" Common Sense Gun Laws "

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

I'd be happy to disarm myself, just as soon as every government, Fed, State and local, as well as every known, and unknown, law enforcement type of individual, does the same. But .... I'm a keep one, or two, hidden, along with a sufficient quantity of ammunition, just in case they don't follow through.

 

[Hijinx]

The figure of 20,000 is bandied around when the questions of how many laws are there referring to guns in this country.
The Democrats who are known for having absolutely no common sense are going to give us more that do make sense.?


Anybody want to buy a bridge?

 

[itsbob]

Common sense means our Senators leaving it ALONE.. there is no cookie cutter gun law that works in all 50 states or even in every county in any given state.

NO WAY we should be enacting ANY gun laws on the Federal level, and the ones we have now should ALL be rescinded.

No federeal mandated checks, nothing..

There is no way ANY sensible human being believes the somebody that lives in Wisconsin, or North Dakota should be governed and restricted in their use of guns the same way somebody that lives in Chicago or NYC should

That is common sense law.. period.

 

[Gilligan]

“Easy access to guns” is such utter bs. Guns were far far easier to buy 75 years ago than they are now.

 

[nutz]

“Easy access to guns” is such utter bs. Guns were far far easier to buy 75 years ago than they are now.

There is nothing common sense when politicians are involved.”common sense” would involve holding individuals responsible instead of all society.

 

[Gilligan]

The "good ole days", when even military surplus anti tank guns could be bought mail order...with ammo.

 

[Hijinx]

“Easy access to guns” is such utter bs. Guns were far far easier to buy 75 years ago than they are now.

I was about 13 when I ordered my first J.C., Higgins pump shotgun from Sears Roebuck.
It came in the mail. No questions asked.

 

[officeguy]

'Common sense' would be to arrest violent criminals and to keep them in prison.

 

[stgislander]

'Common sense' would be to arrest violent criminals and to keep them in prison.

Everybody is now looking at the guy in Philly and wondering, "Why was this guy out on the streets? His rap sheet is a mile long."

 

[Hijinx]

Everybody is now looking at the guy in Philly and wondering, "Why was this guy out on the streets? His rap sheet is a mile long."

They were in a small war with this guy and the neighbors were throwing stuff at them and Jeering while the police were doing it.
Don't try to tell me these people aren't happy living in this type of environment.

 

[Kyle]

Might be time for these major cities to suffer some "Blue-Flu!"

 

[GURPS]

So .... it has come out some of the wounded in Dayton were shot by police ...

WTF happened to checking your back ground before shooting

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

So .... it has come out some of the wounded in Dayton were shot by police ...

WTF happened to checking your back ground before shooting

Firearm safety is not a high priority with the, "training", they receive. After all, wanting to go home after a shift takes all precedence over everything else. That, and total immunity for life altering errors and wrong doing helps.

 

[black dog]

I was about 13 when I ordered my first J.C., Higgins pump shotgun from Sears Roebuck.
It came in the mail. No questions asked.

And with that, what was it like watching Moses parting The Red sea?

 

[itsbob]

maybe our good comrade would care to compare rates of violent gun deaths in the US to other first world countries?

You know, make a relevant comparison instead of an irrelevant one?

Odd how our resident bot claims such a prodigy like level of critical thinking capability, yet, can't understand that comparisons like the one posted above are generally worthless.

Why does it have to be violent murder by GUN??

You're not truly certainly dead unless you've been shot??

Or are you saying it doesn't matter that the murder weapon of choice in England is not w sharp pointed metal thingy.. that sill nobody there has right to defend themselves against..

And please.. MURDER rates.. compared to London.. because I don't really buy into the importance of how somebody is killed, only that they've been killed illegally.

THAT would be a relevant comparison..

ANy have we had any one day where 3000 or more people were murdered by guns?? If not.. you're comparisons are all faulty. Your liberal scientific method isn't/

 

[Hijinx]

So .... it has come out some of the wounded in Dayton were shot by police ...

