(08-05-2019 04:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 03:54 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  1) Must be 21 to buy a handgun or rifle.

Exception: 18 to buy single action shotgun or bolt action rifle.

2) Limit magazine capacity to 10. Criminalize capacity >10. Offer 3 month buyback window upon passage of law.

3) Mandatory background/fingerprint. 30 day waiting period.

Open to discussion regarding victims of domestic abuse being able to waive 30 day wait.

4) No carry outside home unless permitted.

5) No gun show sales w/o background check and wait period.

6) Private sales prohibited/regulated.

Since stolen guns are mostly used in the vast majority of shootings and killings in the US, we need to do a better job of accounting for stolen guns and making punishments for stealing/possessing/using stolen guns draconian.

7) At some point, registration of guns is necessary or at least if one is to own a gun and possess it, one must be able to show the gun they have is a gun they bought.

8) Pass criminal responsibility law for failing to secure guns that are used by another household member.

While possessing a gun is a fundamental right, all rights (whether one likes it or not) can be curtailed. In this case, the gov't has to show there is a compelling state interest in implementing the above measures. These restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve that.

lol no

Way too much red tape lol. All of that for a constitutional right. How about background checks, finger prints, for journalists?

If words can kill 20 people at a time, then sure.

Oh they have killed tens of millions....

(08-05-2019 04:47 PM)TheOrigamiJimmyChin Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 02:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  Ultimately we have a mental health crisis. But NO Politician will talk about it. It’s not an easy fix or a wedge issue.

It boils down to this. You have to be insane to commit these mass shootings.

Now, Chris Rock had the solution 10 or 20 years ago. Not gun control. Bullet control.

bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... ****, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your ******* head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.

Man my reloader would be working overtime. I could quit my day job.....

(08-05-2019 02:00 PM)Claw Wrote:  Adding curriculum nationwide to teach that murder is wrong. Why everyone has the right to live. The impact of a murder on family and friends.

The goal here is to make a social change about the attitude of murder. They've made a generation of kids that think they will all die from global warming. They can make a new generation that understands this kind of thing is stupid, wrong, harmful, and never effects any change.

Challenge your liberal friends to do this. Many of them are educators. This can help. It won't hurt.

We had that. All the from our original settlement on this continent until the latter part of the 20th century.


The Bible was a foundational part not only of education but in daily life including public policy.

Stone v. Graham (November 17, 1980)
Decision 5-4

Ruled that copies of the Ten Commandments on school walls violated the Constitution Establishment Clause.

Quote:the court maintained that the state was instead encouraging students “to read, meditate upon, and perhaps venerate and obey” the Commandments, which is a violation of the establishment clause.

It would be horrible for kids to obey things like don't lie, don't steal, DON'T KILL.

(08-05-2019 04:48 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol no

Way too much red tape lol. All of that for a constitutional right. How about background checks, finger prints, for journalists?

If words can kill 20 people at a time, then sure.

Red tape?

Hell, 80% of the stuff is already in place.

It isn't crazy to suggest moving rifle purchases to 21 y/o. 18-21 year olds are idiots. That's why they can't drink or rent cars.

No need for 10+ round mags. One has a constitutional right to a gun, not to a magazine.

I hope we all can agree already there is no harm in background checks for keeping certain people from buying guns.

Same for the waiting period.

If one wants to carry outside the home---get a permit. Currently dumb*** RED states like TN have extended the castle doctrine to the car which prohibits cops from being able to scrutinize bad people who have guns in cars during routine traffic stops. (Like gang members).

Requiring gun show sales to follow the same rules as storefront sales isn't crazy either.

None of this would have adversely impacted me when I bought my gun. Nor would it for 99% of people.

The pen is much more dangerous than the sword (gun). The El Paso shooter primary influence was the Great Replacement, a book by a Frenchman. How many whacko dictators have been influenced by various Communist and Socialist manifestos?
Why would you move rifle purchases to 21 when most gun murders are via handguns? If 18-21 year olds are idiots then they shouldn't vote either.

You give me a gun and my opponent a pen and I'm pretty confident I will come out on top.

Now you are getting it! Even if you don’t realize it.....

Why not sue game creators for complicity. The left wants to sue gun manufacturers and sellers so why not the gamers if they find where these shooters have been playing single shooter type games?
Betcha that goes well here.....

(08-05-2019 04:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:50 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:38 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It’s all that something as ******* stupid as your post deserves.

Mature response.

I’m typically not very nice to people who want to strip me of my Constitutional rights because they have an irrational, child-like fear of an inanimate object.

