I'm so goddamned mad at being in this place again...

[CTyankee]

listening to Brahms Requiem after another shooting and the tears come and come...

having had gun violence and death in my family, I get this in the gut each time there is another failure of our gun laws and the NRA to prevent yet another shooting and having other families suffer unspeakable loss and sorrow. And yet here I am...

this is slaughter, pure and simple. And no, I will NOT just offer up "thoughts and prayers" to the victim's families. Where were those thoughts and prayers BEFORE this latest slaughter? Fat lot of good they did, you bastards...

Trying hard just to hold it all together...thanks for listening at least...

[Botany]

1. If you can be in D.C. this thursday ...... we need >1,000,000 people there to show ...

.... congress it is time to stop this madness.

BTW I too lost a friend to gun violence.

Everybody needs to read this: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/07/bleed-american.html

It is the guns end of story

[Duckhunter935]

4. So what gun laws should be passed?

[Botany]

10. a journey of 1,000 miles starts w/the first step

But:

background checks

no gun show buying w/out checks

get rid of assault rifles

call the NRA out for what it is .... a front for the gun industry and that it doesn't give shit one about the people's
rights

read the 2nd amendment

understand that currently gun nuts 2nd amendments rights as per guns is fucking w/our 1st amendment right
to be able to peacefully assemble and what was written in the preamble to the Declaration of Underpins as per
the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Duckhunter935]

14. I am all for background checks

An AWB becomes an issue on what the definition is and what you do with the millions in private hands now. Problem is, even background checks would not have stopped any of these mass murders using firearms. They went through the mandated background check.

[SkeleTim1968]

40. Ban clips and magazines over 10 rounds.

Mass shooters have been stopped multiple times because they had to reload their weapon.
I see no reason a person needs a 30 round clip for hunting or protection or target shooting.

[Duckhunter935]

44. I say 20 rounds

Just what mass shooters were stopped reloading other than the Giffards murderer.

[denvine]

70. Who needs assault rifles and why?

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Who needs to express their political views online and why?

[denvine]

75. That's not an answer!

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. It *is* an answer- merely one you don't like. There is no Department of Needs.

[denvine]

92. Since you want to play a word game, why would anyone want to have an assault weapon

and for what purpose!

[Duckhunter935]

96. I use mine legally for the legal sport of target shooting

I also use my military bolt action rifles for that also.

[denvine]

109. So, because you want to have a rifle that fires 20 rounds

it justifies that type of weapon to be allowed, despite the fact that we had 370 mass shootings in one year. Let's say you take the argument of "I" like to have and think about a common good for the country and the safety of it's citizens. Can't you target shoot with a 3 round rifle or even a six round rifle? That would be sufficient for hunting, self defense and target shooting, unless the "I want" argument supersedes the the need to do something about the rampant killing in this country.

[Duckhunter935]

115. It's called compromise

I do not need 30,40,50,60,100 or 200 round magazines. The problem is a magazine is s box with a spring. How many if those mass shootings were handguns and how many were by the police?

[pipoman]

100. Within 50 miles if you anywhere in this country

There were competitive shooting events today..hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of people competitive shoot every weekend...

[metroins]

113. That's a hobby

I'd like to have a hobby of creating bombs and seeing how big I can make a bang. But that's illegal.

I'm extremely pro gun anti regulation but you need a real argument.

Typically going back to the constitution.

[Duckhunter935]

116. I think if you have the right licence

And the money and space you can have destructive devices.

[metroins]

119. So you'd like to license 20 round clips?

That would be OK?

Again, get a different argument, use the constitution.

[Duckhunter935]

121. I personally don't have an issue with that

I feel the same for licensing by type of weapon. But it would have to pass Constitutional muster. I think a person should be qualified on the weapon owned. I would be against trying to use that as a way to impede ownership like making it prohibitivly expensive or hard to obtain.

[metroins]

134. I agree. Very rational. Nt

[Duckhunter935]

136. Thanks

But I am just an ammosexual gun humper and future terrorist by some here.

[pipoman]

125. Try to follow along...it is a response to post #92 and nothing more...

And if you want to jump through the whoops you can absolutely use explosives.

[hunter]

149. That used to be one of my hobbies.

Rockets and explosives. Sometimes the rockets exploded too. I have a couple of scars from those.

My parents owned a small farm. My dad would give me the keys to his truck and send me out to pick up fertilizer. I'd pick up his fertilizer (he'd mostly use urea for nitrogen) and a few side orders of my own.

I had an essentially unlimited supply of nitrates, and room to experiment.

My kids and I played with rockets, Estes variety, but not explosives or sugar fuel in PVC pipe. We didn't play with guns either, aside from the Nerf variety.

[metroins]

154. I'm hoping to make gadgets my hobby

Explosives seem fun, but my attention to detail is lacking. I'll get hurt.

I'm hoping in next 2 years to design some home use robotics for daily/weekly chores such as trash can to curb or possibly clean windows.

[denvine]

114. Why do people need to have assault weapons to competitively shoot?

Wouldn't a weapon with at the most 6 rounds work just as well?

[Duckhunter935]

117. Why do you need an iPhone?

A dial landline works just fine. There is no department of needs as far as I know.

[denvine]

124. My iPhone can't kill multiple people at one time.

Really, that's the argument. When will common sense prevail and the selfish desire to own a weapon that has the ability to kill multiple people very quickly takes a back seat. There are reasons for regulations. I want to drive 90 mph but it is against the law and for good reason. I'm a damn good driver and I wouldn't put anyone at risk. Common sense over selfish desire. You don't have to give up your target shooting or competition. It's been proven to work and if there is even a slight chance that it would, why not give it a shot. Imagine the lives it could spare if it works. Perhaps a deranged individual will not be able to get his hand on an assault weapon.

[Duckhunter935]

128. Alright

Why should we allow people to own cars that will go faster than 75 miles an hour. People will think they are great drivers but break the law and they do kill many every year. Nobody needs a car or motorcycle that can go that fast.

[denvine]

162. Again, if there is a chance that it would reduce the killings, isn't it worth it?

[Duckhunter935]

167. I am for reducing the greatest number

And that is not due to semi-automatic rifles.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. Appeals to 'common sense' are a fallacy- and also Colonism:

Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He'd been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[beevul]

192. No, but it can contain child porn. N/t

[pipoman]

158. There are single and double action revolver competitions, cowboy competitions,

model specific competition, literally hundreds of types of shooting competitions....so no.