WTF happened to checking your back ground before shooting

I don't know about you but after the first shot I would make it a point to GTF out of the background.

 

[GURPS]

The enforcement problems with gun-grabbing ‘red flag’ laws are even worse than you think



Local governments are now charging people thousands of dollars to store guns that are confiscated, and they tack on a charge for inventory and processing fees.

In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial “offer” of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.

Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.

To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

Think that’s a fantasy?

 

[Hank]

I see the Media Brainwashing is working


Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down



An equal number, 56 percent, place a great deal of blame for mass shootings on easy access to guns and a lack of services for mentally ill people with violent tendencies. Four in 10 blame expressions of white nationalism (40 percent) and inadequate parenting (39 percent). About a third point to sentiments expressed by President Trump (34 percent) and anti-immigrant sentiment (33 percent). Less than a quarter say violent video games (23 percent) and sentiments expressed by Democratic political leaders (15 percent).

Democrats are most likely to blame easy access to guns (79 percent), expressions of white nationalism (62 percent), and Trump (59 percent). For Republicans, it’s a lack of services for mental illness (60 percent), bad parenting (54 percent), and access to guns (32 percent).

When voters are asked to say in their own words why mass shootings happen more often in the U.S. than elsewhere, their top three responses are: access to guns (35 percent), mental health issues (22 percent), and Trump rhetoric (10 percent).

a little hard to read .........

57% of democrats survayed want to live in a country where guns are banned
84% of Republicans do not

View attachment 139968



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-august-14


42. Easy access to guns: How much do you think each of the following is to blame for mass shootings in the United States over the last few years?

A great deal

Dem:: 79%
Rep: 32%
In: 46%

Some:

Dem: 26%
Rep: 18%
IN: 23%

40. Public and online expressions of white nationalism: How much do you think each of the following is to blame for massshootings in the United States over the last few years?

A great deal

Dem:: 62%
Rep: 19%
In: 29%

Some:

Dem: 27%
Rep: 29%
IN: 33%

Damn Dude. You are all over the place. First page of this thread you post a link indicating the US does not have the most mass shootings & now in this post you include a Fox News poll stating the US has the most mass shootings. Wipe the drool and make up your mind, Spaz!

 

[GURPS]

Conversation .... Point, Counter Point differing information

You ASSUME just because I post an Article I Support The Information

 

[GURPS]

Kamala Harris Promises To 'Disarm Violent Hate' by Seizing Guns From Bigots



Harris mentions the 2018 shooting in which Robert Bowers murdered 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue. Prior to the attack, Bowers posted a bunch of anti-Semitic comments on Gab. In his bio, he described Jews as "the children of satan," and his posts and reposts railed against Jews and the Latin Americans whose illegal immigration he believed they were facilitating. "He was clearly obsessed with Jews," Alex Amend of the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote after the attack. "In the small window into his account currently available, it's evident he engaged with numerous antisemitic conspiracy theories that have long been in circulation among neo-Nazis and white nationalists."

But the clearest intimation of impending violence did not appear until the morning of the attack: "HIAS [the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. Screw your optics, I'm going in." By the time that message was posted, it was too late for police intervention, let alone a "domestic terrorism prevention order."

It's not clear how the law Harris supports would distinguish between run-of-the-mill anti-Semites and the tiny percentage of them who, like Bower, translate their hateful beliefs into homicidal action. If everyone who circulates messages like the ones Bower posted would be a candidate for a gun confiscation order, the law would be casting a very wide net, undermining First Amendment as well as Second Amendment rights.


Since we know what Roof ended up doing, that passage seems like an obvious threat of violence. But "fight" and "tak[ing] it to the real world" are so ambiguous that it's hard to see how Roof's venting would qualify as a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment. In combination with other evidence, such talk might suffice to show that someone poses a "significant" danger, the standard typically prescribed by red flag laws. But by itself, racist pontificating is constitutionally protected, and it is rather troubling that Harris does not even mention freedom of speech as a consideration.

​