Another mass shooting in the United States, possibly terror-related, possibly not, but how many more times must we see these horrific massacres on our television screens before we as a nation take concrete steps to reduce the chances of these events happening in the future?
The Far Right will tell us to arm ourselves to the teeth and keep every imaginable firearm legal, and the Far Left will tell us to round up everyone’s guns. But how about some common sense steps that I would bet the overwhelming majority of Americans would support:
1. Citizens and hunters do not need assault rifles and other military weapons. Outlaw all assault rifles and all guns with large magazines. If you are incapable of killing a deer or an intruder breaking into your house with six rounds, you need some target practice, buddy.
We don’t need to have law enforcement breaking down doors to collect already-purchased assault rifles. We simply outlaw the sale of ammo for these weapons and ban their use on shooting ranges and public land.
2. Every university, junior college, high school, junior high, and elementary school must have armed guards–mandated by law; And not just one guard, but several. If we must raise everyone’s taxes to pay for it, so be it. The safety of our nation’s children is worth it. Allow high school and university teachers, who have undergone extensive training, to carry guns.
3. All shopping malls, sports stadiums, movie theaters and other businesses which attract large crowds, must by law, provide adequate levels of armed security.
4. Make gang membership a crime. Instead of waiting for gang members to get caught in a crime before acting against them, criminalize organized enterprises (gangs) whose primary purpose is the use of violence to achieve its goals.
We can preserve the intent of the First and Second Amendments while reducing the number of senseless slaughters in this country by enacting these middle-ground, common sense measures.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Come and take it Gary.
LikeLike
My solution would not involve going onto anyone's property and taking anyone's guns. I would simply make the ammunition for automatic weapons illegal to manufacture and sell.
LikeLike
How well did those “tough” gun laws workout for you guys in the land of fruits & nuts? You want to welcome in the Islamic 3rd world and disarm the American citizens.
You're insane and a walking poster child for liberalism as a mental disorder. How many of these refugees will you be shacking up in your abode Gary?
LikeLike
Why do American citizens need automatic weapons? Do you hunt with an automatic weapon? Do you need an automatic weapon to protect your home from a burglar?
I fully support the private ownership of hunting rifles and handguns for self protection, I just don't see the need for the private ownership of military style weapons that can kill many people in just a few seconds.
To me it is just common sense.
LikeLike
Regarding Syrian refugees, I am concerned about the possibility of terrorists coming into our country pretending to be refugees. However, put yourself in the place of the Syrian father trying to save his family from being slaughtered by Assad or ISIS. I personally would have a hard time sending that man back to Syria for him and his family to be killed. So I think we must accept refugees but we must screen them very carefully.
There isn't always a black or white answer to a problem.
LikeLike
Gary: Why do American citizens need automatic weapons?
Me: They are not automatic, you need a class 3 to buy an automatic weapon. These were semi-auto which means they automatically chamber the next round. Many common hunting rifles do the same thing but they don't look “scary” to the liberal mind.
Gary: Do you hunt with an automatic weapon?
Me: I do not hunt.
Gary: Do you need an automatic weapon to protect your home from a burglar?
Me: Once again, unless you have a class 3 license you're not owning a fully automatic weapon. If I could I would and who says you decide what I need or do not need to defend myself from threats foreign and domestic?
Gary: I fully support the private ownership of hunting rifles and handguns for self protection.
Me: I don't give a rats ass what you fully support, you mean nothing to me. You do not regulate my life.
Gary: I just don't see the need for the private ownership of military style weapons that can kill many people in just a few seconds.
Me: You don't see the need because you don't even have a clue what you're talking about. A military M4 or AR or M-16 whatever you wish to call it will have elect-fire or burst “mode”. A civilian AR, M4, whatever you wish to call it will not. It will have “Fire” and “safe” the fire mode is a single shot for each pull of the trigger. That is NOT “automatic” nor is it military style other than looks only.
Gary: To me it is just common sense.
Me: It's common sense to you because you have no sense about that which you speak of. You wish to ban something which is already illegal to own unless you have a class 3 license.
LikeLike
Screen them in the same way the Tashfeen Malik was granted a visa? She went thru tougher screening than the “refugees” will and yet she got in.
LikeLike
“elect-fire” should read “Select-fire”
LikeLike
I apologize for my error. I should have said “semi-automatic” weapons, not “automatic” weapons.