The vast, vast majority of guns someone may consider to be "assault weapons" are "in common use for lawful purposes"...they will not be federally banned because of this SCOTUS standard....

[denvine]

166. Then maybe those model specific competitions should be made illegal also.

Who would hurt from a decision like this and how many possible lives might it save. Isn't it worth a try or is competitive shooting worth the possibility that the assault weapons end up in the hands of a lunatic. It's similar to the climate change argument. If there is a 1% chance that humans are causing climate change, isn't it worth it to do whatever we can to stop it or are we that selfish and don't want to give up a little to possibly help future generations?

[Duckhunter935]

169. You are much better off

Getting rid of the war on drugs and better mental health to save many more lives then are killed by so called assault weapons.

[pipoman]

184. See we have this list of limitations on our government

called the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You can do all that and more right after you have amended these documents, but not before.

No and no. We live in one of the most free countries on the planet. We can't keep drugs, weapons and other contraband out of United States Prison, Florence, AdMax...the most secure prison on the planet....

This country is founded on the realization of risk with freedom. "Saving one life" is not worth giving up a single inch of freedom...

[denvine]

185. Wow! So freedom to own assault weapons is worth more than the possibility of saving lives.

Just wow! I don't understand your thinking at all. I hope I am never blinded by the desire for a so called freedom that I don't give a crap about how many bodies may be left it its' wake. I sincerely hope you are never confronted with losing a loved one because of the gun addiction in this country. I hope you don't have to look back and think, something should have been done. Oh, and that single inch of so called freedom, do you thing Australians are not free? The second amendment was written long before the guns and ammunition of today. Common sense says we should adjust to the times. It's not 1791 anymore.

[Duckhunter935]

187. You would save many more banning alcohol

than so called assault weapons, just saying.

[pipoman]

190. Maybe, maybe not....doesn't make a single bit of difference....

There is a process for amending the constitution....that is your only solution.

A liberal interpretation of civil rights and liberties is the responsibility of liberals. No SCOTUS will...in any of our lives....allow any ban of any weapon "in common use for lawful purposes".

Yea, yea...more "guns cause" nonsense....guns do not "cause" anything. Murders are "caused" by people who wish to kill someone. There has never been a mass shooting that the killer was motivated by owning a gun....ever....the murders are always motivated by something resulting in the killer acquiring a weapon and killing people.

If at every threat to safety....no matter how small....we reacted by completely eliminating the risk, we would all live in rubber balls. By your thinking we should eliminate all motor vehicles, high places, pools of water more than 1" deep, bicycles, hot dogs (choke hazard), etc.etc.....

No, Australians are not free to own some weapons. Australia also doesn't have a US Constitution. Nobody will usurp our Constitution without going through the necessary steps. 37 states must ratify a constitutional amendment...maybe 2 would ratify an alternative to the 2nd amendment. Reality is what I am showing you here....doesn't matter a bit how I or you feel it should be....

[Duckhunter935]

80. Very true

Nobody needs to do that.

[Duckhunter935]

79. I do not have any

But 20 rounds us a good compromise as it would cover handgun capacity and is what came standard with my AR-15 rifle. Above 20 should be banned, it's called compromise.

[SkeleTim1968]

210. What does one need with 20 rounds of ammo?

10 more potential lives.

[Duckhunter935]

215. Nope, I never point a weapon at a person

One of the basic firearms rules.

[SkeleTim1968]

219. You are not the only person who could purchase 20 rounds of ammo if that were the limit.

Those people might very well point guns at people.

What does a person need 20 round clip/magazine for?

[Duckhunter935]

221. Since most weapons are designed

With magazines below that threshold. There are billions of magazines between 10 and 20 rounds. They will not magically disappear and more than likely would be grandfathered. It is simple, that is a good compromise to get the larger, less numerous magazines outlawed. That might actually be doable.

[SkeleTim1968]

223. Pointing to the length of time to rid society of magazines isn't a good reason

to oppose banning them. Eventually they will become virtually nonexistent.

There shouldn't be a compromise on this. What does a person need a 20 round clip/magazine for?
There isn't any reason someone needs a 20 round clip/magazine other than because they simply want one, which should never trump saving someone's life.

[Duckhunter935]

224. Magazines do not just go bad or get used up

They are boxes with springs. They can and are now freely 3D printed. Magazine limits are really an almost pointless feel good measure.

[Straw Man]

230. Correction.

Just what mass shooters were stopped reloading other than the Giffards murderer.

There was an attempt to grab Loughner's gun while he was reloading, but it failed. He was able to reload, but then his gun jammed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110

[Duckhunter935]

234. Thank you

[Jim Beard]

207. Go back to the 6 round revolver period.

[SkeleTim1968]

209. There's an idea.

Maybe a simple .30-30 rifle for hunting.

[Straw Man]

231. A simple .30-30?

Maybe a simple .30-30 rifle for hunting.

Like this?


It's a much higher-powered round than the 5.56 of the AR and even has a slight edge over the 7.62 of the AK. No detachable magazine and a capacity of only seven, but it can be easily "topped off" via the loading gate in the receiver, so it never has to run empty as long as the shooter has a pouch or pocketful of shells. That's why it's sometimes referred to as the "hillbilly assault rifle."

[oneshooter]

211. That restriction includes police and ALL civilian LE. Correct?

[Duckhunter935]

216. It better

They are one the top ones that shoot people.

[Straw Man]

232. Are you aware ...

Go back to the 6 round revolver period.

... that double-action revolvers fire one round each time you pull the trigger, just like semi-auto pistols? And that there are devices call "speedloaders" that hold six rounds in position, ready to be popped into the cylinder?

How long would it be before you'd be clamoring to ban those?

