Gun Bans Work?

[baddog]

11 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Chicago is an absolute joke.  I think its  as bad or worse than back when the crips and bloods terrorized south central L.A.. My step-son is dating a young lady from Chicago.  Her family moved here to escape the insanity.  She recently flew back to Chicago to bury a friend (I believe she's been to several funerals).  Yeah, the policies in that city are nuts.  Conspiracy theorist might make the argument that Chicago really doesn't want to control guns in order to "thin the herd" and also fill up the jails.  Some Texas style law enforcement would serve Chicago well.

 

Thank you. It is not a gun problem, it is a societal problem. 

Elliot Ness was said to have let the herds be thinned. Chicago has always been the gangster capital of the world.

[Remmus]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I'm talking about Liberal mental disease in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, but using it to make a point that the "rules" can easily be slanted depending on who is in charge of writing the "rules".

I have a Masters degree in Psychology so I know a little about the subject. It is impossible to determine in this day and age who will become violent and who will not, even by trained professionals. Take any standard or measure you want, then use the "Stephen King analysis" (which in not a real methodology). Should Stephen King be stripped of his constitutional rights. I'm sure you are aware of King's writings, but if not, look up some of his works then tell me if a brilliantly twisted mind such as his is not on the brink of mass slaughter. Currently it is impossible to predict violent behavior. Sure, many people will say in hind-sight "we should have seen the warning signs". Well these same warning signs are displayed every day by "normal" citizens.

With this in mind, please list some examples of behavior that you think should preclude someone from owning a gun. You mentioned anyone on psychotropic meds. What percentage of the population that is currently on these types of medication pose a threat to other people? Look up the stats then tell me if banning a constitutional right of millions of people is justifiable because a few "might" become violent. I'm curious to hear any proposals/background check questions that will accurately predict future violent behavior without disenfranchising and infringing on people's constitutional rights. And who do we trust to define the rules? As stevenash asked, "Lois Lerner, should she be trusted with this task?" What about Diane Feinstein? What about any congressman from California? What about me? And what happens when these rules do not work. I know, we write more rules. When those fail, we write more rules. Pretty soon even the Pope will not be able to pass a background check.

And what about the nut-case zealots who will stoop to unethical a sometimes illegal activities to get their way. And gun control/confiscation is the top priority for many of them. Do you believe that congressmen will abstain from trying to attach riders to popular bills that create increasingly stringent rules to background checks? A congressman recently proposed banning guns from anyone going through a divorce. Diane Feinstein recently proposed banning guns from all military personnel returning from active duty. And you want to put our constitutional rights into the hands of some bureaucrats? I'm surprised some congressman hasn't proposed banning all guns from anyone from Texas.

If someone is determined to be "unfit" to own a gun, should that person also be stripped of his right to vote? After all, selecting the wrong president can be severely damaging to hundreds of millions of people as was demonstrated by the last administration. If we can't trust a person with self-protection, should we trust them to elect our representatives? Shouldn't we have background checks for the right to vote? Should we create a department to construct and maintain a "no-vote" list? And who should be privileged with carrying out this task? Hollywood?

Our government has already banned/defined private ownership of bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles and nukes with basically zero opposition. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that comment.

 

No need for me to throw stats at you because they're the easiest to dispel.  I'm for protecting Americans from mass shootings more than I'm for the 2nd amendment.  That means some people will get hurt in the process by not being able to own a gun or will have to endure a more lengthy clearance process. 

We've all seen the knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents.  For instance, a crazy ex spouse shoots and kills and now we want to ban all people going through a divorce from having a gun.  That's too extreme (but gets lots of applause from one side of the isle).  We've also seen schools, movie theaters, churches, car commuters lit up by high powered weapons.  Something has to be done.  We can't stand by and watch.  I honestly believe the real solutions will not be proposed by liberals, but by the pro-gun side.  They own and use guns and most likely have the best ideas for helping keep the country safe.  The answer can't be "everyone gets a gun no matter what."

Unfit to own gun doesn't equal unfit to vote.  Your ballot can't rob a bank or pistol whip a grandmother.  Of course a poor voting decision has consequences, but hopefully we all get to live and talk about it.  Conservatives want to limit voting because the numbers don't favor them ...at least until Trump turned some reliably blue states red.  Now, who knows.  Even with all the states Trump won, he still lost the popular vote in significant fashion and don't tell me 5 million illegals voted.  The world is changing.

 

 

[stevenash]

9 minutes ago, Remmus said:

No need for me to throw stats at you because they're the easiest to dispel.  I'm for protecting Americans from mass shootings more than I'm for the 2nd amendment.  That means some people will get hurt in the process by not being able to own a gun or will have to endure a more lengthy clearance process. 