Nothing I propose "strips" you of anything.

That's the funny thing--you let emotions and bumper sticker mottos take precedent over brain work.

It strips me of the ability to properly defend myself against threats against my life and liberty.

It strips me of the ability to protect myself outside of my home.

It strips me of the ability to sell property that I own.

Evidently you not only know jack **** about guns you aren’t really up on the meaning of common English words.

Again, more anger and cliche without logic.

Simply put, nothing "strips" you of anything.

You can get a permit to carry outside your house--literally by definition that means you aren't stripped.

There is some mechanism to ensure private sales comport with the same requirements storefront sellers have to follow. Hardly irrational.

(08-05-2019 05:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 03:54 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  1) Must be 21 to buy a handgun or rifle.

Exception: 18 to buy single action shotgun or bolt action rifle.

2) Limit magazine capacity to 10. Criminalize capacity >10. Offer 3 month buyback window upon passage of law.

3) Mandatory background/fingerprint. 30 day waiting period.

Open to discussion regarding victims of domestic abuse being able to waive 30 day wait.

4) No carry outside home unless permitted.

5) No gun show sales w/o background check and wait period.

6) Private sales prohibited/regulated.

Since stolen guns are mostly used in the vast majority of shootings and killings in the US, we need to do a better job of accounting for stolen guns and making punishments for stealing/possessing/using stolen guns draconian.

7) At some point, registration of guns is necessary or at least if one is to own a gun and possess it, one must be able to show the gun they have is a gun they bought.

8) Pass criminal responsibility law for failing to secure guns that are used by another household member.

While possessing a gun is a fundamental right, all rights (whether one likes it or not) can be curtailed. In this case, the gov't has to show there is a compelling state interest in implementing the above measures. These restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve that.

lol no

Way too much red tape lol. All of that for a constitutional right. How about background checks, finger prints, for journalists?

If words can kill 20 people at a time, then sure.

Oh they have killed tens of millions....

No, just like the gun analogy, guns don't kill people...words don't kill people, gas chambers kill people.

(08-05-2019 05:54 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 05:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol no

Way too much red tape lol. All of that for a constitutional right. How about background checks, finger prints, for journalists?

If words can kill 20 people at a time, then sure.

Oh they have killed tens of millions....

No, just like the gun analogy, guns don't kill people...words don't kill people, gas chambers kill people.

Sorry but you are wrong. Ideas kill people and the left is rushing us to that point in rabid haste.
The El Paso shooter was filled with ideas from the left. Environmental issues were his main hang up. Not the widely reported ‘white nationalism’.

(08-05-2019 05:52 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:50 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:38 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Mature response.

I’m typically not very nice to people who want to strip me of my Constitutional rights because they have an irrational, child-like fear of an inanimate object.

Nothing I propose "strips" you of anything.

That's the funny thing--you let emotions and bumper sticker mottos take precedent over brain work.

It strips me of the ability to properly defend myself against threats against my life and liberty.

It strips me of the ability to protect myself outside of my home.

It strips me of the ability to sell property that I own.

Evidently you not only know jack **** about guns you aren’t really up on the meaning of common English words.

Again, more anger and cliche without logic.

Simply put, nothing "strips" you of anything.

You can get a permit to carry outside your house--literally by definition that means you aren't stripped.

There is some mechanism to ensure private sales comport with the same requirements storefront sellers have to follow. Hardly irrational.

Asinine that I need a permit to exercise my right. Literally by definition that's infringing. So are all your other points.

(08-05-2019 05:54 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 05:13 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:28 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol no

Way too much red tape lol. All of that for a constitutional right. How about background checks, finger prints, for journalists?

If words can kill 20 people at a time, then sure.

Oh they have killed tens of millions....

No, just like the gun analogy, guns don't kill people...words don't kill people, gas chambers kill people.

Words were spoken, "gas 'em". The chambers were the tool of the words.

(08-05-2019 04:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 03:40 PM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  How about politicians compromise on the two issues that they dig their heels in the most? Democrats dig in on guns and Republicans dig in on abortion. So we don't want to "ban" both...but agree on compromise. Conservatives can keep "guns" but not AR's. Liberals can keep abortions (rape, incest, and fear of mothers life) but not convenience abortions.

I'd bet neither side would want to compromise...which is sad.

What's the problem with AR's? Let me answer that for you. None.

It’s what libs always want to ban. Guess I should’ve said scary looking gun?