[pipoman]

74. ....

background checks

What about them? There are already bg checks required on every new gun sold and all other guns sold through a dealer or across state lines. The only sales not federally required are sales of used personal property between 2 people in the same state.

no gun show buying w/out checks

Again, the only exempted sale is between 2 people who are not in the business of selling guns, who also live in the same state. Every other type of sale requires a background check.

get rid of assault rifles

Never happen because experts cannot unambiguously define "assault weapon" and even if they could they are constitutionally protected due to the 70 year standard set by SCOTUS in 1939..."in common use for lawful purposes"....

call the NRA out for what it is .... a front for the gun industry and that it doesn't give shit one about the people's rights.

Even if they are, there is no law against it. The NRA is blown into a complete fairy tale unicorn by a few loud mouthes....they are a 5 million member lobbying group. The combined revenue of all US gun makers is less than that of a single Fortune 500 company...they really aren't very well funded at all in comparison to every other industry in the US...

read the 2nd amendment

Done and interpreted by SCOTUS. Now, if there were any will, constitutional amendment is your only reasonable remedy.

[Duckhunter935]

81. Some states do require a background check for all weapons transfers

But that is up to the states. I also like how they say you can buy a weapon on the internet without a background check.

[pipoman]

84. It will always be up to the states....the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over those sales...

Local bulletin boards, Facebook, etc are the only way....then it is only a classified ad. All of the gun auction sites will ban anyone who doesn't do legal transfers...

[Duckhunter935]

85. I know

Iit would be curious if a company designed and sold weapons only within a state if federal law could be challenged.

[pipoman]

95. Has already iirc...

There are a few of these sellers in Alaska and Montana IIRC. If you are a intrastate buyer you do not need a bg check to buy their guns.

[Duckhunter935]

97. Love this place

Learn something daily

[malaise]

7. Excellent Rudie

as usual

[CTyankee]

27. Rudepundit's thoughts are exactly mine...

[CTyankee]

165. I think so many of us are spent and can spend no more.

we have to have time for family and friends who are with us now...

[Botany]

182. Understood

I wish you well ... I don't know if I can make it over from OH but still i would like to
see a big # of people there.

[Coventina]

2. I have no words. Only hugs and tears.

You are in my heart, CTyankee.

[CTyankee]

9. thanks. It's nice to know that...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. What gun law would have prevented the Dallas shootings? n/t

[Botany]

5. Reagan signed a law to ban assault weapons but in 2002 or 2003 republican let that ban expire

The weapon used in Dallas would not have been able to be bought legally.

[jmg257]

8. Not to nitpick but the AWB Clinton signed (which expired in 04), did not ban the dallas-used rifle

as it is not legally an assault weapon.

Even re: the latest suggested federal bans, and the active ones in NY etc., it is not an AW.

[CTyankee]

12. I suggest we tear up the precious 2nd A and proceed to go to the laws in other countries where

such mass slaughters don't happen. Next question...

[jmg257]

18. No questions asked, but anyway - Now you're talking...no loopholes, no questionable "features"..

just ban 'em all, and confiscate all you can.

[japple]

46. Amen. Ban all guns. Lock them up in armories. Let the well-regulated

militia report for duty when needed and issue them a gun at that time. Provide training to all of those who are members of the militia.

[Jim Beard]

208. I agree

[Hoyt]

15. That's easy to change, ban or tax the hell out of semi-autos.

[jmg257]

22. All repeating arms with deatchable mags or fixed capacity above X rounds...easy enough. nt

[Hoyt]

30. Exactly. They tried to coddle too many gunners with the previous ban.

[CTyankee]

36. my neice was killed by a single shot to her head with a handgun by her stepgrandfather who had

legal possession to have a handgun for "protection" (it was in Texas). He kept the gun loaded but got drunk and was angry....

[jmg257]

43. Understood - I recall you talking about that horrible situation. :(

[The Wielding Truth]

69. Taxing guns to the point of affordability would really help. Every time one is sold or

one is used or one is carried, there should be a huge tax levied. It would still be a right to own one, but it could be very very expensive.

Would that work?

[Hoyt]

157. Makes me think of those cards for driving in HOV lane, if you carry your gun in public.

We use high taxes to deter people from having real machine guns. Don't see why we can't move AR15s and similar lethal weapons into same category, with big annual taxes.

[Duckhunter935]

161. You can try it

But machine guns were found not to be in general use for lawful purposes, thus the extra restrictions. The tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles are in general use for lawful purposes.

[Hoyt]

175. Lately they've become general use for meyhem and stocking yahoos' weapons cache for domestic

terrorism.

[Duckhunter935]

178. Actually not

That hyperbolic crap is why nobody pays attention to you.

[stonecutter357]

203. +1000

[CTyankee]

183. good idea, actually. I think it would help since we can't seem to rid ourselves of the 2nd A.

[Duckhunter935]

160. Probably not

As it would be seen as a defacto ban except for the very rich. If you want to ban something, just say it.

[Initech]

212. Actually I think we should make guns break down as frequently as printers do.

You go to shoot it, it's jammed. You try to fix it and you get "PC load chamber", error code 504. And no one can decipher what error code 504 means in the manual. So you have to call the technician....

[The Wielding Truth]

213. If guns couldn't kill. That would be lovely. Maybe they will keep getting more and more

complicated like our other tech things, then they will be too difficult for deranged 2nd amend- mentors to operate. Let's hope it's soon.

[Duckhunter935]

218. It's called smart guns

They are trying

[Duckhunter935]

217. That's what happens with those

Giant clown magazines. They jam

[dumbcat]

16. That's pretty good

You just basically stated three things in your post, all of which were wrong. Way to go for credibilty.

[Duckhunter935]

21. The weapons used in San Bernardino

Were legal in California that has an AWB in place. The rifle used in Sandy Hook was AWB compliant as Connecticut maintained the federal ban as a state law. Not sure on the Texas murderer weapon now as the specific model has not been released.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

67. Thanks for sharing! I don't think he would be elected today.

Republicans, when they find out that Saint Ronnie was for gun control. Priceless!

Video of President Reagan on Gun Control - Feb 6, 1989

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Conservative icon President Ronald Reagan was actually in favor of sensible gun control measures like the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Perhaps not allowing the assault weapons ban to expire but reenact the ban.

[Duckhunter935]

23. The San Bernardino and Sandy Hook

Rifles were AWB compliant.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Okay since this is your argument lets ban more weapons, would this help?

[Duckhunter935]

35. The only way you could do it

Is ban by function and confiscate the weapons in circulation. I do not see that happening.

