried have failed to gain traction, the left won't even hear it.

And then the left mocks the right for the right pointing out rightfully so that A.
"You're way out of your fvcking element Donnie" B. We have 40 years of evidence backing up what you all mock us for. C. you claim we are close minded, yet you won't even entertain our discussion points on things that might have a positive impact.

Interesting thing, the mind of a liberal.

 

[Mntneer]

The left demonizes the right for their stance on guns. They refuse to listen to people more knowledgeable about the material being discussed and the issues that won't be solved by solutions coming out of the left. The right, knowing that these initiatives are pointless and will do nothing to counter the issue, see the left as doing nothing but attacking and trying to reel in the 2nd amendment. The left pushes low hanging fruit wrought with 2nd and 3rd order effects which have constitutional implications. The right points these out and toes the line. Rightfully so.

The right pushes things up all the time and the left ***** all over it. The left sees this as expanding gun availability to individuals and doesn't believe it will work. Fine. The left fires back and tries to reel this in.

So this goes on and on for 40 years and counting. Every initiative the left has tried has failed to curtail gun violence when implemented outside of the Brady Bill. Out of the box ideas the right has tried have failed to gain traction, the left won't even hear it.

And then the left mocks the right for the right pointing out rightfully so that A.
"You're way out of your fvcking element Donnie" B. We have 40 years of evidence backing up what you all mock us for. C. you claim we are close minded, yet you won't even entertain our discussion points on things that might have a positive impact.

Interesting thing, the mind of a liberal.

The misinformation is what truly disturbs me. People who have a complete lack of understanding of the subject and refuse to learn. Or those that refuse to look at the data presented to them.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The misinformation is what truly disturbs me. People who have a complete lack of understanding of the subject and refuse to learn. Or those that refuse to look at the data presented to them.

So i got into a lot of this discussion on the Blue Lot last week. Some really ardent gun control people over there. The most outspoken couldn't even tell me the characteristics which make up an assault weapon, but by God, we needed to get rid of them!!!!

The amount of people that believe an assault weapon is fully automatic and that one can purchase a fully automatic weapon legally over the counter without the Class III requirements tells me everything I need to know about their knowledge right out of the gate. Moron, your opinion is immediately discounted as your whole basis for discussion if flawed out of the gate.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

So i got into a lot of this discussion on the Blue Lot last week. Some really ardent gun control people over there. The most outspoken couldn't even tell me the characteristics which make up an assault weapon, but by God, we needed to get rid of them!!!!

The amount of people that believe an assault weapon is fully automatic and that one can purchase a fully automatic weapon legally over the counter without the Class III requirements tells me everything I need to know about their knowledge right out of the gate. Moron, your opinion is immediately discounted as your whole basis for discussion if flawed out of the gate.

Geezz, speaking of broad brushes. I happen to know quite a bit about guns. And I fail to see how outlawing magazines with 30 rounds would harm the 2nd. And it would save lives-especially when it came to mass killings. Imagine if a psycho armed with a weapon didn't have access to a 30 round clip. Or for that matter, a 10 round clip. The very mindset that wants to protect gun people's rights to buy 30 round clips is the same mindset that wants fully automatic to be legal....or RPGs....you know-ridiculous ****. The 2nd says what it says. It doesn't say we can't legislate it. Keep and bear....doesn't say how many, what type, etc. You got a problem with that?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Geezz, speaking of broad brushes. I happen to know quite a bit about guns. And I fail to see how outlawing magazines with 30 rounds would harm the 2nd. And it would save lives-especially when it came to mass killings. Imagine if a psycho armed with a weapon didn't have access to a 30 round clip. Or for that matter, a 10 round clip. The very mindset that wants to protect gun people's rights to buy 30 round clips is the same mindset that wants fully automatic to be legal....or RPGs....you know-ridiculous ****. The 2nd says what it says. It doesn't say we can't legislate it. Keep and bear....doesn't say how many, what type, etc. You got a problem with that?

No, and as I have stated, I don't have an issue with magazine capacity limitations. It's a compromise that I think could easily be made. Where are you with 100% reciprocity of CCW and 100% shall issue?

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

No, and as I have stated, I don't have an issue with magazine capacity limitations. It's a compromise that I think could easily be made. Where are you with 100% reciprocity of CCW and 100% shall issue?

Reciprocity should be at the discretion of each state.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Reciprocity should be at the discretion of each state.

Then so should gay marriage, etc.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Then so should gay marriage, etc.

In your opinion. Having a CCP is not a Constitutional right. The Supreme court has ruled that gay marriage is. Deal with it.

