Where some Dems are getting it wrong on gun control

[Common Sense]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.

[stjames1_53]

nope. gun control is merely a back door to confiscation. We've already witnessed that in CA and NYC.
Living where you live, under the control of your government, without the Right to self-protection all you have is a privilege wherein youseek government approval to engage we declare is our Right.
Vast difference, because there's no comparing a Right to a privilege.

[Chris]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.




That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

How does that address the problem? Heck, what, to you, is the problem?


The problem with most liberals is they don't know what the problem is and so just jump to some/any solution. I understand the emotions but emtions need to drive logical analysis of the problem before coming up with solutions that address the problem.

[Common Sense]

Two inane responses.

Huh...

[Chris]

Two inane responses.

Huh...

^^The inane response. Kind of dickish too--the response.

[Common Sense]

^^The inane response. Kind of dickish too--the response.

I posted a thread criticizing Dems and their ignorance on the issue. You responded to one side point and a the usual cry about liberals.

Dickish? Yeah, I agree. Your response was indeed dickish.

[Chris]

I posted a thread criticizing Dems and their ignorance on the issue. You responded to one side point and a the usual cry about liberals.

Dickish? Yeah, I agree. Your response was indeed dickish.

How creative, repeating my criticism of your post.

What I posted about liberals is generally true. You offer solutions without first analyzing the problem. Not having a clue you propose emotional solutions that address nothing. Add to that, when this is pointed out, you lash out at those who point out your illiberal illogical non-solutions. Thanks for demonstrating.

[Common Sense]

How creative, repeating my criticism of your post.

What I posted about liberals is generally true. You offer solutions without first analyzing the problem. Not having a clue you propose emotional solutions that address nothing. Add to that, when this is pointed out, you lash out at those who point out your illiberal illogical non-solutions. Thanks for demonstrating.

I offered no solutions. I contemplated the effectiveness of magazine sizes as an aside to my main point.


The point of the op was my criticism of the left and their mischaracterization and ignorance of certain firearms. But instead of commenting on that, you ranted against liberals and mischaracterized what I said.

[Common Sense]

This is what happens when you try to have an honest discussion about this issue.

[Chris]

I offered no solutions. I contemplated the effectiveness of magazine sizes as an aside to my main point.


The point of the op was my criticism of the left and their mischaracterization and ignorance of certain firearms. But instead of commenting on that, you ranted against liberals and mischaracterized what I said.



Magazine sizes is a solution you offer. How does it address the problem--wait, what is the problem?


Don't like my criticism, tough beans.

[Chris]

This is what happens when you try to have an honest discussion about this issue.

I suggest you actually try it sometime. Basically what you're doing is virtue signalling: Oh look at me and how fox news fair and balanced I am but you point is the same as any liberal's.

[Common Sense]

I suggest you actually try it sometime. Basically what you're doing is virtue signalling: Oh look at me and how fox news fair and balanced I am but you point is the same as any liberal's.
No, I was actually trying to point out a key flaw in the reasoning of some gun opponents.

...but whatever. You're not interested in a dialogue. Hopefully someone else is.

[Common Sense]

Magazine sizes is a solution you offer. How does it address the problem--wait, what is the problem?


Don't like my criticism, tough beans.
That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

[Chris]

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

What problem does it address?

[Common Sense]

It's amazing how some people lose the ability to reason when the word gun is mentioned.

...so fucked up.

[Chris]

No, I was actually trying to point out a key flaw in the reasoning of some gun opponents.

...but whatever. You're not interested in a dialogue. Hopefully someone else is.

You're the one having a canniption. I'm questioning your problem solving strategy.

[Chris]

It's amazing how some people lose the ability to reason when the word gun is mentioned.

...so fucked up.

That's what I'm questioning, your reasoning.

[Common Sense]

What problem does it address?

Mass casualties in shooting like these. Some would argue that high capacity magazines make it easier to kill more people and reduce opportunities for people to get away, or even rush the attacker.

...but I'm not even advocating for that, nor was it the main point of my thread.

[Common Sense]

That's what I'm questioning, your reasoning.

OK, thanks for your input. Run along...

[MisterVeritis]

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Limit yourself to whatever capacity magazines you are most comfortable with.

[Common Sense]

So none of them will comment on the main point of my thread.

Six small paragraphs and they only read one apparently.

Can't say I didn't try...

[MisterVeritis]

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.
The bolded is your real message. Everything else is fluff.

How much gun control do you believe we need?

[Cletus]

CS, I see what you are trying to do and appreciate the effort, although I do disagree on the magazine issue.

What is important is that people who discuss this issue, do so from an informed position. Opinions may differ, but if everyone has a good base of knowledge, at least those differences can be discussed rationally and cases can be put forth the various positions.

[Common Sense]

CS, I see what you are trying to do and appreciate the effort, although I do disagree on the magazine issue.

What is important is that people who discuss this issue, do so from an informed position. Opinions may differ, but if everyone has a good base of knowledge, at least those differences can be discussed rationally and cases can be put forth the various positions.

The magazine issue was just an aside. I regret mentioning it.

My main point was a criticism of Dems ignorance when it comes to technical issues surrounding firearms.

All sides should refrain from using hyperbole and should be logical and informed on the issue. It makes for a more reasonable and productive conversation.

[Common Sense]

The bolded is your real message. Everything else is fluff.

How much gun control do you believe we need?
So you think it's fluff to say Dems shouldn't focus all their attention on gun control?

