"it's time for hunters to leave the NRA"

[BHMCruiser 1805]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Did you know that they've also fought against better background checks?  

Nobody is asking the NRA to address the entire mental health crisis - it's about making sure the mentally ill don't have access to guns.

But if the NRA is going to constantly involve itself in any and all legislation involving guns, and spend millions lobbying politicians to get its way, then yes, it has a responsibility to lobby for safer gun ownership in the form of better mental health/red flag laws as a whole, and it needs to get out of the way of legislation that would improve background checks that would prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms.

The NRA draws a line in the sand that is unrealistic, and could easily lead to an AWB II that is far more comprehensive and might not be sun-setted like the one from 1994-2004.

Too many gun owners conveniently ignore the 1994 AWB, or they weren't old enough to remember or care, but we are headed down that path as demographics shift.

But hey, if an AWB II comes into being, the NRA will benefit financially even more, so maybe they have an ulterior motive to keep drawing unrealistic lines in the sand.

Because while the NRA calls itself America's longes-standing civil rights organization, they seem to be more about the money than anything else, based on how their executives are pampered and compensated.

"Better background checks"? Like what? The NRA basically came up with NICS and was a proponent of FixNICS, which increased the number and quality of records entered into the database and even penalized governmental agencies for failing to enter those records. How should existing background checks be made "better"?

What is the demographic shift you are referencing? Is it increased firearms purchasing across all major demographics, or decreased support for gun control across all major demographics? 

And what compromise do you propose that would prevent anti-gun politicians from enacting a new AWB anyway? New York, California, Massachusetts and Maryland all have incredibly robust gun control laws yet have instituted AW and LCM bans anyway. So what is the compromise exactly?

Edited December 9, 2021 by BHMCruiser

[BHMCruiser 1805]

"But if the NRA is going to constantly involve itself in any and all legislation involving guns, and spend millions lobbying politicians to get its way, then yes, it has a responsibility to lobby for safer gun ownership in the form of better mental health/red flag laws as a whole, and it needs to get out of the way of legislation that would improve background checks that would prevent the mentally ill from owning firearms."

This is nonsense. Should the ACLU "get out of the way of legislation" that puts Muslims on terrorist watch lists without due process, or take responsibility for monitoring felons whose convictions are overturned for failure to adhere to Miranda rights requirements?

[Biff Tannen 44929]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Sure but the point is that every time gun owners "compromise" they are just setting the baseline for the next "compromise" for "common sense gun laws." It's a one-way ratchet

I'm sure people felt the same way about the 3/5ths compromise.  Once a compromise is reached is it set in stone forever?  Is it supposed to go back the other direction?  Progress dictates looking at data and changing situations and re-assessing laws, rules, and standards.  We now have over 100 million more people in this country than in 1968 and "According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all" - NPR.   Also, a quick wiki search says all of 7 mass shootings in the 1960s in its entirety.  I'd say things have changed quite a bit.

[atomheartbevo 88757]

8 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yeah and felons had due process. That's how they were convicted. A collateral consequence of their criminality (the determination of which included due process) is being disqualified from owning firearms. 

As long as you have due process protections (you know, where you actually have a hearing, have an opportunity to put on evidence, etc.) before you strip somebody of their rights, then I doubt any person has problems with taking firearms away from the mentally ill. In fact, if you are adjudicated mentally ill, you are disqualified from owning firearms, just like with being a felon. And you can always go through the process of adjudicating somebody mentally ill. What you cannot do is simply take somebody's guns because you don't like them. What if they're on the no fly list? What if the sheriff thinks they are nuts? If they can take a person's guns because he's allegedly dangerous, then why can't they just throw him in a cell to keep him - and us - safe?

It's not about taking their guns because we don't like them, it's about them having exhibited behavior to the point where others recognize that they are danger to themselves and others, and then acting upon that.  You touch on the fact that our system is broken in many states (and as a whole) and these people are not reaching that point of being officially judged mentally ill and barred from owning firearms, even though everybody who treats them, as well as those who come into contact with them, know they are mentally ill and are a danger.

There should be a way, even if it's temporary, to flag these people from owning firearms and put them on the track to being given their due process. 

