[jlisenbe]

You cool with banning the sale of assault weapons and HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES? What about comprehensive and THOROUGH background checks or age limits maybe with a responsible SPONSOR?

Sorry. Just now saw it.

1. Ban so-called assault weapons? Yes, so long as we can get a rock-ribbed agreement that it will go no further than that. What will you do with existing weapons?

2. High capacity mags? Probably not.

3. Don't really know what you mean by a "comprehensive and thorough" background check. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. Checking on mental health issues cannot be done due to confidentiality concerns. I would think a background check for criminal behavior could be worked out.

4. Age limit? Already have that. It's 18, same age as being able to vote or join the military.

5. Responsible sponsor? Nope.

But before I would agree to any of that, I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess?

Wage increase because of change to a different job.
Raise while working the same job.

OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration?

[Wondergirl]

OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration?

I've worked for several wonderful companies, but who would get a 25% raise???? (I stole a few of Athos' question marks.)

[paraclete]

Your arguments are all good, however, if you do the same thing over and over again and nothing changes then this is madness. You asked what changed.

I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess?

SCOTUS changed the way the second amendment was perceived in the same way as they amplified other rights until the whole argument became about rights

[talaniman]

1. Ban so-called assault weapons? Yes, so long as we can get a rock-ribbed agreement that it will go no further than that. What will you do with existing weapons? Buy backs or if registered NOTHING, but cannot be sold or traded.

2. High capacity mags? Probably not. Guess we work on it some.

3. Don't really know what you mean by a "comprehensive and thorough" background check. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. Checking on mental health issues cannot be done due to confidentiality concerns. I would think a background check for criminal behavior could be worked out. I think closing those gun show loopholes and the same evaluation the military does would be what I'm getting at, including mental and emotional before you give 'em a gun. That covers those with no criminal, or mental, emotional problems that could make them a danger. I remind you that not just the military but employers have this as a routine requirement for employment depending on the job, and even financials and social media checks.

4. Age limit? Already have that. It's 18, same age as being able to vote or join the military. No military no gun at 18 without a sponsor. I feel rather strongly that voting and volunteering isn't the same as selling a gun to a teen ager. In the US the drinking age is 21, so not a real big trade off though and saving lives is the goal and priority.

5. Responsible sponsor? Nope. Like I say for teen agers, like a dad or uncle who hunts. Worrisome that when a young person turns 18 his record of past problems gets expunged like the Ohio shooter. To buy a gun, those records should be available to the ones doing the background check in full confidentiality of course., as well as any results from being evaluated.

But before I would agree to any of that, I would want someone to answer the question. What changed over the last fifty years to land us in this mess? The original assault ban was never renewed, and a lot more people are falling through the cracks that have real issues that needed addressing. We did close a bunch of metal hospitals, and the system that was left is horribly inadequate. That I think is part of it just ignoring the problem to long. Plus the politics of special interests like the NRA making sure nothing gets done no matter who gets killed is a huge factor. They are trying to kill any reforms now even after the trauma of horrific shootings that rocked the nation. If trained soldiers can suffer from PTSD what make you think ordinary people cannot?

Wage increase because of change to a different job.
Raise while working the same job.

OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration? Big difference between the boss giving you a raise and you getting an unfamilar job in a differnt place for more money. That's what it seems to me. Some adjust better than others I suppose.

[jlisenbe]

No military no gun at 18 without a sponsor. I feel rather strongly that voting and volunteering isn't the same as selling a gun to a teen ager. In the US the drinking age is 21, so not a real big trade off though and saving lives is the goal and priority.

Might be reasonable. Let's also put the 10 commandments back up on school house walls. Are you good with that? Compromise?

Your super-complicated and expensive background check is out of the question. Finding out if a person has committed a felony is fairly straightforward and simple. Doing an extensive mental exam is not going to happen.

OK. Thanks for pointing that out, but in what meaningful way does it change the illustration? Big difference between the boss giving you a raise and you getting an unfamilar job in a differnt place for more money. That's what it seems to me. Some adjust better than others I suppose.