[MisterVeritis]

So you think it's fluff to say Dems shouldn't focus all their attention on gun control?
Yes. The key to your comment is that we should be willing to have our right to defend ourselves further encroached upon. Everything else is window dressing. We need a solution without any further rights encroachments. Thank you.

[Chris]

The magazine issue was just an aside. I regret mentioning it.

My main point was a criticism of Dems ignorance when it comes to technical issues surrounding firearms.

All sides should refrain from using hyperbole and should be logical and informed on the issue. It makes for a more reasonable and productive conversation.

Thr problem is not ignorance of firearms but ignorance of what the problem is.

[Cletus]

Thr problem is not ignorance of firearms but ignorance of what the problem is.

That is exactly it in a nutshell.

Well said.

[Common]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.
Thats honest fair and reasonable, I personally have no problem with more comprehensive background checks nor should any conservative. Making sure someone is mentally stable or doesnt have felonies before selling them a gun isnt gun control its people control.

[Captdon]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.

How would the size of a magazine matter? It takes two seconds to change one.

[Captdon]

No, I was actually trying to point out a key flaw in the reasoning of some gun opponents.

...but whatever. You're not interested in a dialogue. Hopefully someone else is.

Sure. As long as the word "ban" doesn't come up. Then it's not a discussion it's an attack on my rights.

[Chris]

Mass casualties in shooting like these. Some would argue that high capacity magazines make it easier to kill more people and reduce opportunities for people to get away, or even rush the attacker.

...but I'm not even advocating for that, nor was it the main point of my thread.



Ah, I see, it addresses symptoms, not causes. OK. got it. Next.

[Chris]

So none of them will comment on the main point of my thread.

Six small paragraphs and they only read one apparently.

Can't say I didn't try...

You didn't try.

[MMC]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.
Well at least you acknowledge they are making mistakes. Of course you do know they have stats and info but don't want to bring up those stats and info since it is against their agenda, correct?


If they are leaving out stats and info that runs counter to their political agenda. Then it is clearly by design and that isn't making a mistake.....is it?

[Peter1469]

How would the size of a magazine matter? It takes two seconds to change one.


Less than that if you practice enough.

[Max Rockatansky]

nope. gun control is merely a back door to confiscation. We've already witnessed that in CA and NYC.
Living where you live, under the control of your government, without the Right to self-protection all you have is a privilege wherein youseek government approval to engage we declare is our Right.
Vast difference, because there's no comparing a Right to a privilege.
Agreed. The Democrats have voiced gun bans and confiscation in the past but have been severely spanked enough times to realize their best strategy is constant, steady encroachment on the Second Amendment. Reenacting the Clinton gun ban, whole or in part, is just part of that strategy.

It must not be allowed. Not one inch. The problem isn't guns, types of guns nor accessories. The problem is the inability to create Contitutionally-sound laws helping people who are mentally ill to be given help, even when they don't want it, and keeping the mentally ill people from accessing firearms. Part of that has to include restoration of rights. Due process for all.

[MisterVeritis]

Agreed. The Democrats have voiced gun bans and confiscation in the past but have been severely spanked enough times to realize their best strategy is constant, steady encroachment on the Second Amendment. Reenacting the Clinton gun ban, whole or in part, is just part of that strategy.

It must not be allowed. Not one inch. The problem isn't guns, types of guns nor accessories. The problem is the inability to create Contitutionally-sound laws helping people who are mentally ill to be given help, even when they don't want it, and keeping the mentally ill people from accessing firearms. Part of that has to include restoration of rights. Due process for all.
This is good. We also need to lock up crazy people.

[Max Rockatansky]

This is good. We also need to lock up crazy people.
I strongly doubt any sane Constitutionalist would like doing such a liberal idea.

[Peter1469]

This is good. We also need to lock up crazy people.

We need more mental institutions. Tossing crazy people into prisons is not the way to go.

[Max Rockatansky]

We need more mental institutions. Tossing crazy people into prisons is not the way to go.
Agreed. We need not only the ability to help people, but the due process to either force them to get help (a Constitutional minefield) but also, if cured, a full restoration of rights.

While some illnesses such as dementia and paranoid schizophrenia are incurable, a soldier suffering a little PTSD or a college student going through a bout of workload-related depression can be cured. They should not be stigmatized and have their rights limited for the rest of their lives for a rough patch in their lives.

[jigglepete]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.

I don't know, I bought a Glock 17 when I moved to Vermont, with two clips, both 17 round capacity. a few months later I bought a 30 round mag, you know...because I could. Aside from the fact that it totally throws off the weight of the loaded gun, I see no difference between one thirty round clip, and the two normal capacity mags (and four more rounds), except that I like the feel of the gun with the factory mags, I only kept the high capacity clip as a novelty...

[MisterVeritis]

We also need to lock up crazy people.

I strongly doubt any sane Constitutionalist would like doing such a liberal idea.
Why would you think such a goofy thing? We used to lock up crazy people. During the time we did we had almost no school shootings. Is it merely a coincidence?

What do you find in the Constitution that prevents the society from protecting itself from crazy people?

[MisterVeritis]

We also need to lock up crazy people.

We need more mental institutions. Tossing crazy people into prisons is not the way to go.
I made no mention of prisons.

[MisterVeritis]

Agreed. We need not only the ability to help people, but the due process to either force them to get help (a Constitutional minefield) but also, if cured, a full restoration of rights.