(08-05-2019 06:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 05:52 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:50 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I’m typically not very nice to people who want to strip me of my Constitutional rights because they have an irrational, child-like fear of an inanimate object.

Nothing I propose "strips" you of anything.

That's the funny thing--you let emotions and bumper sticker mottos take precedent over brain work.

It strips me of the ability to properly defend myself against threats against my life and liberty.

It strips me of the ability to protect myself outside of my home.

It strips me of the ability to sell property that I own.

Evidently you not only know jack **** about guns you aren’t really up on the meaning of common English words.

Again, more anger and cliche without logic.

Simply put, nothing "strips" you of anything.

You can get a permit to carry outside your house--literally by definition that means you aren't stripped.

There is some mechanism to ensure private sales comport with the same requirements storefront sellers have to follow. Hardly irrational.

Asinine that I need a permit to exercise my right. Literally by definition that's infringing. So are all your other points.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally being obtuse but obviously for public assembly which is a First Amendment right often requires permitting. You need permits to have rallies and to hold other things that are allowed within the first amendment. Libel and and slandr not covered under the First Amendment. You can't yell fire in a movie theater. That is not free speech.

Your "free exercise" of religion doesn't allow you to have multiple wives, to marry your children, or to kill people who violate your religious laws.

The baseline we are at is that government can restrict gun rights under strict scrutiny. Period.

Quote:Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a first-term Democrat, announced Monday she will invite top state law enforcement officials and legislative leaders from both political parties to take part in a domestic terrorism summit in Santa Fe this month.

That summit, which will include a closed-door briefing from Federal Bureau of Investigation officials, could lead to new state policies and possibly additional gun-related legislation being drafted in advance of next year’s 30-day session, a Lujan Grisham spokesman said.

“It is too easy for dangerous, violent and mentally ill individuals to obtain an instrument of mass death in this country, and hateful rhetoric can directly lead to destructive and heinous acts,” the governor said in a statement. “In New Mexico, we will be on the front foot, and I look forward to this discussion.”

While it’s unclear what proposals could come out of the domestic terrorism summit, discussions on gun-related legislation have already been taking place before this weekend’s massacre in El Paso, which was one of the deadliest shootings in United States history.

A coalition of New Mexico sheriffs — who turned out in force earlier this year to oppose background checks and other gun legislation — is now working with state Rep. Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, on the possibility of compromise “red flag” legislation.

Legislation sponsored by Ely that would have allowed courts to order the temporary taking of guns from someone deemed an immediate threat passed the House of Representatives during this year’s 60-day session. But the proposal — sometimes referred to as a “red flag law” — failed to make it through the Senate before the session’s end.

Similar laws have already been enacted this year in more than a dozen states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Two separate firearms bills passed the Legislature this year and were signed into law by Lujan Grisham despite opposition from Republican lawmakers and most New Mexico sheriffs — one expanding background check requirements and the other prohibiting the possession of guns by convicted domestic abusers.

The governor also said she would continue to push for measures improving public safety, adding that those blocking proposals to limit gun access are obstructing progress, peace and prosperity both on local and national levels.

Link

All of this stuff being proposed will be expensive. How are we going to pay for it? How about we re-introduce HR Bill 5103 which proposed we double the federal excise tax on pistols and revolvers, from 10 percent to 20 percent, nearly double the federal excise tax on shotguns and rifles, raising it from 11 percent up to 20 percent and nearly quintuple the federal excise tax on ammunition, raising it from 11 percent up to 50 percent?

That's still way less than the cigarette tax rate, and less than some alcohol tax rates.

(08-05-2019 03:30 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote: If everyone has guns it will be the wild west. Those who want to do bad things will be met with people who want to do good things and will stop them. Lots of gun fights...

Why would it be?

Take a common criminal who's looking to mug someone with a gun... Unless they truly have a death wish, and if even only 2 out of every 5 people they're going to target _has_ a gun to defend themselves... they're going to be a lot more reluctant to go on the attack, unless they're just out to get themselves killed (and yes, we know those people exist, and there's not much you can do for them)

Quote:DO NOT glorify or publicize public shootings and shooters. Most of them do it with the plan of being killed or shooting themselves anyway.

You know, while I am a pro-death penalty guy... I'm thinking just the opposite of SoMs...

Don't give them the joy of the public execution where appropriate. Announce they're getting locked up, and put them in the deepest darkest hole in the world, give them bread and water rations, and then make sure they're NEVER mentioned in public again. Kind of hard to get your "message" out when you no longer exist in the world.