That WAS my illustration. A person left a burger place and went to a chicken place. It changes the illustration not one bit. People leave one job for another all the time and they do it frequently for a raise/wage increase or whatever in the world you want to call it.

[Wondergirl]

Might be reasonable. Let's also put the 10 commandments back up on school house walls. Are you good with that? Compromise?

Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway. It certainly won't inspire love for God and each other, which was Jesus' command. Better would be for us to invite people and bring them into our emptying Christian churches and help parents in their child-raising efforts as they teach their kids moral values.

[jlisenbe]

Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway. It certainly won't inspire love for God and each other, which was Jesus' command. Better would be for us to invite people and bring them into our emptying Christian churches and help parents in their child-raising efforts as they teach their kids moral values.

1. The Ten Commandments are not associated with a specific religion. They apply to Jews, Moslems, and Christians.
2. Do you think things have gone better since we took them down?
3. How do you know it won't inspire love for God and our fellow man?
4. I am all for filling our churches, but wouldn't it help parents in their child raising efforts if those children saw the Ten Commandments on a daily basis? It would amount to a national moral code.
5. Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.
6. You know, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I am amazed that you would think the posting of scripture would not accomplish "a darn thing". I mean that is an astonishing comment.

[Wondergirl]

1. The Ten Commandments are not associated with a specific religion. They apply to Jews, Moslems, and Christians.

Doesn't matter. Christianity is where you're coming from.

2. Do you think things have gone better since we took them down?

They weren't ever there.

3. How do you know it won't inspire love for God and our fellow man?

They won't. They'll do just the opposite.

4. I am all for filling our churches, but wouldn't it help parents in their child raising efforts if those children saw the Ten Commandments on a daily basis? It would amount to a national moral code.

Post those Commandments on the refrigerator at home, the bathroom mirror, the child's closet door.

5. Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

Uhm, did I say it was?

6. You know, for someone who professes to be a Christian, I am amazed that you would think the posting of scripture would not accomplish "a darn thing".

Nope. I've lived long enough and have seen that sort of thing fail multiple times.

[Athos]

Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

Neither are the Ten Commandments.

[tomder55]

there has not been a single shooting where a gun law hasn't been violated . Proposals stated above are now common . What they ignore is that there is already quite a list of Federal laws .
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...ting-firearms/

Beto wants mandatory buy backs . Sparticus wants federal licenses .Warren wants to tax guns to death . Harris will give Congress 100 days before she issues unspecified severe executive orders . Tough back round checks ? All the killers passed back round checks before purchasing guns because there was nothing obvious without 20-20 hindsight that would've put them in a 'red flag' option . Other shooters buy them on the black market or steal them ;both acts already illegal. And of course it would be law enforcing citizens who would comply ;not someone intent on murder .

I'll tell you what would work ;or at least would be a huge deterrent ...the Israeli model. This comes under the premise that when seconds count ;law enforcement is minutes away. The Israelis require all off duty soldiers to carry their weapons. We should do the same requiring all military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job to carry off duty . It is not a sure 100% chance that all attacks would be stopped . But as Dayton showed ;seconds count .

[jlisenbe]

They won't. They'll do just the opposite.

The bottom line seems to be that you consider posting the will and Word of God to be an exercise in futility. That's very sad to have such a low view of the effectiveness of scripture. Makes me wonder what your church reads. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow." I haven't found the scripture yet that says, "The word of God is very weak and will not accomplish a darn thing." And NO, I am not putting you down. I am trying to understand your thinking. I don't get it.

At any rate, it seems very logical to me for our country to adopt a common moral standard. Would it affect every child to see "thou shall not commit murder" posted on the wall? No, but it would affect a lot of them. It's a little late in the game to be trying to weed out potential mass killers when they are 20 years old.

We can pass new laws, but it is very difficult to legally control what has become a significantly immoral population. The end result is frequently to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Uhm, did I say it was?