While some illnesses such as dementia and paranoid schizophrenia are incurable, a soldier suffering a little PTSD or a college student going through a bout of workload-related depression can be cured. They should not be stigmatized and have their rights limited for the rest of their lives for a rough patch in their lives.
Right. Lock up crazy people. Keep them away from the rest of us (present company excluded as appropriate).

[Max Rockatansky]

We also need to lock up crazy people.
Why would you think such a goofy thing? We used to lock up crazy people. During the time we did we had almost no school shootings. Is it merely a coincidence?

What do you find in the Constitution that prevents the society from protecting itself from crazy people?
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While I expect sane Americans to understand this, I do not expect whatever you are to understand it.

[Max Rockatansky]

We also need to lock up crazy people.

I made no mention of prisons.WTF do you think "lock up" means?

[MisterVeritis]

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While I expect sane Americans to understand this, I do not expect whatever you are to understand it.
We can lock up crazy people. We just need appropriate laws to do so. I am surprised you choose not to understand it.

[MisterVeritis]

WTF do you think "lock up" means?
We can keep crazy people away from the rest of us. Lock them up.

It does not mean prison. But it does mean they will no longer be homeless nor will they endanger the rest of us.

[Peter1469]

We use to spend a lot more on mental illness- that ended in the 1980s and the mentally ill, at least those who got noticed by authorities were tossed into prisons.

[Max Rockatansky]

We can keep crazy people away from the rest of us. Lock them up.
It does not mean prison. But it does mean they will no longer be homeless nor will they endanger the rest of us.
Liberals love to mince words.

Liberal double-talker: "Lock them up!!!"

Sane person: "Like prison?"

Liberal double-talker: "No. Different. Just locked up against their will and never let them out".

Sane person: "Riiiiiiight" <walks away in disgust>

[MisterVeritis]

Liberals love to mince words.

Liberal double-talker: "Lock them up!!!"
Sane person: "Like prison?"

Liberal double-talker: "No. Different. Just locked up against their will and never let them out".
Sane person: "Riiiiiiight" <walks away in disgust>
You do mince.

We can lock crazy people up. We choose not too. You are on the side of the crazy people. I am on the side of the same people. Anyone who chooses to see it can.

You are a Leftist. It is just a matter of time before you admit it to yourself.

[Max Rockatansky]

We use to spend a lot more on mental illness- that ended in the 1980s and the mentally ill, at least those who got noticed by authorities were tossed into prisons.
The idea of closing mental hospitals was to save money. Now we pay the same, about $30K/year, to keep them in prison. It's both costly and an injustice. It's certainly not making the US "a shining city on the hill".

[countryboy]

The magazine issue was just an aside. I regret mentioning it.

My main point was a criticism of Dems ignorance when it comes to technical issues surrounding firearms.

All sides should refrain from using hyperbole and should be logical and informed on the issue. It makes for a more reasonable and productive conversation.

Do you seriously think we missed your point? That libs need to educate themselves about firearms, so they know to advocate for the banning of the non scary looking guns too? No, we got your meaning loud and clear. :wink:

[Max Rockatansky]

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.
Nonetheless you are restricting the rights of all Americans for the actions of a very, very few. It's akin to limiting the horsepower of all cars to one-horse to prevent drunken-driving accidents. The presumption is that most Americans can't be trusted to be lawful, honest and sane.

[MisterVeritis]

The idea of closing mental hospitals was to save money. Now we pay the same, about $30K/year, to keep them in prison. It's both costly and an injustice. It's certainly not making the US "a shining city on the hill".
Uh, No.

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_ 422) U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 563 (1975), was a landmark decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_decision) in mental health law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health_law). The United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_liberty).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-findlaw-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-3)

This is why Supreme Court Decisions should be as narrow as possible. It sounded good. But now the crazy people live in homeless camps, crap on your sidewalks and, quite possibly murder our citizens.

It is time for some new laws.

[Max Rockatansky]

You do mince.

We can lock crazy people up. We choose not too. You are on the side of the crazy people. I am on the side of the same people. Anyone who chooses to see it can.

You are a Leftist. It is just a matter of time before you admit it to yourself.
Dude, if this nation chose to shred the Constitution and started to "lock crazy people up", it wouldn't be long before you joined them. Once you give a government that much power, it's never long before that power becomes abused. This point was recognized by all Goldwater conservatives with the Patriot Act, but totally glossed over by today's "conservatives" and, like you, Liberals-in-conservative-clothing.

[Common Sense]

Do you seriously think we missed your point? That libs need to educate themselves about firearms, so they know to advocate for the banning of the non scary looking guns too? No, we got your meaning loud and clear. :wink:
Clearly you didn't.

[Peter1469]

But under that ruling, dangerous mentally ill people could still be institutionalized.
Uh, No.

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_ 422) U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 563 (1975), was a landmark decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_decision) in mental health law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health_law). The United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_liberty).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-findlaw-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-3)

This is why Supreme Court Decisions should be as narrow as possible. It sounded good. But now the crazy people live in homeless camps, crap on your sidewalks and, quite possibly murder our citizens.

It is time for some new laws.

[MisterVeritis]

Dude, if this nation chose to shred the Constitution and started to "lock crazy people up", it wouldn't be long before you joined them. Once you give a government that much power, it's never long before that power becomes abused. This point was recognized by all Goldwater conservatives with the Patriot Act, but totally glossed over by today's "conservatives" and, like you, Liberals-in-conservative-clothing.
You do not know what you are talking about.

