The Challenge is made: Gun Control

Why haven’t republicans passed a single item on your list. Nothing there would receive a no vote from democrats except concealed carry which in reality is stupid.

That’s why your initial premise is asinine. Democrats would vote for all 4 of your suggestions but republicans fight every one of them (were that not the case it’d be law). But somehow in your warped world view your items aren’t the law because the “left” hasn’t tried to pass it or whatever silliness you’ve argued.

As for concealed carry, how exactly would that help gun laws or crime reduction. If anything having a side arm in a hip holster in the open like the Wild West would be more effective. The whole idea that anyone is somehow safer with a hidden weapon is illogical. How does that create any deterrent effect. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Would you Rob someone or Burglarize a residence if you thought they may possibly be Armed? On the flip side of that coin, if Gun ownership was restricted to the point no one could obtain a Firearm how do you think you would make out from a knife attack?

What if your surgery didn’t work out as expected?

Let me try to explain to the ........ If you have 100 people standing in a room and you have a professional, strong-arm criminal ready to victimize some of them. Now according to ........., if they put their weapons on display (open carry) then the criminal (call him Jeff) can avoid those people and go after the others with next to impunity. However, in my world, Jeff is informed that among those 100 people ten are carrying weapons. They have the training and mindset to end Jeff's sorry life if he tries to rob them. At that point, Jeff may consider a new career or a different room with 100 people in it. Ten people carrying concealed weapons offer protection to the entire room of 100.

Would you Rob someone or Burglarize a residence if you thought they may possibly be Armed? On the flip side of that coin, if Gun ownership was restricted to the point no one could obtain a Firearm how do you think you would make out from a knife attack? Originally Posted by Levianon17

I’ll revert back to my previous statement. I think you are senile.

Let me try to explain to the ........ If you have 100 people standing in a room and you have a professional, strong-arm criminal ready to victimize some of them. Now according to ........., if they put their weapons on display (open carry) then the criminal (call him Jeff) can avoid those people and go after the others with next to impunity. However, in my world, Jeff is informed that among those 100 people ten are carrying weapons. They have the training and mindset to end Jeff's sorry life if he tries to rob them. At that point, Jeff may consider a new career or a different room with 100 people in it. Ten people carrying concealed weapons offer protection to the entire room of 100. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I’ll revert back to my previous assessment of you. You’re the dumbest poster on the forum. Well since Bambino left that is.

I’ll revert back to my previous statement. I think you are senile.



I’ll revert back to my previous assessment of you. You’re the dumbest poster on the forum. Well since Bambino left that is. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

when will you revert back to being NiorMan?

Mores (/ˈmɔːreɪz/, sometimes /ˈmɔːriːz/; from Latin mōrēs [ˈmoːreːs], plural form of singular mōs, meaning "manner, custom, usage, or habit") are social norms that are widely observed within a particular society or culture. Mores determine what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable within any given culture. Originally Posted by 65wolf

Thank you, yes. I knew that. I was going for the joke. Sir.

I like this guy because he's a smart ass who goes for the dramatic.

Return twice!

Indiana Jones shot the dervish because Harrison Ford had the flu when they shot the scene. It was originally planned to have a whip versus simitar battle but Ford couldn't do it. Try not to use movies as anything other than a demonstration and not a solution.

Okay, I see some people can't be helped. They are what they are and will always be that way.

As for the OP;

I will acknowledge that repealing the second amendment is an idea but, right now, I hope that it is an idea that won't be tried.

I also affirm that laws are made for law abiding citizens mostly and not criminals. They either don't expect to be caught like a professional criminal, don't care as they might be mentally or emotionally unbalanced, or haven't given it any thought as they might be one and done. We have enough laws on the books. We should try to enforce them and see if they work. If they don't...repeal them.

Background checks: The first line of defense. No one wants mentally unbalanced people or criminals to have guns of any kind. A lot of these shooters get past the background check because they have no prior record. Many also have a history of bazaar and anti-social behavior known the locals. That information is never available until after the fact. Red flag laws...too much power to be abused by third parties and law enforcement. Property confiscated and forceable detention without due process.