We've all seen the knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents.  For instance, a crazy ex spouse shoots and kills and now we want to ban all people going through a divorce from having a gun.  That's too extreme (but gets lots of applause from one side of the isle).  We've also seen schools, movie theaters, churches, car commuters lit up by high powered weapons.  Something has to be done.  We can't stand by and watch.  I honestly believe the real solutions will not be proposed by liberals, but by the pro-gun side.  They own and use guns and most likely have the best ideas for helping keep the country safe.  The answer can't be "everyone gets a gun no matter what."

Unfit to own gun doesn't equal unfit to vote.  You ballot can't rob a bank or pistol whip a grandmother.  Of course a poor voting decision has consequences, but hopefully we all get to live and talk about it.  Conservatives want to limit voting because the numbers don't favor them ...at least until Trump turned some reliably blue states red.  Now, who knows.  Even with all the states Trump won, he still lost the popular vote in significant fashion and don't tell me 5 million illegals voted.  The world is changing.

 

 

How about 2.8 million votes instead of 5 million and accounted for by illegals and dead "voters"?  After all, 850,000 drivers licenses have been issued to California illegals.

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, Remmus said:

I'm all for "sensible" gun ownership and control.  I firmly believe the amount of home invasions and all sorts of other crimes are greatly limited here in Texas by the number of law abiding gun owning citizens.  You gotta be pretty much desperate and crazy to try a home invasion here.  Probably 80-90% chance of running into a homeowner that is better armed than the perp..lol.  With that said, these AR's are too much.  Weapons that can commit mass murder (and we've seen it over and over again) really don't need to be circulating.  Yes, the criminals have them and will keep getting them and we have police to deal with that.  I'll pop a perp with a glock in exchange for limiting the chance another school or church gets showered with military style weapons.

My belief is many people buy AR's as a statement of freedom, instead of a real need.

So obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.......

[Englebert]

33 minutes ago, Remmus said:

No need for me to throw stats at you because they're the easiest to dispel.  I'm for protecting Americans from mass shootings more than I'm for the 2nd amendment.  That means some people will get hurt in the process by not being able to own a gun or will have to endure a more lengthy clearance process. 

We've all seen the knee-jerk reactions to isolated incidents.  For instance, a crazy ex spouse shoots and kills and now we want to ban all people going through a divorce from having a gun.  That's too extreme (but gets lots of applause from one side of the isle).  We've also seen schools, movie theaters, churches, car commuters lit up by high powered weapons.  Something has to be done.  We can't stand by and watch.  I honestly believe the real solutions will not be proposed by liberals, but by the pro-gun side.  They own and use guns and most likely have the best ideas for helping keep the country safe.  The answer can't be "everyone gets a gun no matter what."

Unfit to own gun doesn't equal unfit to vote.  Your ballot can't rob a bank or pistol whip a grandmother.  Of course a poor voting decision has consequences, but hopefully we all get to live and talk about it.  Conservatives want to limit voting because the numbers don't favor them ...at least until Trump turned some reliably blue states red.  Now, who knows.  Even with all the states Trump won, he still lost the popular vote in significant fashion and don't tell me 5 million illegals voted.  The world is changing.

 

 

Not one single proposed gun owner suppression measure would have stopped any of the mass shootings. I think it is a universally accepted notion that everyone wants to eliminate mass shootings. It is asinine to propose laws in reaction to an event that will do nothing to stop future like events while at the same time suppresses the rights of law abiding citizens. But that is exactly what many Liberals are attempting. Makes zero sense. I'm not proposing this, but forcing everyone to carry a gun 24/7 would do more to prevent mass shootings than taking away guns from law abiding citizens. Did you notice that none of the mass shootings happened where guns are in abundant supply.

And the congressman that proposed banning guns from people going through a divorce was not a knee-jerk reaction to an event. His contention was that the divorce proceedings duration is a highly emotional time for the spouses and we can not trust them to refrain from shooting each other or others. If someone is so emotional to the point of mental insanity as he contends, shouldn't we lock up everyone going through a divorce. Why strip them of their legal right of self-protection at a time when they need it most. It seems the Liberal mentality is that guns are used purely as an offensive weapon and is never used for protection.

Not one single Conservative or anybody for that matter has proposed or wants to limit voting. That is another Liberal elitist lie. Conservatives want legal voting. That should be a universal value, but unfortunately the Liberals have convinced their sheeple that Conservatives are trying to suppress votes, while knowing full well that illegal voting favors Liberals.

[Remmus]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

So obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.......

Really? Slow down on the kool-aid.  