[MisterVeritis]

But under that ruling, dangerous mentally ill people could still be institutionalized.
Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to establish that someone is dangerous.

[Max Rockatansky]

Uh, No.
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_ 422) U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 563 (1975), was a landmark decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_decision) in mental health law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health_law). The United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_liberty).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-findlaw-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Connor_v._Donaldson#cite_note-3)

This is why Supreme Court Decisions should be as narrow as possible. It sounded good. But now the crazy people live in homeless camps, crap on your sidewalks and, quite possibly murder our citizens.

It is time for some new laws.
Wow! I'm impressed. You took my advice to learn how to use facts. Good job! Yes, obviously a correct point of both law and history. However, if you scroll up, you'd see my post that stated "We need not only the ability to help people, but the due process to either force them to get help (a Constitutional minefield) but also, if cured, a full restoration of rights":


Agreed. We need not only the ability to help people, but the due process to either force them to get help (a Constitutional minefield) but also, if cured, a full restoration of rights.

While some illnesses such as dementia and paranoid schizophrenia are incurable, a soldier suffering a little PTSD or a college student going through a bout of workload-related depression can be cured. They should not be stigmatized and have their rights limited for the rest of their lives for a rough patch in their lives.

[Max Rockatansky]

You do not know what you are talking about.
Says the person screaming "lock crazy people up" and refused to (or was denied) take an oath supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States/

[MisterVeritis]

It is time for some new laws.

Wow! I'm impressed. You took my advice to learn how to use facts. Good job! Yes, obviously a correct point of both law and history. However, if you scroll up, you'd see my post that stated "We need not only the ability to help people, but the due process to either force them to get help (a Constitutional minefield) but also, if cured, a full restoration of rights":
It is time for some new laws. You did not know what you were talking about. I did know. I corrected you. Easy Peasy.

[Peter1469]

Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to establish that someone is dangerous.

Yes. It takes a judicial proceeding. Perhaps we could pass some laws to create standards for judges to use, but we can't have people seeking help for general life stress barred from owning or buying firearms.

[MisterVeritis]

Says the person screaming "lock crazy people up" and refused to (or was denied) take an oath supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States/
I am not surprised you do not know the Constitution.

We can lock crazy people up. And we should.

You sure are emotional. Are you Exo's sister?

[MisterVeritis]

Yes. It takes a judicial proceeding. Perhaps we could pass some laws to create standards for judges to use, but we can't have people seeking help for general life stress barred from owning or buying firearms.
Hence the need for new laws.

[Captdon]

I strongly doubt any sane Constitutionalist would like doing such a liberal idea.

It was the liberals who put them on the streets. If a person is unable to make mentally sound decisions society has the right to put them where they are not a threat to society and no one is a threat to them.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact- Robert Jackson SCOTUS

[countryboy]

Clearly you didn't.

Mmmm hmm. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes. It takes a judicial proceeding. Perhaps we could pass some laws to create standards for judges to use, but we can't have people seeking help for general life stress barred from owning or buying firearms.
Agreed. A lot of the problem is Congress. What we're talking about isn't "easy peasy" as some suggest. It's a Constitutional minefield that requires a lot of hard work and effort. It can be done, but it's going to be a very thick bill in order to maximize protection of rights. Since most in Congress are more interested in reelection, not work, that presents a problem.

[Captdon]

Agreed. We need not only the ability to help people, but the due process to either force them to get help (a Constitutional minefield) but also, if cured, a full restoration of rights.

While some illnesses such as dementia and paranoid schizophrenia are incurable, a soldier suffering a little PTSD or a college student going through a bout of workload-related depression can be cured. They should not be stigmatized and have their rights limited for the rest of their lives for a rough patch in their lives.

The Constitution allows someone to be a danger to society? Where is that right?

[Max Rockatansky]

I am not surprised you do not know the Constitution.

We can lock crazy people up. And we should.

You sure are emotional. Are you Exo's sister?
LOL More evidence of a critical lack of critical thinking.

[Captdon]

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While I expect sane Americans to understand this, I do not expect whatever you are to understand it.

We lock up criminals and sometimes in a private prison. We always have the right to protect ourselves as a society. We set age limits for voting. Were is that mentioned? We set age limits for a lot of things based on...

[Max Rockatansky]

The Constitution allows someone to be a danger to society? Where is that right?
No, it doesn't. It also doesn't make people who are eccentric subject to arbitrary prison sentences "lock up". The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments must be applied regardless if a person acts "nutty" but hasn't presented a legally defined danger to themselves or others.

[Max Rockatansky]

We lock up criminals and sometimes in a private prison. We always have the right to protect ourselves as a society. We set age limits for voting. Were is that mentioned? We set age limits for a lot of things based on...
The key being "due process". Not just locking up people because you or others think they are crazy. Be careful about the Pandora's Box you are suggesting here.

[Captdon]

The idea of closing mental hospitals was to save money. Now we pay the same, about $30K/year, to keep them in prison. It's both costly and an injustice. It's certainly not making the US "a shining city on the hill".

No, it wasn't. it was to protect the rights of the very people we were trying to protect. No one is locked up for life. Ever. When a person is committed, it is until they are not a harm to themselves or to society. You know we have people roaming around who are harmful and are being harmed.

Liberals don't care about people. They care about "people."