The computing equipment used for background checks is insufficient to the task. Pertinent information is not available to such a system. In most cases, if you didn't know, that if a background check takes longer than five days you automatically get clearance. I've never seen it take longer than a few minutes but my record is not murky. I guess the secret words are "convicted" or "adjudicated". The form asks if you're a drug user, a domestic abuser, a criminal, or a dishonorably discharged veteran. Maybe prosecutors should hold out for a conviction rather than plea bargain away charges for a conviction on lesser crimes. All convictions and medical detentions should be part of a system.

Raise the age to 21: Only if another bill raises the age of the draft to 21 or another bill confirming the right of an active-duty military person to all civil rights (drinking, smoking, purchases, and gun owning) regardless of age. Only in a few cases would this really help. Very few 18 year olds go buy a weapon, most take them from home, borrow them from a friend, or steal them. Raising the age to 21 would only inconvenience honest people.

Mandatory training for ownership: I can get behind the idea that within 60 days of purchasing a weapon, you have to demonstrate the ability to control said weapon. Such a class can also be used to evaluate mental and emotional suitability. Such a class would require both a firearm expert and (unbeknownst to the gun owner) a psychologist. The rub is, what if you don't pass. Not so much the mental part but just suppose you're a lousy shot but you don't intend to use it anywhere outside the home. They take away the gun that you bought for protection?

Gun laws in general; I have had guns stolen. The prosecutor dropped the charges against the perp (yeah, he was caught) in exchange that he go to a halfway house for drugs and a guilty plea for trying to sell a stolen gun. That lasted about three months before he took off across state lines. New York caught him for attempted murder but couldn't make the case and Connecticut didn't want to bring him back. I think the theft of guns should hurt the criminal badly. Tack on an additional five years for every gun stolen. Use a gun in a crime that you are convicted of, five more years. Make the punishment so onerous that criminals will avoid using guns.

Nation-wide concealed carry: Give everyone the opportunity to carry a concealed weapon with a good background check and training. Let criminals have to worry that the little old lady in front of them is a dead shot with her Ruger. Yes, that means armed teachers.

The really tough thing is to put responsibility back into our citizens. Someone pointed out that a 19 soldier is different from a 19 student. The soldier has responsibility and awareness of what is expected. We tend to let young people skate on some charges because they're young and stupid. The best way to make someone unstupid? Hold them accountable.

And NO, I would not ban the AR15 or any other platform. It is style over substance.

Any or all of this could be done state by state with a sunset clause or nationwide with a very firm sunset non-revokable sunset clause because I don't trust politicians. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

That was damn good. Just re-read and edit the spelling and insert a few necessary words for the grammar.

No comment on the punctuation. I realize when I did that before, it was "unprofessional" (in quotes because I'm no pro myself). The punctuation in poetry is key to how the author wants it to read and sound. Pause versus stop, you know?


For this clip, forget about the "over ruled" part. And think "expository" statement instead of "objection."










Where credit is due.

Here and now.

What Is Expository Writing?


https://www.thoughtco.com/expository...sition-1690624

Expository writing is everywhere in everyday life, not just academic settings, as it's present anytime there's information to be conveyed. It can take form in an academic paper, an article for a newspaper, a report for a business, or even book-length nonfiction. It explains, informs, and describes.

I’ll revert back to my previous statement. I think you are senile.



I’ll revert back to my previous assessment of you. You’re the dumbest poster on the forum. Well since Bambino left that is. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I am not senile ya dumbshit. But it's obvious you're afraid to answer the question.

Semi stop: posts are becoming useless

Semi stop: posts are becoming useless Originally Posted by VitaMan

who made you hall monitor?

The goal is to prevent criminals from having guns.

Now what party or person has an answer
to obtain that goal ?

The answer is: none

The goal is to prevent criminals from having guns.

Now what party or person has an answer
to obtain that goal ?

The answer is: none Originally Posted by VitaMan

there is no answer. there will always be criminals until a time in the far distant future 500 to 1000 years from now when genetic engineering eliminates all mental illness and physical deformities.


until then we have the party of law and order and the second amendment and the party of crime and lawlessness.


think you are smart enough to figure out which one is which?

Your premise is wrong.

Neither party has a factory manufacturing criminals.

Your premise is wrong.

Neither party has a factory manufacturing criminals. Originally Posted by VitaMan

which party is enabling criminals?