You go down the list of school/mass shooters, and way too many of them were known to local mental healthcare systems/doctors/facilities, but they were never flagged as being a risk when buying a firearm, and they never reached the point of being officially labeled as such.

Would you not agree that if the cops make 45 visits to the Parkland shooter, his brother, or his family in general at their home, if the school counselors say he needed to be mentally evaluated, and if the cop at the school says that, that we should be flagging that kid from buying a firearm and getting him in front of a court?  But it's Florida.

Would you not agree that somebody that goes on meds to keep themselves from being out-of-control, such as somebody who is bipolar, schizo, or whatever should somehow be flagged/judged as being unable to own firearms?

Like I said, nobody wants a return to the days when Uncle Ed could be easily locked up for cross-dressing and calling himself Edna.

But we also know that 100% of school/mass shooters are mentally ill on some level, and we know that way too many of them were known to their local mental healthy or law enforcement officials, and were still able to buy/obtain firearms.

Like I said, if we keep fucking around on this matter, we will find out when the Dems push through AWB II.

 

 

[BHMCruiser 1805]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm sure people felt the same way about the 3/5ths compromise.  Once a compromise is reached is it set in stone forever?  Is it supposed to go back the other direction?  Progress dictates looking at data and changing situations and re-assessing laws, rules, and standards.  We now have over 100 million more people in this country than in 1968 and "According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all" - NPR.   Also, a quick wiki search says all of 7 mass shootings in the 1960s in its entirety.  I'd say things have changed quite a bit.

Yes of course. I'm just saying there's little incentive to compromise for gunowners. I think Atomheartbevo's main point is that, if gunowners do not accede to some/most/all demands of the majority of the gun control side, then the result will be a backlash that will cause massive loss to the gunowners. I don't think the data supports his argument, but it's not an unreasonable argument to make. 

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

Edit

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[atomheartbevo 88757]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

"Better background checks"? Like what? The NRA basically came up with NICS and was a proponent of FixNICS, which increased the number and quality of records entered into the database and even penalized governmental agencies for failing to enter those records. How should existing background checks be made "better"?

Background checks that actually see things like "hey this kid had dozens of encounters with law enforcement and his school counselors and the school cop thought he was nuts" or "this person is bipolar and on meds and multiple mental health professionals think he's nuts".

Like I said, when they are seen as being nuts or having way too much contact with law enforcement/mental healthcare, put a flag on them in the database, even if it's only for 60 or 90 days or whatever, and get them in front of a court-appointed psychologist/psychiatrist and determine how they should be handled/labeled.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yes of course. I'm just saying there's little incentive to compromise for gunowners. I think Atomheartbevo's main point is that, if gunowners do not accede to some/most/all demands of the majority of the gun control side, then the result will be a backlash that will cause massive loss to the gunowners. I don't think the data supports his argument, but it's not an unreasonable argument to make. 

That’s ridiculous. It’s not an issue of compromise. I own lots of guns and don’t support an AWB. The NRA does not engage the issue of disarming mentally ill people and violent criminals in good faith it’s all showmanship.  I’m a former member because as far as I can tell the advocacy and educational mission of the NRA I once knew has collapsed and left nothing but a grift behind. The NRA should support or at least not oppose red flag laws, period. To countenance fun possession by mentally ill people, wife beaters and violent criminals is contrary to any sane notion of responsible gun ownership

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[atomheartbevo 88757]

20 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

What is the demographic shift you are referencing? Is it increased firearms purchasing across all major demographics, or decreased support for gun control across all major demographics? 

6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yes of course. I'm just saying there's little incentive to compromise for gunowners. I think Atomheartbevo's main point is that, if gunowners do not accede to some/most/all demands of the majority of the gun control side, then the result will be a backlash that will cause massive loss to the gunowners. I don't think the data supports his argument, but it's not an unreasonable argument to make. 

Demographics - the general shift in the country, but also in places like Florida and Texas. 

Think about the fact that the original AWB was pushed through 5 years before Columbine.