My point is, I don't see a need for a hunter or a home-owner to need a gun that shoots more than six or ten rounds in a few seconds, without needing to re-load. If a weapon can spew out more than ten rounds in a few seconds, a lot of people can be killed before he has to stop and reload, which is the time when someone can tackle him, hit him in the head, or shoot him.
Would you favor the private ownership of automatic weapons, such as a military machine gun? If not, why not?
LikeLike
Gary: I don't see a need for a hunter or a home-owner to need a gun that shoots more than six or ten rounds in a few seconds, without needing to re-load.
Me: Hunting and/or sports have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You are missing the entire point Gary, a double action revolver (wheel gun) a gun like a Cowboy carried would fire 6 rounds in a matter of seconds just like that scary black rifle you want to ban. It will fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger exactly like the M-16, AR, M4, AK-47 etc etc… That technology has been around since 1877.
Gary: If a weapon can spew out more than ten rounds in a few seconds, a lot of people can be killed before he has to stop and reload, which is the time when someone can tackle him, hit him in the head, or shoot him.
Me: Think about this Gary, someone bust into your office party and open fires on you with 2 revolvers which hold 6 shots each. Are you going to count the shots and leap up and tackle him after the 6th shot or the 12th? It takes maybe 3-4 seconds for a competent shooter to reload a revolver with a speed-loader. Can you make it up from behind your desk and to him before he reloads? Would you risk it? I bet you would not yet in your state revolvers are legal.
Gary: Would you favor the private ownership of automatic weapons, such as a military machine gun?
Me: Yes and they can if they have a class 3. Why should politicians have better security than your family Gary? Would you ask for their security to carry a single shot revolver? They can have the best, why shouldn't you or I should we desire it?
LikeLike
Would you favor allowing private citizens to own nuclear missiles?
LikeLike
Gary: Would you favor allowing private citizens to own nuclear missiles?
Me: You equate a 30rd semi-automatic rifle with a weapon which can destroy a country? Is this some more of your common sense reasoning?
You completely ignore everything else I just said and jump to an insane, asinine ridiculous absurd straw-man. SCIENCE!
LikeLike
I have no clue who this is in the video, it is just a video I found on youturd. Here is a California legal 22 revolver. Let us say someone has 2 of these and comes to whichever male strip club you frequent. Would you charge him on the 6th round or the 12th? Billy, don't be a hero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-SFzwPwipo
LikeLike
I'm trying to make a point.
The Second Amendment grants the right of citizens to “bear arms”. It does not specify exactly what “arms” are allowed.
What was the intent of the Founding Fathers in including this right in the Bill of Rights? Was it the intent of the Founding Fathers that every citizen could own any military weapon known to mankind? Was it the intent of the Founding Fathers for every citizen to have the right to own an arsenal of canons, one sticking out of every window of his or her house, or, did the Founding Fathers simply intend to protect the right of citizens from the ability of the government to take away citizens pistols and hunting rifles?
The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to own every type of “arm” known to mankind. You think it is nonsense to suggest private ownership of nuclear missiles. I think it is nonsense for citizens to own semi-automatic weapons. Therefore it ultimately comes down to what the American people believe should be the definition of “arms”. I believe that the majority of Americans do not believe that semi-automatic weapons should be a constitutional right and should be banned.
Let the people prevail not the gun lobbyists!
LikeLike
Gary: Was it the intent of the Founding Fathers that every citizen could own any military weapon known to mankind?
Me: Well when you hear about the first private owner of a nuclear missile let me know and we can debate that.
Gary: Was it the intent of the Founding Fathers for every citizen to have the right to own an arsenal of canons, one sticking out of every window of his or her house, or, did the Founding Fathers simply intend to protect the right of citizens from the ability of the government to take away citizens pistols and hunting rifles?
Me: Obviously their intent including the ownership of military grade weaponry since muskets, cap & ball, swords etc were all military grade at the time and private ownership of such was kosher.
Gary: The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to own every type of “arm” known to mankind.
Me: Really? Where do you find such limitations / restrictions?
Gary: I think it is nonsense for citizens to own semi-automatic weapons.
Me: So? I think gay sex is nonsense, you think it's fantastic.
Gary: I believe that the majority of Americans do not believe that semi-automatic weapons should be a constitutional right and should be banned.
Me: Is this more of your science, logic, reason and common sense?
Gary: Let the people prevail not the gun lobbyists!
Me: Let the people prevail just like the sodomite marriage bans which were all voted on, passed and then overturned and shoved on people? Those people? Or just the people you agree with?
LikeLike
I don't believe that a majority can take away the right of gun ownership entirely without a change in the Constitution, which would require a massive majority in the country to accomplish (and even I wouldn't support a complete ban on gun ownership).