 

[Mntneer]

Geezz, speaking of broad brushes. I happen to know quite a bit about guns. And I fail to see how outlawing magazines with 30 rounds would harm the 2nd. And it would save lives-especially when it came to mass killings. Imagine if a psycho armed with a weapon didn't have access to a 30 round clip. Or for that matter, a 10 round clip. The very mindset that wants to protect gun people's rights to buy 30 round clips is the same mindset that wants fully automatic to be legal....or RPGs....you know-ridiculous ****. The 2nd says what it says. It doesn't say we can't legislate it. Keep and bear....doesn't say how many, what type, etc. You got a problem with that?

Whether it's 3 10 round magazines or 1 30 round magazine, what matters is who's on the trigger.

That difference between a 10 round, 30 round is negligible.

Meanwhile.... If I'm having to defend myself, the last thing I want to worry about is, ""Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself."

 

[bornaneer]

What branch of government is responsible for enforcing the laws ?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Reciprocity should be at the discretion of each state.

We're we're talking compromise here. Do you not think those are common sense? Assuming there is a federal standard?

 

[PriddyBoy]

Geezz, speaking of broad brushes. I happen to know quite a bit about guns. And I fail to see how outlawing magazines with 30 rounds would harm the 2nd. And it would save lives-especially when it came to mass killings. Imagine if a psycho armed with a weapon didn't have access to a 30 round clip. Or for that matter, a 10 round clip. The very mindset that wants to protect gun people's rights to buy 30 round clips is the same mindset that wants fully automatic to be legal....or RPGs....you know-ridiculous ****. The 2nd says what it says. It doesn't say we can't legislate it. Keep and bear....doesn't say how many, what type, etc. You got a problem with that?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Interesting thing, the mind of a liberal.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

The left demonizes the right for their stance on guns. They refuse to listen to people more knowledgeable about the material being discussed and the issues that won't be solved by solutions coming out of the left. The right, knowing that these initiatives are pointless and will do nothing to counter the issue, see the left as doing nothing but attacking and trying to reel in the 2nd amendment. The left pushes low hanging fruit wrought with 2nd and 3rd order effects which have constitutional implications. The right points these out and toes the line. Rightfully so.

The right pushes things up all the time and the left ***** all over it. The left sees this as expanding gun availability to individuals and doesn't believe it will work. Fine. The left fires back and tries to reel this in.

So this goes on and on for 40 years and counting. Every initiative the left has tried has failed to curtail gun violence when implemented outside of the Brady Bill. Out of the box ideas the right has tried have failed to gain traction, the left won't even hear it.

And then the left mocks the right for the right pointing out rightfully so that A.
"You're way out of your fvcking element Donnie" B. We have 40 years of evidence backing up what you all mock us for. C. you claim we are close minded, yet you won't even entertain our discussion points on things that might have a positive impact.

Interesting thing, the mind of a liberal.

There is no topic in which a quote from The Big Lebowski can't be used.

I will say that you could post this same thing about almost any topic and it would be accurate. Abortion especially comes to mind.

It is our biggest hindrance to effective governance. You put a little more blame on the left than I do, as I think they are both guilty of both sides depending on the issue. However, this post being specifically about guns you are right in your position WRT the left.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Moron, your opinion is immediately discounted as your whole basis for discussion if flawed out of the gate.

This falls in line with something I've said on this board a number of times. Let's at least get to a point where we agree on what the facts are, then we can discuss what they mean and what can be done. If we can't even agree on the facts, there is no point in continuing a discussion. You can't argue with somebody that is trying to convince you that 2+2=5

 

[WVUCOOPER]

What branch of government is responsible for enforcing the laws ?

IRS

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

In your opinion. Having a CCP is not a Constitutional right. The Supreme court has ruled that gay marriage is. Deal with it.

Well technically, I would argue that being able to carry or "bear" arms is in fact a constitutional right.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Well, when the right pushed limiting 4th Amendment protections following 9/11, not much was ever said to criticize them because it was "for the protection of ALL Americans". Yet now, a person on a TERRORIST WATCH LIST can legally purchase a gun.....and you people are criticizing Democrats for wanting to stop this???? What am I missing here??????

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Well, when the right pushed limiting 4th Amendment protections following 9/11, not much was ever said to criticize them because it was "for the protection of ALL Americans". Yet now, a person on a TERRORIST WATCH LIST can legally purchase a gun.....and you people are criticizing Democrats for wanting to stop this???? What am I missing here??????

I was not in favor of the Patriot Act and still aren't in favor of it. I hold the 4th in as high esteem as I do the 2nd and the 1st.

 

[MountaineerWV]

I was not in favor of the Patriot Act and still aren't in favor of it. I hold the 4th in as high esteem as I do the 2nd and the 1st.

Again, we have a presidential candidate wanting to stop Muslim immigration in this country with NOTHING much coming form the Republicans about it.....yet.....when the Democrats want to prevent persons on a TERROR WATCH LIST from being able to purchase a gun legally, the Right goes crazy! Again....what am I missing here?????