Edited December 9, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[BHMCruiser 1805]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's not about taking their guns because we don't like them, it's about them having exhibited behavior to the point where others recognize that they are danger to themselves and others, and then acting upon that.  You touch on the fact that our system is broken in many states (and as a whole) and these people are not reaching that point of being officially judged mentally ill and barred from owning firearms, even though everybody who treats them, as well as those who come into contact with them, know they are mentally ill and are a danger.

There should be a way, even if it's temporary, to flag these people from owning firearms and put them on the track to being given their due process. 

You go down the list of school/mass shooters, and way too many of them were known to local mental healthcare systems/doctors/facilities, but they were never flagged as being a risk when buying a firearm, and they never reached the point of being officially labeled as such.

Would you not agree that if the cops make 45 visits to the Parkland shooter, his brother, or his family in general at their home, if the school counselors say he needed to be mentally evaluated, and if the cop at the school says that, that we should be flagging that kid from buying a firearm and getting him in front of a court?  But it's Florida.

Would you not agree that somebody that goes on meds to keep themselves from being out-of-control, such as somebody who is bipolar, schizo, or whatever should somehow be flagged/judged as being unable to own firearms?

Like I said, nobody wants a return to the days when Uncle Ed could be easily locked up for cross-dressing and calling himself Edna.

But we also know that 100% of school/mass shooters are mentally ill on some level, and we know that way too many of them were known to their local mental healthy or law enforcement officials, and were still able to buy/obtain firearms.

Like I said, if we keep fucking around on this matter, we will find out when the Dems push through AWB II.

 

 

The Florida situation proves my point. You want more red flag laws. The Parkland shooter is an example of not enforcing the current laws (which would have likely resulted in some sort of commitment or adjudication). The government evaluated the shooter before the shooting and determined he was not a danger. So would a "red flag" law have prevented it? Besides, Florida now has a more robust red flag law in place. And you can tell the NRA opposes that law because they've challenged it in court. Wait, they haven't done that?

[BHMCruiser 1805]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s ridiculous. It’s not an issue of compromise. I own lots of guns and don’t support an AWB. The NRA does not engage the issue of disarming mentally ill people and violent criminals in good faith it’s all showmanship.  I’m a former member because as far as I can tell the advocacy and educational mission of the NRA I once knew has collapsed and left nothing but a grift behind. The NRA should support or at least not oppose red flag laws, period.

"It's not an issue of compromise?" lol okay sorry I responded to a post about compromises with a discussion of compromising. How ridiculous of me!

Not surprisingly you appear to have no idea about what the NRA does or does not do.

[BHMCruiser 1805]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The general shift in the country, but also in places like Florida and Texas.

Think about the fact that the original AWB was pushed through 5 years before Columbine.

Yes and I have no doubt that any effort at the federal level would fail spectacularly right now. 

Besides, what did the AWB even do? Everybody who had an AW or LCM got to keep it. The only real impact was in acquisition of only those firearms on the list and 10+ round magazines. It really was not that burdensome. 

[BHMCruiser 1805]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The general shift in the country, but also in places like Florida and Texas.

Think about the fact that the original AWB was pushed through 5 years before Columbine.

You are equating the purpling of red states with increased support for gun control in those states and in those populations. I'm not sure that's correct. 

[BHMCruiser 1805]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Background checks that actually see things like "hey this kid had dozens of encounters with law enforcement and his school counselors and the school cop thought he was nuts" or "this person is bipolar and on meds and multiple mental health professionals think he's nuts".

Like I said, when they are seen as being nuts or having way too much contact with law enforcement/mental healthcare, put a flag on them in the database, even if it's only for 60 or 90 days or whatever, and get them in front of a court-appointed psychologist/psychiatrist and determine how they should be handled/labeled.

 

And is this for guns only, or is it also for voting, driving, custody of children, going to work? Where do you draw the line? Also, if they already have a gun and run afoul of your database somehow, can the cops go take their guns from them?

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm sure people felt the same way about the 3/5ths compromise.  Once a compromise is reached is it set in stone forever?  Is it supposed to go back the other direction?  Progress dictates looking at data and changing situations and re-assessing laws, rules, and standards.  We now have over 100 million more people in this country than in 1968 and "According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all" - NPR.   Also, a quick wiki search says all of 7 mass shootings in the 1960s in its entirety.  I'd say things have changed quite a bit.

