How does “Common sense gun control” prevent mass shootings?

Those are valid points and you gun owners are in a very good negotiation position right now and you should stop whining about the Constitution and your rights and negotiate a deal because if the gun violence in our country continues to escalate, your negotiating
position will deteriorate. Now is the time, rather than parrying all the options as they are presented.

 

So what you're saying is "Do as we say or we'll take your **** by force"?

And you think this will somehow encourage us to acquiesce to your demands?

 

Also, I've always wanted to say this: WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS

 

There is no whining about the Constitution, it is absolute, what is variable and quite whined about are the unconstitutional ideas and bans proffered by the anti-gunners.

 

Not my demands, pal, just realism. In fact, I am looking for a pistol and have blogged for info on this site. What I am saying is that now is the time to negotiate. The gun control people don't want your guns, yet. I have not noticed anything proposed that is so terrible.
You are simply standing on ceremony.

 

What is absolute is that there will be changes and you should negotiate those changes.

 

I don't know any terrorists who want change.

 

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

No negotiations, just fight to the death and defeat any attempts to make any unconstitutional changes.

Nothing less will be accepted by the radical progressive/liberals.

 

Sure you do: anyone who says "effect political change on firearms now or we will take them by force if you dont"

 

I like your post and it is not terrorists making that remark if indeed it was said like that. Negotiate! Now is the time.

 

You are an expert on the constitution? I didn't know. Be smart and don't act stupid like your con-man in chief.

 

The Constitution is absolute when it is convenient. A judge decides what is and isn't absolute.

 

And if that decision is unconstitutional it works it way to the USSC which is now a Constitutional leaning court.

It is then overruled.

 

If firearm owners are truly in a very good position for negotiation, then it ultimately the supporters of firearm-related restrictions who must bring something worthwhile to the table for consideration, as they are the ones behind the metaphorical eight-ball. It is the supporters of firearm-related restrictions who must demonstrate that their position is valid, and be willing to surrender what is already in place before the courts rule against them and undo far more.

 

Gun control works in the Western world except in America. Speaks volumes.

 

Then why are there any nations where firearm-related restrictions simply do not work?

 

More specific please?

Are you talking New Zealand? Please state and compare incidents.

 

The definition of terrorism is using force or the threat of same to effect political or social change.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists.

 

False, Mexico has very strict gun control laws and is awash in gun murders, murders that are way more per 100,000 population than the U.S. has.

 

You haven't demonstrated that your position is valid as gun violence escalates. You need to give a little instead of relying on the Constitution which is subject to interpretation. I support a reasonable waiting period before purchasing, a ban on those found guilty
of domestic violence, a ban on those found guilty of drunk driving or drunkenness while using a gun, ban on mentally unstable,
a ban on certain guns. I know that you disagree.

 

Oh. Logical explanation

 

Which has been demonstrated to do nothing to reduce crimes of passion.

You really don't know much about the subject do you.

People convicted of domestic violence are already prohibited from owning guns or ammo by federal law .

That would make one a felon and felons are prohibited by federal law from possessing guns or ammo.

Anyone who had been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution is already prohibited by federal law from possessing guns or ammo.

Unconstitutional and has no purpose, as it will solve nothing.

Again why is it you are going after the tool when you know that is not the problem?

Is it you are just another anti-gunner who just wants to harass law abiding gun owners, because based on your lightly researched posts that seems to be your goal.

Admit the truth and be done with it.

 

Mexico does not have the ability to enforce their gun laws. I would not want the FBI knocking on my door. You?

 

The problem is that you want the status quo, and that ain't feasible. Admit the truth and be done with it.

 

Really.
Cite the post and copy/paste the text.