[Thinkingabout]

39. Maybe if the NRA worked as hard stopping the mass murders as they do on preventing any

Gun laws from getting passed we would be ahead. How about repealing their protection from law suits? So far they have not indicated a desire to stop the mass murders.

[Duckhunter935]

42. You have a billionaire backing gun control

Thousands of times the money the NRA has. The manufacturers and dealers can be sued and are. Gun manufacturers can not sell to the public. They have that same protections afforded to abortion providers from SLAPP lawsuits.

The NRA ILA is nuts but at least the other part of the NRA actually pushes gun safety programs.

[Thinkingabout]

45. The NRA is nothing but a gun lobby, don't respect people. They could make some changes

But they have lost their way.

[Duckhunter935]

47. The lobby side sure has

Not the safety side. They are two separate legal entities.

[guillaumeb]

61. Technically true but quite deceptive:

Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy.

To see what she's getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals.

Lawmakers passed that law in response to a spate of lawsuits that cities filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those lawsuits often claimed gun-makers or sellers were engaging in "negligent marketing" or creating a "public nuisance."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

Gun manufacturers can be sued only for manufacturing defective products.

Nice try.

[Duckhunter935]

64. There are six exceptions to the immunity

For manufacturers and retailers. Defective products are one of the six. Thanks for admitting what I posted was true.

[Hoyt]

66. How about gunners doing the right thing, quit buying them and destroy the ones they have?

Oh, and stop promoting and apologizing for guns and those who covet them.

Semi-auto pistols too.

[Duckhunter935]

68. Tens of millions gave done nothing wrong with a legal product

I could say the same about alcohol that has actually no purpose other than getting drunk.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. What hypocritical bullshit! *You* sold the ones you had, for profit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x484737

When my dad died and left me a number of nice target weapons, I sold them on a gun auction site.

[Duckhunter935]

137. Typical

[Hoyt]

152. Revolver target pistols. You can sell those too through FFL. Following me closely? LMAO.

[friendly_iconoclast]

186. Why didn't you destroy them in the same way that you asked others to do?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7999092

66. How about gunners doing the right thing, quit buying them and destroy the ones they have?

[Duckhunter935]

188. Good question

I would not expect an answer

[friendly_iconoclast]

189. Elmer Gantry would have made a mint if he had gone into gun control advocacy

[Marengo]

227. What did you do with the money?

[Hoyt]

228. Used the money to help my mom on Social Security back when no drug coverage. What's it to you?

I'm sure you would have spent it on more gunz.

By the way, almost every one of those user names on that old post were booted for being white wingers and vile gun nuts. Most are back though.

[Marengo]

229. Why didn't you donate it to a gun control org?

[Marengo]

237. Can you prove "most are back"? How about some names?

[beevul]

242. There is one single banned poster in the thread he referrs to.

It doesn't matter to him that the things he says are factually devoid.

[beevul]

241. It isn't nice to lie, hoyt.

By the way, almost every one of those user names on that old post were booted for being white wingers and vile gun nuts. Most are back though.

I checked every poster in the thread being referred to, and one single poster whom none of us can recognize or remember, is banned:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x484737

Shame on you.

[Hoyt]

243. Wrong. By the way, who is us? You guys congregating in a compound somewhere?

[beevul]

245. Wrong? I checked every profile hoyt.

By the way, who is us?

DUers in general, hoyt. None of us would recognize the name "We_Have_A_Problem", as being noteworthy, like iverglas, or mrbenchley.

Wrong.

Wrong? You said "...almost every one of those user names on that old post were booted for being white wingers and vile gun nuts". I checked every profile in the thread hoyt. Both on DU2 and on the current version.

There is 1 (one) poster in that entire thread that was banned from DU, and one poster in that thread blocked from the group (bet you can't guess the name of the blocked poster ).

In otherwords, You lied through your teeth. Fess up why don't you.

I invite others reading, if you're interested, to check this thread. It is the one hoyt reffered to when he said " almost every one of those user names on that old post were booted for being white wingers and vile gun nuts":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x484737#484753

Note the single banned poster.

[Duckhunter935]

247. Typical of Hoyt

Unfortunately. I wish he would admit he was wrong.

[CTyankee]

11. why don't you think up one, buddy...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. No need to

Short of banning all firearms and a massive confiscation effort, nothing would have stopped this.

I want to close the gun show loophole - wouldn't have stopped this.

I want to provide an adequate waiting/review period (5 days? 10 days?) and appeal procedures in order to ban anyone on the no-fly or terrorist watch list - wouldn't have stopped this.

I want prosecutors to vigorously enforce existing straw-buyer laws - wouldn't have stopped this.

I want states to tack an additional 10 years onto any sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; 20 years if the firearm was illegally obtained - wouldn't have stopped this.

So there are my suggestions - what do you have, buddy?

[CTyankee]

38. me? I got a dead young neice and a brother who was never the same.

thanks for the weak tea, tho. It is a the usual "start."

[jack_krass]

171. I'm very sorry for your loss. What, may I ask was the underlying cause?

Mental illness? Random crime? Accident? Other?

While I'm all for sensible gun regulations, I think that sometimes the focus is too much on guns, to the exclusion of looking at deeper, harder issues and answers.

For example, I think the media must share some blame, especially for recent mass shootings . Many of those perps crave attention more than anything else, and the way the media sensatinalizes these events with wall to wall coverage is sickening, IMO.

[CTyankee]

177. being drunk, angry and having a loaded gun at the ready...

[jack_krass]

191. Feel free to not answer if it's too sensitive....

But did the murderer in your case own the gun legally? Was he/she a felon? Was there prior abuse?

Taking gun rights away from habitual domestic abusers is something that should be carefully looked at, though I question whether this (or any gun regulation short of forced confiscation) would make much of a dent.

[CTyankee]

195. no prior abuse and not a felon and owned the gun legally (this was Texas alt

after all) He wasn't an abuser until he was.

[Duckhunter935]

179. I agree with you on the media

The murderers name and pictures should not be used.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

48. Sounds good. Let's make all that happen and take it out of the cluttered discussion while we keep...

working on the larger problem.
I get really tired of the defeatist "X wouldn't have prevented this particular tragedy" argument. We have to start somewhere. Our efforts aren't wasted if they keep us moving toward improvement.