Then why did you mention it? It is not a principle of law.

I'll tell you what would work ;or at least would be a huge deterrent ...the Israeli model. This comes under the premise that when seconds count ;law enforcement is minutes away. The Israelis require all off duty soldiers to carry their weapons. We should do the same requiring all military, police officers, and others who carry and use weapons as a routine part of their job to carry off duty . It is not a sure 100% chance that all attacks would be stopped . But as Dayton showed ;seconds count .

That's an interesting idea, but it just reminds me of the central question. Why has our country changed so much in just fifty years? What happened? No one was suggesting these remedies fifty years ago. We did not have mass-shooting "lockdown" drills in our schools fifty years ago. What has changed so much that we have to have them now?

[tomder55]

i don't put too much thought into that . It is what it is . No one is going to go back to the Willowbrook days of institutional mental facilities Not likey to go back to the days when kids in the rifle club at school brought their weapons onto school grounds either . The idea above is not 100% . So I'm sure there will be a lot of "what if " questions . As we have learned ;no gun law or set of gun laws are 100 % either including the so called 'assault weapon' ban . (Columbine happened in the years o the ban) Take for example the one about restricting the number of bullets in a magazine . But it is easy to turn one magazine into 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxGH_B2JnE

[jlisenbe]

Yeah. If someone is determined, they can carry out any kind of plan. Take a guy who cannot get an "assault rifle", but instead has two semi-auto pistols with 12 round mags and multiple clips to use. He can still kill a lot of people. I just have practically no confidence in limiting the sale of "assault" rifles.

[paraclete]

i don't put too much thought into that . It is what it is . No one is going to go back to the Willowbrook days of institutional mental facilities Not likey to go back to the days when kids in the rifle club at school brought their weapons onto school grounds either . The idea above is not 100% . So I'm sure there will be a lot of "what if " questions . As we have learned ;no gun law or set of gun laws are 100 % either including the so called 'assault weapon' ban . (Columbine happened in the years o the ban) Take for example the one about restricting the number of bullets in a magazine . But it is easy to turn one magazine into 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCxGH_B2JnE

You do know what is insane is that this debate is still going on. All you have is a talkfest while people are dying. There are effective ways of dealing with the problem but it will never happen while ever the gun is sacrosanct or sacred

[tomder55]

oh if everyone could just live on the beach and grill shrimps . With the number of federal,state ,and local gun laws ,you could hardly call guns sacrosanct here .

Any mass killer is a random outlier who is rarely possible to identify in advance. I think that it is impossible to do anything more that will prevent these people from obtaining weapons. There is also an over blown hysteria factor in this . Of 39,000 gun deaths in 2016 ,451 were from mass killings Again no one mentions the other killings .

Here are the key Federal Gun laws
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...ating-firearms

They aren't working so of course it means we need to double down and create more laws for criminals to break ;and maybe grab some other law abiding citizens practicing their rights under the constitution in the sweep .

[jlisenbe]

I really get your point, Tom. If we had outlawed the sale of "assault" weapons ten years ago, I imagine we would still have had about the same situation in gun violence. I don't think the average mass killer will say, "I was going to go out and shoot up the place today, but I decided not to since I couldn't buy an AR." No, I think they would buy a Glock 17 with 5 magazines and go ahead with his/her plan. Our hearts have become calloused.

[talaniman]

We still have thoughts and prayers as our default position. Which is better than the conservative nothing we can do about it meme. Or maybe it's the same thing.

[Wondergirl]

Uhm, did I say it was?

Then why did you mention it? It is not a principle of law.

I didn't mention it.

[jlisenbe]

I didn't mention it.

Note the quote from your post below.

"Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway."

[Wondergirl]

Note the quote from your post below.

"Absolutely not! It's not the schools' job to teach a specific religion. Um, "separation of church and state." And posting the Commandments won't accomplish a darn thing anyway."

As I said, I didn't mention it, "it" being the Constitution. YOU are the one who tossed it into the accusation.

Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Uhm.."Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.