How many of those aren't even legally owned today?  How does making them more illegal solve anything?

Meanwhile John Q down the street that does everything by the letter of gun regulations is wondering, "Why they gotta fuck with me?  I'm already doing it right."

Edited December 9, 2021 by slorch

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

19 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

"It's not an issue of compromise?" lol okay sorry I responded to a post about compromises with a discussion of compromising. How ridiculous of me!

Not surprisingly you appear to have no idea about what the NRA does or does not do.

Not surprisingly, you appear to have no idea what standard of danger is required for law enforcement to intervene in a mental health crisis.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

17 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

And is this for guns only, or is it also for voting, driving, custody of children, going to work? Where do you draw the line? Also, if they already have a gun and run afoul of your database somehow, can the cops go take their guns from them?

What’s next? A license to make toast in your own damn TOASTER?

[BHMCruiser 1805]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What’s next? A license to make toast in your own damn TOASTER?

funny but I'm serious. If you're going to have these sorts of mental health laws what are they going to be used for and where are the lines drawn?

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

How many of those aren't even legally owned today?  How does making them more illegal solve anything?

Meanwhile John Q down the street that does everything by the letter of gun regulations is wondering, "Why they gotta fuck with me?  I'm already doing it right."

Agree, but the issue of legal ownership by mentally ill people and domestic abusers is different from illegal ownership by criminals. 

[BHMCruiser 1805]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not surprisingly, you appear to have no idea what standard of danger is required for law enforcement to intervene in a mental health crisis.

well it varies by jurisdiction

I know (or seem to remember) that you've been personally affected by this sort of situation so I'm not going to internet tough guy you on this one. The standard is high in some places and very low in others. Like I already said, if due process protections are observed, then generally most people (including decisionmakers at the NRA) are not opposed to laws that prevent mentally ill people from possessing firearms. But it's an important line. 

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

funny but I'm serious. If you're going to have these sorts of mental health laws what are they going to be used for and where are the lines drawn?

This slope is not slippery. That’s why I don’t like these discussions framed in terms of compromise. No compromise is required when consensus exists. The people I think shouldn’t be armed are the same people most gun owners and non-owners agree shouldn’t and the NRA pretends to think shouldn’t be armed when it’s convenient for them: people who lack the capacity to exercise their rights or those who have proven they are beyond society’s trust. 
What distinguishes the NRA is their actions to work against efforts to reflect that consensus in law. AHB has provided examples already.

[DDD Dad 14060]

Sure but the point is that every time gun owners "compromise" they are just setting the baseline for the next "compromise" for "common sense gun laws." It's a one-way ratchet.

This is simply not true.

[fattyflattie 4633]

38 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The NRA should support or at least not oppose red flag laws, period. To countenance fun possession by mentally ill people, wife beaters and violent criminals is contrary to any sane notion of responsible gun ownership

It’s like anything else, where is the cutoff. I remember seeing a proposal where ex spouses had to sign off? Fuck outta here with that absent of any DV history. 

[BHMCruiser 1805]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This slope is not slippery. That’s why I don’t like these discussions framed in terms of compromise. No compromise is required when consensus exists. The people I think shouldn’t be armed are the same people most gun owners and non-owners agree shouldn’t and the NRA pretends to think shouldn’t be armed when it’s convenient for them: people who lack the capacity to exercise their rights or those who have proven they are beyond society’s trust. 
What distinguishes the NRA is their actions to work against efforts to reflect that consensus in law. AHB has provided examples already.

You're assuming a consensus where there isn't one because where to draw the line is critical. And, like I have already said again, the NRA has supported and assisted in the passage of red flag laws that have sufficient due process protection built in. 

[BHMCruiser 1805]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

This is simply not true.

 

incorrect

thank you for the thoughtful post

[fattyflattie 4633]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

This is simply not true.

 

Oh good. When are us law abiding citizens going to get a more streamlined access to SBRs and suppressors?  