[Duckhunter935]

53. That is fine, start somewhere

But don't bitch when it does not do anything.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

56. Fair enough.

[CTyankee]

120. why aren't more people sick of hearing it? I was yelling at the TV today

when they started with that old tired "we need to have a national conversation about guns" and I yelled at the TV "what the hell are you talking about?"

[Jim Beard]

214. Just listen to Scott Pelly drill Joe Biden about armour piercing bullest

and when HE WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

[Duckhunter935]

220. Armor piercing bullets are rarely used

Any rifle round will pierce most body armor. Most are only designed for handgun protection.

[Straw Man]

233. Scott Pelley isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Actual armor-piercing rounds have been tightly regulated in the US since 1986. I've not heard any indication -- other than Pelley's misinterpretation of what he heard from the police chief at press conferences -- that anything other than standard rifle rounds were used in the Dallas shootings. Any rifle round larger than .22 rimfire will penetrate police vests, which are designed to withstand handgun rounds only.

Full-metal-jacket or hollowpoints: those are the ammo choices. To the media, the former are "armor-piercing cop-killer bullets" and the latter are "exploding dumdum cop-killer bullets." Both types of bullets will kill people, but neither of these characterizations is accurate beyond that fact.

[pangaia]

50. " So there are my suggestions - what do you have, buddy? "

This comment is disgusting.
Delete it, buddy !!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

55. Why is disgusting?

I used the same words that CTYankee said to me.

[CTyankee]

122. Poor you. So sad

[SickOfTheOnePct]

123. Uh, no.

Not poor me, and not sad at all.

I'm just curious as to what I said that was so disgusting.

[CTyankee]

129. of course not. You're awesome.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

130. Why thank you!

[CTyankee]

144. keep digging

[Duckhunter935]

146. Thank you is digging, who knew, lol

[SickOfTheOnePct]

147. Is there some rule

or regulation or TOS of which I'm not aware that states we aren't supposed to disagree with you? Or that we aren't supposed to post something you don't like? Because I try very hard to stay within the rules here, and if there is one I'm not aware of, please let me know so that I can get in line.

Thanks.

[Duckhunter935]

151. Not that I know of

[CTyankee]

168. it has nothing to do with the TOS. I own my feelings...

[Duckhunter935]

58. What is?

[uponit7771]

13. That people should NOT possess any device designed to kill massive amounts of humans...

... that would work no?

tia

[CTyankee]

19. Ban them from being in people's possession.

[uponit7771]

29. Yeap, notice when that wording is used they usually come back with some non sequiter on the issue

... or just try to obfuscate but that has worked with me for a while now with gumpers.

The USSC has already said these type of devices shouldn't be in the hands of the avg citizen but we have a punk ass USSC conservatives in the sc who wont even uphold what they've already ruled on

[CTyankee]

41. yep. my point entirely...and thanks

[SickOfTheOnePct]

71. "who wont even uphold what they've already ruled on"?

How has the USSC failed to uphold what they've already ruled on?

[CTyankee]

126. exactly. So let's get a better USSC...

[Duckhunter935]

131. Where has the USSC ruled

That semi-automatic rifles of a certain type could not be owned by the average citizen?

[uponit7771]

139. Usual strawman, I said ANY DEVICE... I also notice you haven't replied to my affirmation of

... the number you deem "massive"... 100? tia

[Duckhunter935]

140. Well my definition of massive is bigger than your stated

Reference of four.

By the way, you did not say "ANY"

[Duckhunter935]

28. What is a massive amount?

That tends to sound like full auto machine guns as that is what they were designed for.

[uponit7771]

34. FBI definition is four or more shot or killed in one incident (link)

http://www.shootingtracker.com/

[Duckhunter935]

37. Well, that would be almost every weapon ever made.

I hope you feel the same for police officers, they kill too many with their weapons.

[uponit7771]

49. Many devices weren't meant or designed to kill massive amounts of humans in an efficient way

[Duckhunter935]

52. An old style six shooter was

By your definition

[uponit7771]

59. Strawman, I'm talking about any device designed to kill massive amounts of humans efficiently...

... and gave the meaning of mass killing by the FBI which could be done by a car ... which was NOT designed to kill a massive amount of humans.

The statement is pretty clear

[SickOfTheOnePct]

62. If your definition of "massive" if four or more people

Then it's not a strawman to say that a six-shooter was designed to kill "massive" amounts of humanity, i.e., six people.

[Duckhunter935]

65. 5 if they were practicing common gun safety

And had the hammer on an empty chamber. Still greater than the four person threshold.

[uponit7771]

76. This makes no sense relative to the design of devices criteria and efficiently, a six shooter ....

... can take 5 bullets to kill one person etc.

I'm pretty clear, if the device was designed to kill massive amounts of people then it should not be owned by the avg American.

What's the opposite of that position?

tia

[SickOfTheOnePct]

78. Newsflash

Any firearm can take 5 bullets to kill one person...even a semi-automatic weapon.

Your definition of "massive amounts of people" means that all firearms would be banned.

The opposite of that would be not banning firearms, and that's my position.

[Duckhunter935]

83. He can't dig out of the hole he made

The goalpost move failed miserably

[uponit7771]

90. I recognize strawman, I've dug myself out already and I also recognize when people don't want

.. to answer straight forward questions which is what that type of statement usutally begets...

Again, what would be wrong in making sure people don't get a hold of device that are designed to kill massive amounts of humans...

You define massive

[Duckhunter935]

93. Already have

That is what machine guns are designed for. A standard semi-automatic rifle is not designed for prolonged fire and will fail.

[uponit7771]

102. No, I asked what is wrong with the position that no one should own any device designed to kill

... a massive amount of human

and

What would be YOUR definition of massive...

tia

[Duckhunter935]

110. Well machine guns are highly regulated and few own them

You defined massive, for me it would be much higher. Since machine guns were specifically DESIGNED to kill large amounts of people. That would be in the hundreds. Semi-automatic automatic rifles were not DESIGNED for sustainable fire and would overheat and fail.