[Captdon]

Dude, if this nation chose to shred the Constitution and started to "lock crazy people up", it wouldn't be long before you joined them. Once you give a government that much power, it's never long before that power becomes abused. This point was recognized by all Goldwater conservatives with the Patriot Act, but totally glossed over by today's "conservatives" and, like you, Liberals-in-conservative-clothing.

You believe people who are a certified risk to others should be allowed to be that? People who are committed have to have a hearing on a regular basis and has the right to have other doctors examine them. A judge then decides whether the person can be released or not.

[Captdon]

Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to establish that someone is dangerous.

It should be hard. That's a protection from the old days when a pregnant girl would be locked up for "bad morals." The judicial system should always be hard. It's my objection to the FISA courts.

[Max Rockatansky]

You believe people who are a certified risk to others should be allowed to be that? People who are committed have to have a hearing on a regular basis and has the right to have other doctors examine them. A judge then decides whether the person can be released or not.
"Certified"? As in a a system of due process? No. I've expressly addressed that point several times. I think you are confusing me with "Mr. Truth" who has posted several times that we should lock up crazy people without ever mentioning due process.

[MisterVeritis]

Agreed. A lot of the problem is Congress. What we're talking about isn't "easy peasy" as some suggest. It's a Constitutional minefield that requires a lot of hard work and effort. It can be done, but it's going to be a very thick bill in order to maximize protection of rights. Since most in Congress are more interested in reelection, not work, that presents a problem.
You whine too much. It is as easy as deciding to do it. All else are mere details.

[Max Rockatansky]

It should be hard. That's a protection from the old days when a pregnant girl would be locked up for "bad morals." The judicial system should always be hard. It's my objection to the FISA courts.
Agreed. It should be both legal, but difficult. Hence my comments that Congress writing such laws are a Constitutional minefield. The idiots and anti-Constitutionalists want to skip due process and go directly to locking people up like we did insane people in the past and the Japanese (and some Germans) during WWII. That's wrong.

[MisterVeritis]

You sure are emotional. Are you Exo's sister?

LOL More evidence of a critical lack of critical thinking.
Not everything requires critical thinking.

You are not very good at this.

[Captdon]

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't make people who are eccentric subject to arbitrary prison sentences "lock up". The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments must be applied regardless if a person acts "nutty" but hasn't presented a legally defined danger to themselves or others.

Which is what some of us are saying. If someone is a danger to society or to themselves they shpould be locked up. Locked up seems to be your set off phrase. It was we do and need to do. lock them up. When, and if, they are no a danger we release them.

What exactly is your problem with this?

[MisterVeritis]

The key being "due process". Not just locking up people because you or others think they are crazy. Be careful about the Pandora's Box you are suggesting here.
Hence the need for new laws.

[MisterVeritis]

It should be hard. That's a protection from the old days when a pregnant girl would be locked up for "bad morals." The judicial system should always be hard. It's my objection to the FISA courts.
We agree. But it should not be impossibly hard. Right now it is.

Hence the need for new laws.

[Max Rockatansky]

But under that ruling, dangerous mentally ill people could still be institutionalized.
A point that is addressed under current law: if a person is a danger to themselves or others, they can be put into protective custody. Cruz's case is more about a lack of enforcement, not laws against the "dangerous mentally ill".

[MisterVeritis]

"Certified"? As in a a system of due process? No. I've expressly addressed that point several times. I think you are confusing me with "Mr. Truth" who has posted several times that we should lock up crazy people without ever mentioning due process.
Hence the need for new laws.

You are not very good at this.

[MisterVeritis]

Agreed. It should be both legal, but difficult. Hence my comments that Congress writing such laws are a Constitutional minefield. The idiots and anti-Constitutionalists want to skip due process and go directly to locking people up like we did insane people in the past and the Japanese (and some Germans) during WWII. That's wrong.
You make wonderful straw men.

Cool beans.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hence the need for new laws.A point I made in my very first post on this thread, well before your multiple "lock up crazy people" posts. Nice to see you finally recognize which way the wind is blowing.

Agreed. The Democrats have voiced gun bans and confiscation in the past but have been severely spanked enough times to realize their best strategy is constant, steady encroachment on the Second Amendment. Reenacting the Clinton gun ban, whole or in part, is just part of that strategy.

It must not be allowed. Not one inch. The problem isn't guns, types of guns nor accessories. The problem is the inability to create Contitutionally-sound laws helping people who are mentally ill to be given help, even when they don't want it, and keeping the mentally ill people from accessing firearms. Part of that has to include restoration of rights. Due process for all.

[MisterVeritis]

A point I made in my very first post on this thread, well before your multiple "lock up crazy people" posts. Nice to see you finally recognize which way the wind is blowing.
If you want to pretend you were first that is fine with me. Lock up crazy people.

Everything else is mere details.

[Max Rockatansky]

Which is what some of us are saying. If someone is a danger to society or to themselves they shpould be locked up. Locked up seems to be your set off phrase. It was we do and need to do. lock them up. When, and if, they are no a danger we release them.

What exactly is your problem with this?
Again, there already are laws where people who are clearly a danger to themselves or others can be locked up. However, 1) such laws are not well enforced and 2) are limited in recourse. Another reason why we need better, but Constitutional, laws as I stated in post #36. I have no problem with giving people the help they need, but I continue to have a strong concern about the abuse of "lock'em up" laws that violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Just curious, but why have you made multiple posts accusing me of having a problem with this yet never voiced a problem with anti-Constitutionalists like "mr. truth"? A friend of yours?