 

[rog1187]

Again, we have a presidential candidate wanting to stop Muslim immigration in this country with NOTHING much coming form the Republicans about it.....yet.....when the Democrats want to prevent persons on a TERROR WATCH LIST from being able to purchase a gun legally, the Right goes crazy! Again....what am I missing here?????

well Trump wants to prevent people who are not US citizens from coming in - so they have no rights. I would assume the terror watch list debate comes from how US citizens with rights are being handled. There is a difference - US citizens with rights vs refuges with no rights.

 

[Airport]

Geezz, speaking of broad brushes. I happen to know quite a bit about guns. And I fail to see how outlawing magazines with 30 rounds would harm the 2nd. And it would save lives-especially when it came to mass killings. Imagine if a psycho armed with a weapon didn't have access to a 30 round clip. Or for that matter, a 10 round clip. The very mindset that wants to protect gun people's rights to buy 30 round clips is the same mindset that wants fully automatic to be legal....or RPGs....you know-ridiculous ****. The 2nd says what it says. It doesn't say we can't legislate it. Keep and bear....doesn't say how many, what type, etc. You got a problem with that?

I would support clip reduction. I would support no fly list as long as there are reasonable protections to get off of it. Steve Hayes, opinion writer was put on it. I would support background checks. I think that people should be fired at the FBI for not putting Mateen on some sort of list after having investigated him 3 times. Of course, anybody who still voices an opinion that Mateen's agenda is still unclear should be fired.

 

[Airport]

Again, we have a presidential candidate wanting to stop Muslim immigration in this country with NOTHING much coming form the Republicans about it.....yet.....when the Democrats want to prevent persons on a TERROR WATCH LIST from being able to purchase a gun legally, the Right goes crazy! Again....what am I missing here?????

It's not only muslims he wants to stop but catholic Hispanics too. I would support terror watch list as long as there's a expedited way to get off if you are an American citizen

 

[MountaineerWV]

It's not only muslims he wants to stop but catholic Hispanics too. I would support terror watch list as long as there's a expedited way to get off if you are an American citizen

You guys are ducking the question. He said ban "Muslims".....not illegals........

Why is that a non-issue and preventing people who are under investigation for being on a TERROR WATCH LIST from legally getting guns??????? How can you be for one, and against the other?

 

[rog1187]

You guys are ducking the question. He said ban "Muslims".....not illegals........

Why is that a non-issue and preventing people who are under investigation for being on a TERROR WATCH LIST from legally getting guns??????? How can you be for one, and against the other?

My understanding is that he proposed banning muslims/refugees who were/are citizens of other countries...I would assume they have no rights as a US citizen. The terror watch list would include US citizens who do have rights.

 

[Airport]

You guys are ducking the question. He said ban "Muslims".....not illegals........

Why is that a non-issue and preventing people who are under investigation for being on a TERROR WATCH LIST from legally getting guns??????? How can you be for one, and against the other?

I said I was for a terror watch list. I also think that the FBI agents who investigate this guy should be fired for not flagging him if he tries to buy a weapon. I also think that anybody who voices the opinion that they aren't sure why he did it, should be fired, ie, Lynch.

 

[MountaineerWV]

My understanding is that he proposed banning muslims/refugees who were/are citizens of other countries...I would assume they have no rights as a US citizen. The terror watch list would include US citizens who do have rights.

So, then, if you are a "suspected" terrorist from another country then it's OK to be labeled that....but if you are a suspected "AMERICAN" terrorist, you keep your right to buy weapons and MURDER fellow Americans? Sorry....a terrorist is a terrorist, just the same as a suspected terrorist.........

It's not like the police conducting a murder investigation. The FBI digs a bit deeper in to things and if you get yourself put on a terror watch list, then you have done something to deserve the loss of your right to purchase a weapon legally. My opinion.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Why is that a non-issue and preventing people who are under investigation for being on a TERROR WATCH LIST from legally getting guns??????? How can you be for one, and against the other?

It's very simple.

Non US Citizens are not extended citizen rights. We have limited quotas from different regions in different periods of our history for different reasons. Obama stopped immigration from Iraq in 2011 for 6 months by just not processing the applications. The FBI and CIA directors both said ISIS would exploit the refugee system. Obama hides his head in the sand. Trump says we should get it under control before allowing anyone in. And you have a problem with this?

Many on the terror watch list are US citizens. You can NOT limit a citizens rights without due process. A watch list has not went through due process.

So tell me, why are you against US citizen constitutional rights?

 

[MountaineerWV]

I said I was for a terror watch list. I also think that the FBI agents who investigate this guy should be fired for not flagging him if he tries to buy a weapon. I also think that anybody who voices the opinion that they aren't sure why he did it, should be fired, ie, Lynch.