[uponit7771]

112. So hundreds? Just affirming... tia

[uponit7771]

88. Not my definition and its a strawman to narrow the critieria to the FBI definition. I'm pretty clear

... any device that is DESIGNED To kill massive amounts of humans (TBD) should be banned.

What's' wrong with that position? tia

[Duckhunter935]

91. You used that as the definition standard, not us.

Sorry

[uponit7771]

94. Another non answer, you're not interested in a conversation... just retorts and that's the FBI defi

... definition of massive.


What would be acceptable?

I wont be surprised if I get another non answer

[Duckhunter935]

99. I stated the definition at least twice

Fully automatic machine guns were the ones DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of people.

[uponit7771]

104. There are more devices designed to kill massive amounts of people other than what you named....

... and I'm even leaving "massive amounts" to you which I've still to see no answer to.

Let me know...

[Duckhunter935]

82. So a 20 or 30 round magazine should be no problem

Those 6 shooters used very large caliber bullets, one would normally kill

[uponit7771]

86. Well, ban them too... any device designed to kill massive amounts of humans should NOT be in the...

... hands of avg citizens.

I don't think anyone would be against that no?

tia

[SickOfTheOnePct]

87. The only way to do that

would be to ban all firearms.

And yes, many, many people, millions in fact, are against that.

[uponit7771]

105. nope... false dichotomy

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. You're the one who set the parameters

Any weapon capable of efficiently killing massive amounts (i.e., 4 or more) people should be banned.

That's any firearm.

[uponit7771]

111. The FBI set 4 and I asked you and the other poster what would be the number that would define

.. "massive".

As usual, I've yet to read a response to it...

Any device

[Duckhunter935]

118. I know, he came up with that number

Why is he or she running away from it?

[uponit7771]

143. I'm not running away from it at all, I'm letting you set the standard of what massive is

... so I can argue against it seeing the previous question was ignored too.

Cause stuff like clamor mines and grenades fit in the area of 100 in an incident...

You're narrowly defining the "any device" to be a firearm...

A Derringer can't kill 100 people efficiently neither can a 6 shooter relative to sarin gas or a gas bomb or a semi auto with 100 round clip or a ...

Your take?

tia

[Duckhunter935]

145. Well, lets see

My post

28. What is a massive amount?
That tends to sound like full auto machine guns as that is what they were designed for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7998896

Your response

34. FBI definition is four or more shot or killed in one incident (link)
http://www.shootingtracker.com/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7998917

Seems pretty clear to me what you define MASSIVE as

And devices that are defined by the ATF are heavily regulated and can only be owned by people with the proper licensing and tax stamp. They can however be owned. This whole thread started out about assault weapons and you tried to widen it to any device.

[uponit7771]

148. WTF!! People can own grenades!!?!!? ... well shit, no wonder folk want 1000 round clips !!!.

... we live in a fucked up land if folk can just go down to the local grenade store with some papers and get grenades and the like.

Also, massive to me is more than 6 without having to reload very slowly... I think the avg gun owner shouldn't be able to out power the cops in any way

just my take... yours?

[Duckhunter935]

150. Interesting how you moved that goalpos, lol

Now it us six when you found out how stupid how it was shown you even thought old 18 hundreds six shooters should be banned as they could kill massive amounts of people by your agreeing to the FBI standard of four for s mass killing. Yep, you too can own tanks, artillery and the shellss, not to mention grenades if you go though the proper background checks and pay the fees and special tax stamp.

[uponit7771]

197. Interesting how you keep ignoring how I said it was the FBI standard and we should go off what you

... thought was comfortable.

Either way, it sounds like we have SOME agree in the sense that citizens shouldn't possess devices that are designed to kill massive amounts of humans.

You say 100 which put weapons like cruze missiles and mortars artillery and rockets in the hands of normal citizens seeing the kill rate for those weapons are lower than one hundred people.

But its good we agree on something

[Duckhunter935]

198. Destructive devices are treated differently than firearms

[beevul]

194. " I think the avg gun owner shouldn't be able to out power the cops in any way"

" I think the avg gun owner shouldn't be able to out power the cops in any way"

Seeing as police have free access to fully automatic weapons, and the average gun owner doesn't, I don't think you have any reason to be worried on this point.

[Duckhunter935]

89. So you are for a ban including old six shooters

I figured so. Glad you stopped trying to move those goalposts, they do get heavy.

[uponit7771]

107. Makes no difference what the device is, ANY device DESIGNED to kill a massive amount of people

... efficiently should be banned.

I'll ask again...

What is wrong with that position?

tia

[Duckhunter935]

63. But a six shooter was

Way to move those heavy goalposts. You posted the criteria, four or more killed. A six shooter was designed to kill at least that many. You are the one that posted that four was a massive number as that is the FBI criteria for a mass shooting.

[beevul]

193. That takes civilian legal semi-autos off your ban list...

That takes civilian legal semi-autos off your ban list, since they're designed and sold specifically or lawful civilian use.

[paleotn]

51. Simple really....

...regulate all semi-auto firearms in the same manner as full auto and for the same reason, firepower. Forget scary looking "assault rifle" bans. Such legislation had far too many loopholes and didn't fully address the real problem.

[Duckhunter935]

54. Indeed

But they keep trying these silly AWB things

[SickOfTheOnePct]

31. Based on forum rules

When it's brought up, we're permitted to discuss it.

GUNS
•News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

•Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

•Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

Note that it doesn't say "open discussion of gun control only..."

[Duckhunter935]

32. Why are you breaking Skinner's rules

By calling DU members trolls?

[Hekate]

24. ~~~*~~~

[Kang Colby]

26. Gun control just isn't the answer.

Last edited Sun Jul 10, 2016, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Most of Central/South America have oodles of gun control and astronomically higher homicide rates than the U.S.

I realize gun prohibitionists want to believe that by strictly regulating/prohibiting gun ownership we can somehow become Europe. Parts of Europe have had significantly lower homicide rates than the U.S. for well over 100 years. Long before gun control would have been a factor, but let's just ignore that.

The bottom line is you can only restrict guns for people who are OK with you restricting guns. For the most part, Americans are not OK with the kind of gun control that gun controllers want. Even the so-called AWB is just security theater, everyone knows it is just political ploy.