This is good. We also need to lock up crazy people.
Agreed. The Democrats have voiced gun bans and confiscation in the past but have been severely spanked enough times to realize their best strategy is constant, steady encroachment on the Second Amendment. Reenacting the Clinton gun ban, whole or in part, is just part of that strategy.

It must not be allowed. Not one inch. The problem isn't guns, types of guns nor accessories. The problem is the inability to create Contitutionally-sound laws helping people who are mentally ill to be given help, even when they don't want it, and keeping the mentally ill people from accessing firearms. Part of that has to include restoration of rights. Due process for all.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you want to pretend you were first that is fine with me. Lock up crazy people.

Everything else is mere details.Another instance of you violating the wisdom "be careful what you ask for".

[Dr. Who]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.
Perhaps not allowing anyone under 21 to purchase a semi-automatic weapon of any kind makes some sense. Licensed firearms dealers are not permitted to sell handguns to anyone under the age of 21. That wouldn't prevent them from using semi-automatic rifles under supervision for hunting or at a range etc. That said, school security and mental health must also be addressed. Certainly, no one who is not either a student or staff member should have unfettered access to a school or even indeed its recreation and sports areas and if metal detectors are necessary, then so be it. The mental health issue is more complicated. Disciplinary issues may or may not be indicative of a mental health problem and psychology is a fuzzy science, especially where kids are concerned. Lack of discipline in the home, improper diet and genetics could combine to create a discipline problem in a kid.

ADHD - a catch-all syndrome which is too often treated with pharmaceuticals before addressing discipline and diet.

Depression in teens - sometimes the result of chemical (i.e. hormonal issues), sometimes resulting from underlying psychological issues or genetic issues and sometimes caused by issues in the home or in the child's social life. Again, frequently addressed with pharmaceuticals. Therapy is expensive. I would hope that proper blood work is done to ensure that it's not a chemical issue that can be specifically addressed, but who knows?

The thing is, if the problem is really the home, then what? The kid goes home to parents who fight constantly or goes home to a fighting divorced couple and step-parents, custody issues or living alternate weeks or weekends with one parent or another or parents who are too busy to pay attention. On paper, these are often not people who would be considered 'unfit' parents.

[MisterVeritis]

Another instance of you violating the wisdom "be careful what you ask for".
I am not a legislator. Those details are not mine to grapple with. If you want to grapple with them then join the fray, get elected and have at it.

[MMC]

Btw.....after this last week. Its not some.....its the majority!

[Max Rockatansky]

I am not a legislator. Those details are not mine to grapple with. If you want to grapple with them then join the fray, get elected and have at it.
You're not a lot of things, MV. Because you obviously missed it, this is a political forum where we do, indeed, grapple with details about our nation and the world. Feel free avoid discussing it or not. Either way, every time you post I see further into your head.

Just to recap my own position: there the Democrats are getting it wrong is that they are focusing on gun bans and treating lawful gun owners as criminals instead of seeking to enforce current laws and altering how our nation handles the mentally ill.

[Chris]

Perhaps not allowing anyone under 21 to purchase a semi-automatic weapon of any kind makes some sense. Licensed firearms dealers are not permitted to sell handguns to anyone under the age of 21. That wouldn't prevent them from using semi-automatic rifles under supervision for hunting or at a range etc. That said, school security and mental health must also be addressed. Certainly, no one who is not either a student or staff member should have unfettered access to a school or even indeed its recreation and sports areas and if metal detectors are necessary, then so be it. The mental health issue is more complicated. Disciplinary issues may or may not be indicative of a mental health problem and psychology is a fuzzy science, especially where kids are concerned. Lack of discipline in the home, improper diet and genetics could combine to create a discipline problem in a kid.

ADHD - a catch-all syndrome which is too often treated with pharmaceuticals before addressing discipline and diet.

Depression in teens - sometimes the result of chemical (i.e. hormonal issues), sometimes resulting from underlying psychological issues or genetic issues and sometimes caused by issues in the home or in the child's social life. Again, frequently addressed with pharmaceuticals. Therapy is expensive. I would hope that proper blood work is done to ensure that it's not a chemical issue that can be specifically addressed, but who knows?

The thing is, if the problem is really the home, then what? The kid goes home to parents who fight constantly or goes home to a fighting divorced couple and step-parents, custody issues or living alternate weeks or weekends with one parent or another or parents who are too busy to pay attention. On paper, these are often not people who would be considered 'unfit' parents.


You need to learn how to use paragraphs. Use paragraphs to develop ideas instead of jamming incomplete ideas together.


Perhaps not allowing anyone under 21 to purchase a semi-automatic weapon of any kind makes some sense. Licensed firearms dealers are not permitted to sell handguns to anyone under the age of 21. That wouldn't prevent them from using semi-automatic rifles under supervision for hunting or at a range etc.

Here you need to develope exactly what problem you're addressing. Otherwise it's just another logical leap, a solution looking for a problem.


That said, school security and mental health must also be addressed. Certainly, no one who is not either a student or staff member should have unfettered access to a school or even indeed its recreation and sports areas and if metal detectors are necessary, then so be it.

Here you should point out that all this is already done.


he mental health issue is more complicated. Disciplinary issues may or may not be indicative of a mental health problem and psychology is a fuzzy science, especially where kids are concerned. Lack of discipline in the home, improper diet and genetics could combine to create a discipline problem in a kid.

Here you should add that you simply don't have a clue. How could you, no one does.

