Here is a challenge democrats

Democrats-----------I challenge you to write a gun law that would have prevented the latest mass shooting.

Remember it must be a law that mental defectives and criminals will obey.

I will be waiting.

 

Of the 33K deaths most were suicides. Of the approx 8K remaining only about 10% of guns were bought legally. Points out how ineffective laws are.

 

Extreme vetting for any person who wants a semi automatic weapon. Must show specific need for such a weapon, must be mentally sound, must be an adult, can not have been convicted of a felony or family violence. Buyback of all weapons who do not pass the vetting. Harsh penalties for those who own one without proper documentation of vetting. You can not stop all violence, but you can cut down on the number of victims if you limit the efficiency of their tools.

Question for you would you be willing to give up your ability to own a semiautomatic or automatic weapon if it would reduce the number of casualties in mass shootings?

 

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

One thing is for sure, it wouldn't look like that.

 

but if you want a bolt action pump action or revolver happy killing?

who determines what a need is? Because if it's anybody but one's self it's effectively a gun ban.

so f*** the mentally disabled those retards don't need rights they're second-class citizens.

that's already there.

so retroactive confiscation.

that would require the repeal of the Constitution.

anything you proposed above doesn't do that it just makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get it.

If loves against things made it harder to get them I wouldn't be able to get weed anywhere.

that's a loaded question. How would my ownership of a weapon increase number of casualties in a mass shooting?

 

Banning the sale of assault style rifles or any gun that can be converted in to a automatic weapon and the items used to modify guns in to automatic mode like bump stocks, extended magazines......all that stuff gets taken off the market...........and anyone who uses a gun like that in the commission of a crime gets a minimum life in prison sentence.

You gun rights defenders need to stop thinking that if measures taken can't stop 100% of these shootings they are not worth doing. No law completely prevents the acts they apply to. BUT WE SHOULD TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF THESE SHOOTINGS.

 

I doubt that would do much to stop anything because you can always buy that stuff on the black market. Further a life sentence only really works on someone who's alive the shooters often times kill themselves.

I don't think the measures you listed above would stop 5% of them.

Maybe I value my rights more than I value warm fuzzy feelings you get from lip service.

I don't think any of your measures will do anything all it will do is guarantee that the only people that have guns are outlaws people that kill people are outlaws anyway.

So I agree we should do something but I think we should do something worth doing.

 

Lets not build a wall cause it won't keep everybody out
Lets not ban people from Islamic countries from entering because if they want to they can get in anyway

Black market sellers should be considered as accomplilsies to any crime their illegal gun commits
stopping 5% of the incidents isn't a step in the right direction?
Do you value your "rights" more than the lives of children? Warm fuzzy feelings have nothing to do with this.
Some gun proponents only want to point out flaws in others ideas and not come up with meaning full suggestions of their own your"something" would be?

 

A wall would make it harder to get over here. And banning travel from a few countries known to harbor radical Islamic training would make it harder.

But stripping mentally disabled people of their citizenship because you can't really understand why someone would shoot up a kindergarten is old fashioned bigotry I thought we surpassed.

I have no idea.

 

So if I purchase an illegal weapon from a criminal you want the criminal to thoroughly vet me? Guns are not the problem and neither are vehicles or pressure cookers. We have always had guns -- the problem is our change in societal attitudes. And that is a long list.

 

Charge anyone committing a crime while carrying as if they actually used the gun. Charge anyone over a set alcohol limit while carrying as if they actually used the gun. Expand on this to include other circumstances

 

Well, yea. You both should have the book thrown at you. Thoroughly vetting is the least of your problems

 

No I want the criminal imprisoned for the same crime you committed. That should slow down the illegal gun market.

 

People do not have an absolute right to own semiautomatic weapons. They were restricted until recently as are machine guns, artillery, and atomic bombs now. The Constitution allows people the right to be armed, but it does not define what arms they can or cannot use. It is legal to place reasonable restrictions on what weapons are available.

If I understand you correctly you are saying the right (which is debatable) of a mentally ill person to own a semiotic weapon with a banana clip and a bump stock out weighs the right of a schoolchild to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Making it more difficult for people to obtain semiautomatic weapons is the same as the wall or the ban. It makes it harder to kill as many people

 

No rights are absolute. But they do have the constitutional right and that's what matters.

All fire arms are currently restricted and nobody is arguing for them not to be. You can't own a gun if you are a felon you have to be of a certian age, no history of domestic abuse.

Those are restrictions they are on all fire arms.

There are restrictions.

Let me get this straight, a disabled person is automatically guilty because they are disabled? Didn't they used to do that to black people? Didn't you read to kill a mocking bird?

Mental illness doesn't automatically mean you are dangerous.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/d...actually-exist-2016-04-20?mg=prod/accounts-mw

 

No problem.

As a fellow constitutional originalist like yourself, because you claim to be so old you were practically there when they wrote the thing, I think originalist weaponry will solve the problem. All fire arms sold to civilians must be collectables and antiques or replicas made to the exact specifications, capabilities, and flaws that existed in the weapons that were used during the writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Done and done. You can't have a mass shooting without modern, military weapons in the hands of civilians. This means most semi-autos are gone as there were very few back then save early revolvers which only gave you a few shots. It's hard to kill 17 when you have to reload every 6 shots or so. Much easier for someone else to take you down. Then there's all the times the weapons failed or blew up in the shooter's face. Hey, if you gonna be a tough gun guy, you gotta deal with gunpowder burns.

So, happy? You get to keep guns! And mass shootings will no longer happen! That's called a win-win.

 

1. No, they have a right to bear arms. Semiautomatic weapons (which I am talking about) are not a part of that; they used to be illegal and the courts desided that was Constitutional just like other limits placed on arms.
2. No they are not automatically guilty of anything. They are unfit as long as they have those problems to own semiautomatic weapons. Just like there are restrictions on who can drive or who passes security checks to get in certain buildings or to see secure information. Let me get this straight a person from Syria is automatically guilty because they are from Syria? Yes I have read "Mockingbird" the attitude portrayed in that book could be applied to Muslims today.
3. Isn't the argument from the gun lobby "This is not a gun problem it is a mental health problem"?

 

And you think the criminal will give you a sales slip so the police can come and get him??????? I have this ocean front property here in Nebr I will sell you at a good price.

 

That is a fail because you will sacrifice at least on child to the musket. Try again.

 

Keep trying democrats, no good solutions has been posted yet.

However I do see a glimer of hope when some of you liberals want the killers to face the full force of law like conservatives have always wanted.

 

No semi autos were never illegal. And semiautos are arms.

So they should be stripped of rights without due process of law? So chuck the second and sixth amendments. Wow. I wonder if anything will be left when you are through.

What problems? Not all disabled peyote are prone to violence.

But we aret talking about just owning something. We are talking about stepping people of rights. That's like not letting them be part of a religion.

No but they are Syrian and thus not American and not entitled to entry into our country.

Muslims? There was no bans on Muslims.

How would I know I'm not a lobbyist.

 

The most simple solution: Somehow convince the shooters to just shoot themselves first.

(Obviously a joke, there is no actual perfect way to prevent mass shootings.)

 

This is one of the things that really bothers me in this debate. Mental health is a serious issue in this country and the NRA's attempt at using this issue to score points only undermines it. In fact, one could easily make an argument that fanatical gun proponents may have mental health issues themselves as their 2nd Amendment "passion" borders on something akin to a religious zealousness.

 

You, logical1, as the arbiter of a good solution?