How long before the ACLU gets involved in solitary confinement that you say. Not that I don't agree with it but it wouldn't fly with our "poor little criminal" mentality. It would make a lot of potential shooters balk at committing those kind of crimes if they knew that solitary confinement for the rest of their lives was their punishment, a hell on earth in a way.

(08-05-2019 06:46 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 06:29 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 05:52 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:50 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Nothing I propose "strips" you of anything.

That's the funny thing--you let emotions and bumper sticker mottos take precedent over brain work.

It strips me of the ability to properly defend myself against threats against my life and liberty.

It strips me of the ability to protect myself outside of my home.

It strips me of the ability to sell property that I own.

Evidently you not only know jack **** about guns you aren’t really up on the meaning of common English words.

Again, more anger and cliche without logic.

Simply put, nothing "strips" you of anything.

You can get a permit to carry outside your house--literally by definition that means you aren't stripped.

There is some mechanism to ensure private sales comport with the same requirements storefront sellers have to follow. Hardly irrational.

Asinine that I need a permit to exercise my right. Literally by definition that's infringing. So are all your other points.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally being obtuse but obviously for public assembly which is a First Amendment right often requires permitting. You need permits to have rallies and to hold other things that are allowed within the first amendment. Libel and and slandr not covered under the First Amendment. You can't yell fire in a movie theater. That is not free speech.

Your "free exercise" of religion doesn't allow you to have multiple wives, to marry your children, or to kill people who violate your religious laws.

The baseline we are at is that government can restrict gun rights under strict scrutiny. Period.

Not being obtuse at all. I have a problem with needing permits. For assembly or guns. I shouldn't need any. Because ******** make us doesn't change that people never should have allowed the ******** a word in the matter.

(08-05-2019 06:55 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  All of this stuff being proposed will be expensive. How are we going to pay for it? How about we re-introduce HR Bill 5103 which proposed we double the federal excise tax on pistols and revolvers, from 10 percent to 20 percent, nearly double the federal excise tax on shotguns and rifles, raising it from 11 percent up to 20 percent and nearly quintuple the federal excise tax on ammunition, raising it from 11 percent up to 50 percent?

That's still way less than the cigarette tax rate, and less than some alcohol tax rates.

No.

(08-05-2019 06:48 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a first-term Democrat, announced Monday she will invite top state law enforcement officials and legislative leaders from both political parties to take part in a domestic terrorism summit in Santa Fe this month.

That summit, which will include a closed-door briefing from Federal Bureau of Investigation officials, could lead to new state policies and possibly additional gun-related legislation being drafted in advance of next year’s 30-day session, a Lujan Grisham spokesman said.

“It is too easy for dangerous, violent and mentally ill individuals to obtain an instrument of mass death in this country, and hateful rhetoric can directly lead to destructive and heinous acts,” the governor said in a statement. “In New Mexico, we will be on the front foot, and I look forward to this discussion.”

While it’s unclear what proposals could come out of the domestic terrorism summit, discussions on gun-related legislation have already been taking place before this weekend’s massacre in El Paso, which was one of the deadliest shootings in United States history.

A coalition of New Mexico sheriffs — who turned out in force earlier this year to oppose background checks and other gun legislation — is now working with state Rep. Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, on the possibility of compromise “red flag” legislation.

Legislation sponsored by Ely that would have allowed courts to order the temporary taking of guns from someone deemed an immediate threat passed the House of Representatives during this year’s 60-day session. But the proposal — sometimes referred to as a “red flag law” — failed to make it through the Senate before the session’s end.

Similar laws have already been enacted this year in more than a dozen states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Two separate firearms bills passed the Legislature this year and were signed into law by Lujan Grisham despite opposition from Republican lawmakers and most New Mexico sheriffs — one expanding background check requirements and the other prohibiting the possession of guns by convicted domestic abusers.

The governor also said she would continue to push for measures improving public safety, adding that those blocking proposals to limit gun access are obstructing progress, peace and prosperity both on local and national levels.

Link

Political grandstanding, not a serious effort to share data. No intelligent Republican should attend.

(08-05-2019 01:31 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Mine is punishment. I say laws should be enacted to expedite the trial and sentencing of perps caught immediately at the seen of a mass shooting. The sentence should be public hanging without a hood. Let the left cry for these animals and demand a lighter punishment. I say hang em high.

Won’t stop all of them but I guarantee it would stop some.

Not sure that's gruesome enough to discourage the crazies. Hanging is a quick but violent death, crazies might need to see they'll suffer for a while.