Skipping further psychological speculation.


The thing is, if the problem is really the home, then what? The kid goes home to parents who fight constantly or goes home to a fighting divorced couple and step-parents, custody issues or living alternate weeks or weekends with one parent or another or parents who are too busy to pay attention. On paper, these are often not people who would be considered 'unfit' parents.

Maybe part of the problem is the liberal agenda to re-engineer society, break down various social customs, traditions, institutions like family and religion. These shootings didn't happen in the past when society was strong and less dependent on the governmnet.

[Max Rockatansky]

...Maybe part of the problem is the liberal agenda to re-engineer society, break down various social customs, traditions, institutions like family and religion. These shootings didn't happen in the past when society was strong and less dependent on the governmnet.
Agreed on the Liberal agenda, disagreed tragedies like this didn't happen in the past. The history of mankind is filled with brutal mass murders. One thing to consider is that, even though the violent crime rate is going down, as the population grows, we will see more instances of violence. Secondly, the "Information Age" allows us to know almost instantly of every violent incident whereas in the days of newspapers and telegraphs we might never have heard about it.

Consider that the population of the United States during the Civil War was 25 million. We lost about 700,000 Americans or about 2% of the population in that war. If we lost 2% of the 320 million in our population today, it would be 6,400,000 dead Americans. A shocking number, but still only 2%.

[Common Sense]

You need to learn how to use paragraphs. Use paragraphs to develop ideas instead of jamming incomplete ideas together.



Here you need to develope exactly what problem you're addressing. Otherwise it's just another logical leap, a solution looking for a problem.



Here you should point out that all this is already done.



Here you should add that you simply don't have a clue. How could you, no one does.

Skipping further psychological speculation.



Maybe part of the problem is the liberal agenda to re-engineer society, break down various social customs, traditions, institutions like family and religion. These shootings didn't happen in the past when society was strong and less dependent on the governmnet.

Lol...and they call me condescending. Geeze...

[MMC]

Agreed on the Liberal agenda, disagreed tragedies like this didn't happen in the past. The history of mankind is filled with brutal mass murders. One thing to consider is that, even though the violent crime rate is going down, as the population grows, we will see more instances of violence. Secondly, the "Information Age" allows us to know almost instantly of every violent incident whereas in the days of newspapers and telegraphs we might never have heard about it.

Consider that the population of the United States during the Civil War was 25 million. We lost about 700,000 Americans or about 2% of the population in that war. If we lost 2% of the 320 million in our population today, it would be 6,400,000 dead Americans. A shocking number, but still only 2%.


You agree that the liberal agenda is the re-engineering of Society. Yet doubt that the Lame Stream is the Main tool they are using? While openly colluding, and pimping out one party's ideology. While telling those in that party what should and shouldn't be done? http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/giggling.gif

[Chris]

Lol...and they call me condescending. Geeze...

You are.

And once again you prove you had no intention of discussing anything, just badger people for discussing the topic.

[Chris]

Agreed on the Liberal agenda, disagreed tragedies like this didn't happen in the past. The history of mankind is filled with brutal mass murders. One thing to consider is that, even though the violent crime rate is going down, as the population grows, we will see more instances of violence. Secondly, the "Information Age" allows us to know almost instantly of every violent incident whereas in the days of newspapers and telegraphs we might never have heard about it.

Consider that the population of the United States during the Civil War was 25 million. We lost about 700,000 Americans or about 2% of the population in that war. If we lost 2% of the 320 million in our population today, it would be 6,400,000 dead Americans. A shocking number, but still only 2%.


Indeed, worse has happened in the past at the hand of governments not just killing off enemies but their own people.

But, so far as know, civilians, even kids, committing mass murder is a recent phenomenon.

[MisterVeritis]

You're not a lot of things, MV. Because you obviously missed it, this is a political forum where we do, indeed, grapple with details about our nation and the world. Feel free avoid discussing it or not. Either way, every time you post I see further into your head.
Some people like to stay in the weeds. Feel free to stay there.

[MisterVeritis]

Maybe part of the problem is the liberal agenda to re-engineer society, break down various social customs, traditions, institutions like family and religion. These shootings didn't happen in the past when society was strong and less dependent on the government.
The Progressives have been unrelenting in fundamentally transforming the United States. We have failed to meet their challenge in the courts, in the schools, in religious institutions and in the legislative branches of governments at all levels.

We also stopped locking up crazy people. Some remedies can be implemented quickly. Crafting new laws, in this case, must begin in the Congress to overturn the wrong decision by the Supreme Court in the mid-seventies. Once the remedy is in place the States must craft their laws to locally implement the means and methods needed to identify and secure their crazy people.

Just as the Federal government must clear away rules, regulations, and laws that direct States to establish killing zones, so too must the States help local school boards grapple with security solutions appropriate to each school.

[Common Sense]

You are.

And once again you prove you had no intention of discussing anything, just badger people for discussing the topic.

There's some irony.

Let me know when you start discussing the topic.

[Chris]

The Progressives have been unrelenting in fundamentally transforming the United States. We have failed to meet their challenge in the courts, in the schools, in religious institutions and in the legislative branches of governments at all levels.

We also stopped locking up crazy people. Some remedies can be implemented quickly. Crafting new laws, in this case, must begin in the Congress to overturn the wrong decision by the Supreme Court in the mid-seventies. Once the remedy is in place the States must craft their laws to locally implement the means and methods needed to identify and secure their crazy people.