I'm happy with no new gun laws, and pushing for repeals everywhere it truly makes sense.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

106. Are you happy with Congress not even willing to study 30,000

gun deaths a year?

Would you be happy if they took that same approach to climate change?

Oh wait, maybe they are.

[Kang Colby]

159. That's a straw man argument if there ever was one.

I assume you don't know this, but the CDC isn't prohibited from studying so-called "gun violence". In fact, they cosponsored a study at President Obama's request in 2013. Why haven't you heard of it? Because gun control advocates didn't like CDC's position. The study acknowledged the societal utility in gun ownership.

CDC is only prohibited from advocating or promoting gun control. They can study gun violence with tax payer money. They just can't advocate for gun control. Citing that back in the 1990s CDC was simply championing gun control as a political position, I agree with the law.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

201. Oh my, we wouldn't want to promote gun control.

[Kang Colby]

206. Not with tax money. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

163. 2/3 are suicides

Better mental health or better yet, single payer with mental health coverage would help greatly. Most other firearms crimes are done with handguns. The FBI and ATF keep the statistics.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

202. Yeah, keep wishing, many of those suicides are not mental health related.

30,000 gun related deaths is still unacceptable.

[Duckhunter935]

204. I am sure you feel the same

And are as vocal over deaths by alcohol, which has really no purpose.

[Rex]

33. Well you see, some people just cannot give up their favorite hobby.

Even though their favorite toy can be used to murder untold numbers of people, that is not them, so they should not be punished for what a few unstable people do.

That is their mindset, good luck talking them out of their toys.

I gave up.

[hunter]

57. I'm not able to "hold it all together" any more.

Maybe for reasons similar to your own.



Gun love is disgusting. The second amendment is bullshit. Every gun fetishist is a potential terrorist, suicide, an enabler of horrible tragedy.

Piss on guns. Throw them in the furnaces, recycle the steel into useful garden tools and construction rebar.

Guns are a health hazard, just like smoking. I remember people smoking on airplanes and in restaurants. I remember parents who smoked and looked the other way when their teenage kids smoked. Hell, there were kids in my childhood who could bum cigarettes off their parents and step-parents and smoke openly in front of them. This would be considered very poor parenting today.

The toxic U.S.A. gun culture will succumb to similar social pressures. We don't have to wait for the law to catch up.

[Duckhunter935]

60. What is the percentage of legal firearms owners

That you think are gun fetishist? Is it most? As a firearms owner, am I a potential terrorist?

[NNadir]

73. A hell of a lot closer to being a terrorist than most of the people with whom I interact.

Of course, I would never interact with someone who felt a need to own a gun.

I think of every gun owner as a potential terrorist or bungling fool who shoots someone "accidentally."

I'm an old man, and I've lived my entire life without guns, and without bothering with people who own them.

All I know is that pretty much every week now, some asshole with a gun is firing into crowds and killing people indiscriminately.

And then there's that gun loving Obama hating "Mom" in Texas who blew her two daughters away. Everyone said she was a wonderful person, and they never thought she could do that.

Personally, I think that anyone who needs a gun to address personal psychological inadequacies "could do that."

[Duckhunter935]

103. I think it always has happened

It is just covered now as we have 24 hour news and the internet. Sad you think I am a would be terrorist. I am getting to be an old guy and never met a person that had a negligent firearms discharge. We practice gun safety. I did have a friend that used a rope to do a sad deed.

[Marengo]

196. If you honestly believe them to be potential terrorists, have you contacted the FBI?

[NNadir]

222. No. Being a potential terrorist in this country is not against the law if you're white and...

...I don't know any African Americans who own guns.

And, as I've said, I don't associate with gun owners in any case. My brother for the record is white and and gun owner, and, if you must know, I've disowned him. From what I can tell though, if I contacted the FBI and said, "my brother is a white guy who owns a gun, and because he owns a gun, I regard him as a potential terrorist," they wouldn't do anything at all.

In this country, it's not against the law to have a gun. I have a big problem with that, but obviously, given that the situation prevails mass murder after mass murder, I have proved powerless to do anything about it.

Apparently, as we discovered in Minnesota recently you are a potential terrorist or hold up man if you're black and own a gun, even a gun that's legal (regrettably) in white people's hands, and the penalty for this potentiality is immediate execution on the spot. I'm sure I'd have a fair chance of getting this defacto law observed if I called up the police and said, "there's a black guy with a gun in the parking lot of..." whatever.

[Duckhunter935]

225. I know several African Americans that own firearms

I also know some from Guam, Hawaii that also go to the range and shoot.

[Marengo]

226. Oh, so this talk of gun owners being potential terrorists is hyperbolic bullshit.

[NNadir]

235. Not really. I stand by it.

[Marengo]

236. Nah, you don't. Your lack of action proves you do not believe all gun owners are literally...

Potential terrorists. Otherwise, you'd be in contact with law enforcement. Unless, of course, you lack the courage go your conviction.

[NNadir]

239. People who have simple minds - apparently their are some gun worshipers among them -

cannot differentiate between futile actions and practical actions. This isn't surprising, since many of these people can't understand what the words "well regulated militia" might have meant in the 18th century, when they were relevant, although they are irrelevant now.

We have all sorts of nut cases declaring themselves "militias" and most, uniformly are terroristic.

Obviously if we had been able to have the people who keep blowing away people in crowds from owning guns people owning guns would be criminals - much as the nuts in the NRA correctly note - and we'd have the opportunity to address their terrorist potential.

[Marengo]

240. I'm certain DHS would be very interested in hearing any info you have on potential...

Terrorists. It's your civic duty.

[NNadir]

246. Well, were I to buy into idiot rhetoric, I might consider the present company, since it obviously...

...involves a person who needs a gun to feel he exists. All one can do for now is to ignore these people until they actually shoot someone, which the "someone's among them" do like clockwork.

Speaking of "ignore," the potential terrorist in the present company will now enter my ignore list, and hopefully won't address his inadequacies by going out to shoot someone as part of a self declared "I need my gun to be a man" militia movement.

One hopes that the potential terrorists' passion for the second amendment, which is equivalent to a similar anachronistic passion for the third amendment will be ignored and that ultimately, intelligent people will prevail and the idiot amendment will be repealed.