[DDD Dad 14060]

incorrect
thank you for the thoughtful post

Then explain the sunset provision of the original AWB? Just one example of where “compromise” wasn’t a one way ratchet.

Stop thinking from only one side of an issue.

I don’t have a personal dog in this fight but to see you say there can be no room for compromise tells me tons about your perspective.

[DDD Dad 14060]

Tapa dp

[DDD Dad 14060]

Oh good. When are us law abiding citizens going to get a more streamlined access to SBRs and suppressors?  

We

[BHMCruiser 1805]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Then explain the sunset provision of the original AWB? Just one example of where “compromise” wasn’t a one way ratchet.

Stop thinking from only one side of an issue.

I don’t have a personal dog in this fight but to see you say there can be no room for compromise tells me tons about your perspective.

yes we will take away your civil rights, but only for ten years

sweet, where do I sign up for this excellent compromise?

Here's an example of a compromise: Brady bill was stopped by NRA and long waiting period and discretion by LEOs was replaced by NICS. Now, background checks for sales of firearms (a constitutional right) are presumed, but are not nearly enough and must be replaced with the laundry list of things desired by Everytown. 

When you compromise, you are setting the baseline for the next compromise. And maybe you have to compromise (because if you don't you straight up lose in a zero sum game approach), but you're not going to get MORE freedom once you do that. You give up freedom and it's gone. 

[DDD Dad 14060]

yes we will take away your civil rights, but only for ten years
sweet, where do I sign up for this excellent compromise?
Here's an example of a compromise: Brady bill was stopped by NRA and long waiting period and discretion by LEOs was replaced by NICS. Now, background checks for sales of firearms (a constitutional right) are presumed, but are not nearly enough and must be replaced with the laundry list of things desired by Everytown. 
When you compromise, you are setting the baseline for the next compromise. And maybe you have to compromise (because if you don't you straight up lose in a zero sum game approach), but you're not going to get MORE freedom once you do that. You give up freedom and it's gone. 

Well you’ve convinced me.

How about neither side ever compromises with the other? That should bode well for democracy.

Look where that’s gotten us.

SMH.

[BHMCruiser 1805]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well you’ve convinced me.

How about neither side ever compromises with the other? That should bode well for democracy.

Look where that’s gotten us.

SMH.

It's gotten us more freedom with regard to some issues and less freedom with regard to others. Kind of like the tension we have always been in since this whole thing got started.

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s like anything else, where is the cutoff. I remember seeing a proposal where ex spouses had to sign off? Fuck outta here with that absent of any DV history. 

Ah yes, the old angry ex-wife bit. Do unpopular political views next. 
Did you actually see this proposal yourself  or was it merely described to you on OANN by a man with a finger mustache named Payne LaWierre?

[workswithseed 2012]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ah yes, the old angry ex-wife bit. Do unpopular political views next. 
Did you actually see this proposal yourself  or was it merely described to you on OANN by a man with a finger mustache named Payne LaWierre?

HR 127

[fattyflattie 4633]

19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ah yes, the old angry ex-wife bit. Do unpopular political views next. 
Did you actually see this proposal yourself  or was it merely described to you on OANN by a man with a finger mustache named Payne LaWierre?

The first time I saw it was in a post from Brisket. So I’ll make the assumption it wasnt OANN. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by fattyflattie
*wasNT

[DDD Dad 14060]

45 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

It's gotten us more freedom with regard to some issues and less freedom with regard to others. Kind of like the tension we have always been in since this whole thing got started.

I know.  It sucks we can't have slaves anymore, but I guess when things just keep ratcheting one way that's the result.

[BHMCruiser 1805]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I know.  It sucks we can't have slaves anymore, but I guess when things just keep ratcheting one way that's the result.

Yes but it's been moderately better for them

 

Anyhoo you want to amend the constitution, go ahead

[BHMCruiser 1805]

Payne Lawierre

 

fabulous

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

HR 127

Yes and it’s also patently ridiculous to think that it would pass. And the fact that everyone went to the angry ex scenario rather than all the other issues with that bill is very telling.