Oh, there's probably no doubt WHY he did it.....but the key thing is WHO he was connected to/with.......and even though everyone wants to jump on board with the "ISIS" claim, there's just not enough evidence that suggests he was an active participating member to ISIS. I guess the same people who said "Saddam has WMD's" and "Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda". Perhaps?

 

[MountaineerWV]

It's very simple.

Non US Citizens are not extended citizen rights. We have limited quotas from different regions in different periods of our history for different reasons. Obama stopped immigration from Iraq in 2011 for 6 months by just not processing the applications. The FBI and CIA directors both said ISIS would exploit the refugee system. Obama hides his head in the sand. Trump says we should get it under control before allowing anyone in. And you have a problem with this?

Many on the terror watch list are US citizens. You can NOT limit a citizens rights without due process. A watch list has not went through due process.

So tell me, why are you against US citizen constitutional rights?

Duh. I know who gets US rights and who doesn't. But you are saying it's a "good" thing to allow people who are on a Terror Watch List to attain weapons legally.....even if they are AMERICAN?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Again, we have a presidential candidate wanting to stop Muslim immigration in this country with NOTHING much coming form the Republicans about it.....yet.....when the Democrats want to prevent persons on a TERROR WATCH LIST from being able to purchase a gun legally, the Right goes crazy! Again....what am I missing here?????

I'm not for what Trump is proposing either. I'm a Republican. However, as has been stated repeatedly and which you have failed to address is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. The immigration piece is centered around individuals who do not have the same protections and freedoms as American citizens do. Regardless, i don't support a ban on Muslim immigration.

 

[rog1187]

Duh. I know who gets US rights and who doesn't. But you are saying it's a "good" thing to allow people who are on a Terror Watch List to attain weapons legally.....even if they are AMERICAN?

You do understand US citizen rights and due process right? Which other US citizen rights should be suspended? Free speech maybe on an internet message board? After all the internet wasn't around when the first amendment was written.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Duh. I know who gets US rights and who doesn't. But you are saying it's a "good" thing to allow people who are on a Terror Watch List to attain weapons legally.....even if they are AMERICAN?

That isn't what I said. In order to put someone on the watch list, they'll need to take it to a court of law, and have a documented process of removal to do so.

The executive branch will never go along with this because they don't want to give away their methods for putting someone on the watch list.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Duh. I know who gets US rights and who doesn't. But you are saying it's a "good" thing to allow people who are on a Terror Watch List to attain weapons legally.....even if they are AMERICAN?

No, I am saying security is not worth sacrificing liberty.

With that said, if they want to work Watch List correctly, apply some Due Process on the front end and a means of being removed on the back end. You know, so you don't violate the 4th Amendment? All that jazz.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You do understand US citizen rights and due process right? Which other US citizen rights should be suspended? Free speech maybe on an internet message board? After all the internet wasn't around when the first amendment was written.

I mean, that has been proven as the way ISIS recruits a lot of their fighters. They are radicalized by a lot of propaganda they read off of the internet. We should start censoring and restricting this religious speech. amiright? amiright?

 

[bornaneer]

"You guys are ducking the question". I know we have some very "smart fellers on" this board. The U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Which one is responsible for enforcing existing laws and who is the head of that branch?

 

[Airport]

Oh, there's probably no doubt WHY he did it.....but the key thing is WHO he was connected to/with.......and even though everyone wants to jump on board with the "ISIS" claim, there's just not enough evidence that suggests he was an active participating member to ISIS. I guess the same people who said "Saddam has WMD's" and "Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda". Perhaps?

Most everybody, including HC said Saddam had them and he probably did. Just like the state dept said you would have to wait 75 years for some of her emails. He proclaim allegiance to the cleric, does he have to cut off your head to get your attention?

 

[MountaineerWV]

Most everybody, including HC said Saddam had them and he probably did. Just like the state dept said you would have to wait 75 years for some of her emails. He proclaim allegiance to the cleric, does he have to cut off your head to get your attention?

Ok, HE pledged allegiance. But did ISIS direct him to do it? The Son of Sam said a dog made him murder......did we kill the dog?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Oh, there's probably no doubt WHY he did it.....but the key thing is WHO he was connected to/with.......and even though everyone wants to jump on board with the "ISIS" claim, there's just not enough evidence that suggests he was an active participating member to ISIS. I guess the same people who said "Saddam has WMD's" and "Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda". Perhaps?

The one thing I did pick up from that God awful CNN special was that he was watching youtube sermons from Anwar al-Awlaki. The ties have been made.

 

[bornaneer]

Ok, HE pledged allegiance. But did ISIS direct him to do it? The Son of Sam said a dog made him murder......did we kill the dog?

Do you really want to go this route?