Just as the Federal government must clear away rules, regulations, and laws that direct States to establish killing zones, so too must the States help local school boards grapple with security solutions appropriate to each school.


Liberalism has transformed the West and has tried to spread itself elsewhere around the world.

Laws have to target specific problems and those problems aren't known to psychology at this time.

[Chris]

There's some irony.

Let me know when you start discussing the topic.

When you stop trolling and start engaging in discussion.

[Shady Slim]

So you think it's fluff to say Dems shouldn't focus all their attention on gun control?

Do we need as much OR MORE gun control that is already in effect in DC, Chicago, California or New York City?

It really seems to be working well in Chicago. I mean 762 in 2016 and 650 in 2017. Compare that to 171 deaths in Dallas for 2017.

Fluff? You bet.

[Captdon]

A point that is addressed under current law: if a person is a danger to themselves or others, they can be put into protective custody. Cruz's case is more about a lack of enforcement, not laws against the "dangerous mentally ill".

No, not really. We closed all the institutions down and have no place to put people who are dangerous. When that happens a doctor writes "cured" on whatever number of new beds he needs.

We have to not only have due process but due requirements for release.

[Captdon]

Lol...and they call me condescending. Geeze...

Not condescending at all. It proper writing. Wall to wall writing doesn't work. No one should have to work at reading.

[Chris]

Not condescending at all. It proper writing. Wall to wall writing doesn't work. No one should have to work at reading.


Right, the standard is one paragraph per point. Old school used to insist a paragraph have at least 5 sentences. Go back to John Stuart Mill or Adam Smith and the rule was a paragraph must run on and on for pages! But they were making complex points.

Of course, Dr. Who can decide for herself. Who knows but Canadian rhetoric is fine with it.


And, heck, it gave Common Sense something to address rather than the points I try to make.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, not really. We closed all the institutions down and have no place to put people who are dangerous. When that happens a doctor writes "cured" on whatever number of new beds he needs.

We have to not only have due process but due requirements for release.
Where have I said anything different? Why do you continually disagree with me via straw men? Is it because I confronted a nutjob who you know better than me?

[Max Rockatansky]

Indeed, worse has happened in the past at the hand of governments not just killing off enemies but their own people.

But, so far as know, civilians, even kids, committing mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
Really? Never heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre? St. Valentine's Day Massacre? Bath School massacre? Of course, there were all those nasty little incidents in foreign countries too.

[Chris]

Really? Never heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre? St. Valentine's Day Massacre? Bath School massacre? Of course, there were all those nasty little incidents in foreign countries too.

OK, rare.

[donttread]

After reading the news and watching various Dems and pundits talk at these town halls and on news programs, it is clear that some Dems and liberal pundits are making mistakes regarding gun control issues.

It's unfortunate that some Dems are using hyperbole to describe so called assault rifles. While it is true that guns like the AR-15 are variations on weapons of warfare, it's clear that many don't realize that less threatening looking firearms are essentially the same as the rifles they want to ban.

A Ruger mini 14 doesn't look threatening, yet it does virtually the same thing as an AR.

That being said, I do agree with the idea of limiting magazine sizes. How effective that would be, I'm not 100% sure, but certainly high capacity magazines make it far easier for these nutjobs.

Essentially, I just wish both sides would drop the hyperbole and if Dems want to be critical of these weapons, I wish they would do so from a more informed position.

As Conservatives should be open to discussing gun control as one of the many measures that should be looked at, Dems should also not focus all of their attention on guns alone.


True explanations and solutions are easy.
1) Secure schools, you secure those where you fear the students you might as well secure those where you fear FOR the students.
2) There is no pattern of evidence to show that stricter gun cntrol works. None .

[donttread]

nope. gun control is merely a back door to confiscation. We've already witnessed that in CA and NYC.
Living where you live, under the control of your government, without the Right to self-protection all you have is a privilege wherein youseek government approval to engage we declare is our Right.
Vast difference, because there's no comparing a Right to a privilege.


If gun control worked we wouldn't need more gun control. Right?

[Dr. Who]

You need to learn how to use paragraphs. Use paragraphs to develop ideas instead of jamming incomplete ideas together.



Don't like it - don't respond.

[Chris]

Don't like it - don't respond.

Didnt like it is why I responded.

Cant take criticism dont respond.

[Max Rockatansky]

OK, rare.
Agreed, rare. Rare is relative. Even if a police officer shoots one unarmed innocent man every day, it's rare. Wrong, but rare since there are 323+ Million Americans and over 750,000 LEOs, even though those theoretical 365 unnecessary, unjust deaths are each a tragedy, do the math. They would be a rare occurrence. Certainly not reason to ban police officers from having firearms.

[Dr. Who]

Didnt like it is why I responded.

Cant take criticism dont respond.

I don't think you would appreciate my correcting your fractured grammar and spelling. Glass houses Chris.

[Max Rockatansky]

If gun control worked we wouldn't need more gun control. Right?
LOL. Correct. The LW anti-gun mob believes that making something illegal isn't enough law. We have to make doing something illegal additionally illegal. The Liberal equivalent of double-secret probation, except they want to send innocent people to prison for owning a gun.

[Peter1469]

If gun control worked we wouldn't need more gun control. Right?

Their goal is total confiscation of privately owned firearms.

[Max Rockatansky]

Their goal is total confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Agreed....although I think they'd have to settle for muskets unless they can totally repeal the Second Amendment.