Relax, guys. The slope is not slippery. There Is a huge gap between HR127 and something like red flag laws. Some of y’all are just really insecure about women.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[workswithseed 2012]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes and it’s also patently ridiculous to think that it would pass. And the fact that everyone went to the angry ex scenario rather than all the other issues with that bill is very telling.

Relax, guys. Some of y’all are just really insecure about women.

The fiancee got scared by the mental health portion. She was diagnosed with depression years ago, which would likely affect her buying a gun.

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

The fiancee got scared by the mental health portion. She was diagnosed with depression years ago, which would likely affect her buying a gun.

No it wouldn’t. Come on man. Don’t be a sucker.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bozo_Casanova

[workswithseed 2012]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No it wouldn’t. Come on man. Don’t be a sucker.

I am a sucker, for her gams (no pics). You did say proposal, you never said that it had to be passed.

Edited December 9, 2021 by workswithseed

[Bozo_Casanova 25535]

At any rate that bill is no reason to oppose legit red flag laws. And her depression wouldn’t affect her ability to buy under normal red flag proposals.. However/  should hypothetically her depression reach an extremity such that you were concerned about her hurting herself and others, and you tried to intervene and couldn’t, and THEN she tried to buy a gun, do you oppose efforts to help her get right and avoid a tragedy in that situation? 

[Biff Tannen 44929]

It's fascinating to read this thread and then realize we are talking about guns.  Guns.  WTF.  

[DDD Dad 14060]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

It's fascinating to read this thread and then realize we are talking about guns.  Guns.  WTF.  

I know, right?

[workswithseed 2012]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

At any rate that bill is no reason to oppose legit red flag laws. And her depression wouldn’t affect her ability to buy under normal red flag proposals.. However/  should hypothetically her depression reach an extremity such that you were concerned about her hurting herself and others, and you tried to intervene and couldn’t, and THEN she tried to buy a gun, do you oppose efforts to help her get right and avoid a tragedy in that situation? 

I mean I sure would like to be involved in the process of her not hurting anyone. I also could see blowback by people going without being diagnosed if this was ever to be passed. 

[F250 28385]

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's fascinating to read this thread and then realize we are talking about guns.  Guns.  WTF.  

 

[atomheartbevo 88757]

4 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

And is this for guns only, or is it also for voting, driving, custody of children, going to work? Where do you draw the line? Also, if they already have a gun and run afoul of your database somehow, can the cops go take their guns from them?

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s like anything else, where is the cutoff.

This is an NRA thread, so I'm talking about guns.  And yes, if they have a mental breakdown, they should have their guns taken.  If somebody starts going blind and can't handle a vehicle, they lose their license.  Mental ill people frequently get their children taken away from them (and several years ago I got to bear witness to that process with a neighbor), and those who are mentally ill and get pregnant can and do lose their children upon birth.  CPS here in Texas isn't perfect, but they do try and get kids out of dangerous situations when they can.

Look, we all agree the mentally ill should not have access to firearms, including the two of you.

You're trying to act like this is somehow rocket science, when it doesn't have to be.

We have an unfortunately large list of people who have committed mass and school shootings that we can look at and ask why and how they obtained firearms when they had pre-existing problems beforehand.  While plenty were not on anybody's radar, way too many were.

So we can start there.

 

[atomheartbevo 88757]

 

4 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

Yes and I have no doubt that any effort at the federal level would fail spectacularly right now. 

There were three mass shootings that led to the AWB in 1994.  

AWB passed the Senate 52-48.  It passed the House 235-to-195 vote, with 46 Republicans joining in and 64 Democrats opposed.

How many mass shootings have we had since then?  Particularly school shootings?

And we are getting awfully close to shootings being streamed online in real-time, as we saw in the New Zealand mosque shooting.

[atomheartbevo 88757]

3 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

When you compromise, you are setting the baseline for the next compromise. And maybe you have to compromise (because if you don't you straight up lose in a zero sum game approach), but you're not going to get MORE freedom once you do that. You give up freedom and it's gone. 

If you aren't willing to compromise on some level, you won't have a seat at the table when the legislation is written.

At the very least, Republicans should stop mocking this shit with their family Christmas gun photos on the heels of a school shooting, because they are pushing the anti-gun crowd into a situation where they won't accept any compromise.