One certainly hopes that legal scholars, like this legal scholar at the University of Texas, will be able to talk sense into the public, all the potential terrorists with the physiological inadequacies that make them need a gun, notwithstanding:

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Have a nice life; I hope not to encounter you again, especially on CNN.

[Marengo]

248. In other words, hyperbolic bullshit. Do you claim psychic powers as well?

[beevul]

244. There are far more gun haters/anti-gun among them.

People who have simple minds - apparently their are some gun worshipers among them - cannot differentiate between futile actions and practical actions.

I'd say gun control proponents are equally as guilty in this department, if not more. A shooting attack happens, and their response is "more gun control (which wouldn't have prevented the attack)". Examples of this are numerous.

And speaking of futile vs practical actions, where do the "ban them all" types fit in that continuum?

This isn't surprising, since many of these people can't understand what the words "well regulated militia" might have meant in the 18th century, when they were relevant, although they are irrelevant now.

If you think those people are bad, you should see the folks who can't understand the simple words "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Obviously if we had been able to have the people who keep blowing away people in crowds from owning guns people owning guns would be criminals - much as the nuts in the NRA correctly note - and we'd have the opportunity to address their terrorist potential.

Same old story. "In order to prevent the bad behavior of a tiny handful, we must fuck everyone over, because...well...guns".


Fuck.That.

[hunter]

141. Aiding and abetting at the very least.

You ask, I answer honestly.

Do you smoke too?

Smoking stinks.

[Duckhunter935]

142. Nope, don't smoke

Gave that up 30 years ago. Just how am I aiding and abetting. I suggest you call law enforcement if that is true. And if that is the least, what is a higher probability?

[JanMichael]

153. every cop and almost every security guard (retired, failed cop, or wannabe cop) has one.

that a fuckload lot right there. then the loons in my family that would rather buy more guns and bullets than pay for health insurance cannot be unique.

if you hug them, stroke them, collect them, shine their stocks, give them girly or manly nicknames, sleep with one under your pillow, go on "bullers and brews" dates or go solo, stick them in your holes, you might love them.

[Duckhunter935]

155. Well that's not me

I only have several rifles and handguns of different calibers that reside in my safe. They have no names and get cleaned and oiled before and after firing at the range.

[CTyankee]

127. yes. I hope the day will come...but not optimistic...

[longship]

98. I love Brahms Ein Deutsches Requiem (so?)

It is such a wonderful moving piece of music. It fills ones soul (and I don't even believe in souls). Hopefully it does some soul healing, too.

John Eliot Gardner's recording is astounding.

Glad to see you around. Hope you are otherwise well.

My best.

[CTyankee]

135. the brahms requiem usually is solace but today less so...I'm just sick of having to invoke it...

[treestar]

101. Thoughts and prayers don't seem so useless

they are not about preventing the tragedy but helping the survivors cope.

[humbled_opinion]

132. Why all the pussyfooting ?

truthfully the only thing that will stop gun violence is removal of guns from society. Laws are not followed by the nuts that are shooting at us if they followed the existing laws we wouldn't need more.

This issue has always lacked common sense to me.

but I know it is a non-starter and that is exactly why nothing will ever get done. In case you hadn't noticed the current President happens to be the best thing that has every happened to the NRA its membership has skyrocketed, gun and ammo sales are through the roof.

[yuiyoshida]

156. Republicans keep blocking any legislation

There is only one answer, vote the bastards out.

[Duckhunter935]

164. So did our side unfortunately

At least two bills that would have done at least something. It was not enough, so they voted it down. Both sides do not have clean hands.

[yuiyoshida]

170. Same thing applies

if a Senator or Congressman is sitting on his ass collecting a paycheck, vote the bastard out!

[CTyankee]

172. and I try again and again but that never seems to work...

[yuiyoshida]

173. Well we gather people to make sure someone we like gets on the ballot,

get signatures of people who will vow to vote him/her out of office. We have to work the system just like lobbyists do.

[CTyankee]

176. Oh, I won't stop trying but I just get tired of always losing...

[yuiyoshida]

181. In Japanese we have a saying...

ganbatte Kudasai. It means, "do your best" (keep spirit)

[Stinky The Clown]

174. Many of us are feeling similar things.

[CTyankee]

180. yes, I know.

[niyad]

199. I wish I had some comfort or words that would help. ran out of tears a long time ago.

[CTyankee]

200. it keeps coming back and my tears are fresh again...

[calimary]

205. I'm at the point where - the next time I hear some politician intoning about "thoughts and prayers,"

I'm gonna want to tell him to shove his "thoughts and prayers" back up his ass. Using the male pronoun because at the moment I don't recall many women politicians stepping up like that. nikki haley's been off center stage for awhile, and Hillary usually attempts to dig much deeper than that shallow meaningless surface tripe.

I don't want ANYBODY's "thoughts and prayers" on this issue. I want their ACTION.

I want their RESOLVE.

I want their SIGNATURES - on petitions, or better yet, on NEW LAWS designed to address, mitigate, alleviate, or flat-out SOLVE these problems.

I want their VOTES in Congress and state legislatures on moves to tighten gun restrictions.

I want their SOLUTIONS.

I don't want their cliched bullshit and meaningless empty talking points and momentary "sympathy." Talk is cheap. "Thoughts and prayers" is an easy slogan for the sake of staging a "nice" vanilla-flavored white-bread nothingburger for the press. You can't take "thoughts and prayers" to the bank. You can't take "thoughts and prayers" to the statehouses. You can't take "thoughts and prayers" to the legislatures. We know this because it's already been tried over and over and over and over and over and over again - resulting in NOTHING. John Prine had a song, decades ago, called "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore." Your "thoughts and prayers" won't, either.

I don't want their "thoughts and prayers"! It's nothing but an easy out so you politicians can look like you care, at least momentarily.

I want their ACTIONS.

I want concrete, practical, immediately doable or implementable ANSWERS as to what they intend to DO about it.

[CTyankee]

238. Yes, it is the kind of thing where someone can't stand it any more and literally can do nothing

but get off their ass and becomes DRIVEN by the need to change this. Not say it (even if they mean it if only a little). Until that awakening and the courage it takes to do what they think they can't do, but give it all they've got, we have no change.