[tvc184]

25 minutes ago, Remmus said:

No need for me to throw stats at you because they're the easiest to dispel.  I'm for protecting Americans from mass shootings more than I'm for the 2nd amendment.  That means some people will get hurt in the process by not being able to own a gun or will have to endure a more lengthy clearance process. ...........

This might be your best yet. As long as it helps people, to heck with rights. 

I can guarantee that many more violent crimes will be prevented and solved if the police can stop anyone without reasonable suspicion. If we just trim a little fat off of the 4th Amendment, many less people will be murdered.

And while we are on trimming fat, if we can get rid of that pesky freedom of speech issue in the 1st Amendment, we would have less arguments and therefore less violence.

Heck, we can go all through this Constitution thing and makes us all a lot safer. I am not making that up and firmly believe that if we give up certain rights, we will definitely have a safer place to live. 

I am not ready to give up those rights, the men that wrote and debated over the Constitution were fully aware of what may lurk ahead. You are the very reason that they wrote and passed the Bill of RIghts shortly after ratifying the Constitution itself. 

[Remmus]

24 minutes ago, stevenash said:

How about 2.8 million votes instead of 5 million and accounted for by illegals and dead "voters"?  After all, 850,000 drivers licenses have been issued to California illegals.

We all of a sudden have this massive voter fraud problem?  This is a Righty talking point based in B.S..  It justifies voter suppression efforts.

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Really? Slow down on the kool-aid.  

You are dealing out Kool Aid by the gallon. 

If you confiscated (not merely banned future sales) of AR-15, AK-47 or similar guns tomorrow, you will do absolutely nothing to even slow mass shootings. When I said you have no clue, I meant exactly that. Your knowledge of guns seems weak at best although you did spell Glock correctly. 

[Remmus]

10 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Not one single proposed gun owner suppression measure would have stopped any of the mass shootings. I think it is a universally accepted notion that everyone wants to eliminate mass shootings. It is asinine to propose laws in reaction to an event that will do nothing to stop future like events while at the same time suppresses the rights of law abiding citizens. But that is exactly what many Liberals are attempting. Makes zero sense. I'm not proposing this, but forcing everyone to carry a gun 24/7 would do more to prevent mass shootings than taking away guns from law abiding citizens. Did you notice that none of the mass shootings happened where guns are in abundant supply.

And the congressman that proposed banning guns from people going through a divorce was not a knee-jerk reaction to an event. His contention was that the divorce proceedings duration is a highly emotional time for the spouses and we can not trust them to refrain from shooting each other or others.

Not one single Conservative or anybody for that matter has proposed or wants to limit voting. That is another Liberal elitist lie. Conservatives want legal voting. That should be a universal value, but unfortunately the Liberals have convinced their sheeple that Conservatives are trying to suppress votes, while knowing full well that illegal voting favors Liberals.

Englebert you're a pleasure to exchange ideas with and learn, but I gotta call B.S..  Conservatives are too quick to call the Lefty Conspiracy.  Redistricting is a well documented way to manipulate elections.  So is putting in place voter id laws for a non-existent voter fraud problem.  It's to suppress voting and even up the score.  We can agree to disagree.  Conservatives get shoveled lies too.

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, Remmus said:

We all of a sudden have this massive voter fraud problem?  This is a Righty talking point based in B.S..  It justifies voter suppression efforts.

Please explain how showing an I.D. is voter suppression? I've heard all of the Liberal positions and each have been laughable. I'm willing to hear yours.

[tvc184]

1 minute ago, Englebert said:

Please explain how showing an I.D. is voter suppression? I've heard all of the Liberal positions and each have been laughable. I'm willing to hear yours.

Well, it is only suppression in those pesky southern states. Up north is it perfectly acceptable. 

[Remmus]

9 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This might be your best yet. As long as it helps people, to heck with rights. 

I can guarantee that many more violent crimes will be prevented and solved if the police can stop anyone without reasonable suspicion. If we just trim a little fat off of the 4th Amendment, many less people will be murdered.

And while we are on trimming fat, if we can get rid of that pesky freedom of speech issue in the 1st Amendment, we would have less arguments and therefore less violence.

Heck, we can go all through this Constitution thing and makes us all a lot safer. I am not making that up and firmly believe that if we give up certain rights, we will definitely have a safer place to live. 

I am not ready to give up those rights, the men that wrote and debated over the Constitution were fully aware of what may lurk ahead. You are the very reason that they wrote and passed the Bill of RIghts shortly after ratifying the Constitution itself. 

Too extreme brother.  Lets not start labeling and taking shots.  I could say your views are the reason for the death penalty.  I'd probably be way off the mark.  

There was a time when all sorts of "rights" were written into law ...just see some past Texas constitutions.  

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Too extreme brother.  Lets not start labeling and taking shots.  I could say your views are the reason for the death penalty.  I'd probably way off the mark.  

There was a time when all sorts of "rights" were written into law ...just see some past Texas constitutions.  

When you say that you are willing to take safety over a right, that is too extremely. 

[tvc184]

Who knows, maybe in your zest to make your case, you overstate your beliefs. The time we start opting for safety over personal rights is when that ball rolling down the hill starts picking up speed. How many murders have gone free because the police violated their rights, even if unintentionally? Let's simply do away with those rights and that will not happen. 

[BS Wildcats]

3 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Englebert you're a pleasure to exchange ideas with and learn, but I gotta call B.S..  Conservatives are too quick to call the Lefty Conspiracy.  Redistricting is a well documented way to manipulate elections.  So is putting in place voter id laws for a non-existent voter fraud problem.  It's to suppress voting and even up the score.  We can agree to disagree.  Conservatives get shoveled lies too.

Why is the left vehemently against voter ID laws?  You must be a legal resident to be qualified to vote in elections.  Why would you not want to keep someone from voting that is not allowed?  Maybe it is because there are so many illegals in the US from Mexico that are voting, could happen.  And the Dems and leftists know that is probably a vote for them.  Again, why the argument against voter ID laws?

[Remmus]

7 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

You are dealing out Kool Aid by the gallon. 

If you confiscated (not merely banned future sales) of AR-15, AK-47 or similar guns tomorrow, you will do absolutely nothing to even slow mass shootings. When I said you have no clue, I meant exactly that. Your knowledge of guns seems weak at best although you did spell Glock correctly. 

Thank you for the spelling bee.  I'm one of the most level headed centrist you'll find.  My issue with some conservatives is when they hear an idea they don't like, they go for the jugular. And yes, the liberals do it too.  I get it, guns are a hot button issue for you.  My main point is SOMETHING needs to be done about mass shootings.  I'm not willing to admit that we just have to live with it.

[Remmus]

9 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Please explain how showing an I.D. is voter suppression? I've heard all of the Liberal positions and each have been laughable. I'm willing to hear yours.

Ask the supreme court.  They shot it down.

[tvc184]

1 minute ago, BS Wildcats said:

Why is the left vehemently against voter ID laws?  You must be a legal resident to be qualified to vote in elections.  Why would you not want to keep someone from voting that is not allowed?  Maybe it is because there are so many illegals in the US from Mexico that are voting, could happen.  And the Dems and leftists know that is probably a vote for them.  Again, why the argument against voter ID laws?

It is yet another reason to complain. In TX a voter ID is free and if you cannot get one for free, you can still cast a ballot. Why is that restrictive? The simplest answer is that it isn't. The SCOTUS already upheld voter ID by a 6-3 vote.

[Englebert]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Ask the supreme court.  They shot it down.

And their reasoning was laughable. Do you have one of your own?

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Thank you for the spelling bee.  I'm one of the most level headed centrist you'll find.  My issue with some conservatives is when they hear an idea they don't like, they go for the jugular. And yes, the liberals do it too.  I get it, guns are a hot button issue for you.  My main point is SOMETHING needs to be done about mass shootings.  I'm not willing to admit that we just have to live with it.

No, rights are a big issue with me. On a couple of posts I have clearly brought up other rights that we could trim a bit and be a lot safer. Apparently you only lock in on the guns.

If you can figure a way to stop mass shootings (and rifle bans will not do it), please enlighten us. 

[Remmus]

10 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Please explain how showing an I.D. is voter suppression? I've heard all of the Liberal positions and each have been laughable. I'm willing to hear yours.

Your mind is already made up.  I personally know people (particularly elderly) that couldn't vote because of lack of current ID.  Yes, it's a stupid problem to have and I'll even concede that if you have problems getting ID you problem will have problems making an educated decision to vote.  We also have a considerable segment of the society that fear ID's for all sorts of crazy reasons.

[Remmus]

11 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Well, it is only suppression in those pesky southern states. Up north is it perfectly acceptable. 

Its no good there either 

[tvc184]

5 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Ask the supreme court.  They shot it down.

No, they didn't. 

[Remmus]

6 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Why is the left vehemently against voter ID laws?  You must be a legal resident to be qualified to vote in elections.  Why would you not want to keep someone from voting that is not allowed?  Maybe it is because there are so many illegals in the US from Mexico that are voting, could happen.  And the Dems and leftists know that is probably a vote for them.  Again, why the argument against voter ID laws?

My issue is it was never about stopping voter fraud, it's about stopping votes.  I'm all for stopping people from voting if they're here illegally.  That's just WRONG and I don't care how long you've lived here.