But I do think that a majority can decide the definition of “arms” to exclude weapons the majority deems inconsistent with the intent of the Second Amendment.
LikeLike
Gary: I don't believe
Gary: even I wouldn't support
Gary: But I do think
Me: Would you also impose these restrictions on politicians? Do they get to keep their armed security or will they too be required to live like the people? If you would permit them to be well armed and protected then please justify to me why I am not allowed the same?
LikeLike
It is simply my position, and if my position is the position of the majority of voting Americans, it becomes law.
LikeLike
Let me clarify: If the majority of Americans favors keeping semi-automatic weapons legal, I believe that the majority's position should be the law. I don't want a court deciding what is an “arm” and what is not.
Only the people, speaking through their elected representatives, in our Republican form of democratic government, has the right to define “arms”. If the majority of the American people want to allow every citizen to stockpile nuclear arms in their basement, so be it. But if the majority wants semi-automatic weapons banned, so be that also.
LikeLike
Gary: It is simply my position, and if my position is the position of the majority of voting Americans, it becomes law.
Me: Not so, look at the votes on sodomite marriage. The will of the people was “no” but it was overturned by the gestapo on the bench.
I ask again, if you got your will and all semi-auto weapons were banned would that include the security for politicians as well or do they get to keep their firepower?
LikeLike
I would want the President and other members of the government protected by automatic weapons, if that is what security experts recommend.
LikeLike
Gary: I would want the President and other members of the government protected by automatic weapons, if that is what security experts recommend.
Me: What about your family, would you want them protected by “automatic” weapons or even just plain old “semi automatic”? How about an airsoft pistol? Nerf gun? I'm sorry but these people work for us, we don't work for them and if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me.
You'd permit a cop to prance around with a semi-auto rifle but a returning MARSOC Marine who has vastly more training on weapons than any cop would be prohibited from owning the evil rifle.
Do you realize most police officers receive advanced training from civilian trainers? Some of whom have never been a cop or in the military yet they train the cops you would permit to carry an AR/M4/AK while you would NOT allow those who train these cops to own one. Your world sucks Gary. It's full of blind hypocrisy and a hairless ballsack the size of a shriveled raisin.
LikeLike
And your world is a return to the wild, wild West, where every minor insult on the street runs the risk of a shoot out.
May the best (and safest) world view win.
LikeLike
Gary: And your world is a return to the wild, wild West, where every minor insult on the street runs the risk of a shoot out.
Me: You really like to jump to conclusions a lot don't you Gary? Someone who wishes to have the right to defend themselves using the same weaponry the security teams for the deific politicians carry is now equated with violent hood-rats and dindus who kill for a bad look or unsavory word.
Sorry Gary but I can handle being called names and even being in a hand-to-hand fight before resorting to a gun. If someone pulls a gun or knife on me though I beg of you Gary the benevolent, please bestow upon me a humble peasant the same ability to defend myself that you grant the political lords you lick the filthy boots of.
LikeLike
Gary –
pb here. I often wonder if you ever go back and read the words you write. I would add “from an objective point of view or point of logic, but I have long since disabused myself of the idea that you have the least bit of understanding of logic.
Were I or anyone else to trample upon your First Amendment right to make an ass of yourself, you would scream bloody murder. Yet within your range of thinking, you have no problem doing so with our Second Amendment rights.
You don't know jack about guns to begin with – admit it. You are like every other commie progressive, you read off the daily script what you are programmed to report. You'd be hiding behind your desk, leaving your patients to fend for themselves, if a bad guy ever came in shooting things up in your office. A rational man, knowing his rights, would take his Ruger or Glock out of his drawer, walk out and shoot the bad guy, long before any of the “last to the scene heroes” of security of the local PD showed up ti id the vctims.
I don't know, Dude, sometimes, just trying to answer you taxes one's patience. It is as if you purposely intend to be stupid, and then blame any who disagree. I have seen gun-control rights folks who make you look like the amateur you are, fall to their knees in abject thankfulness to a citizen who kept them from dying by carrying and knowing how to use the weapon. But since you are simply too lazy to actually research the matter in full, your think your blissful ignorance is that by which we all should live. As the first commenter said:
μολὼν λαβέ Triple dog dare you!
Geez, like we're going to give them up because irrational sorts like you demand we do? That says it all. Heh!
LikeLike
Typical fascist BS.
LikeLike
Several states have already passed legislation based on this principle. These actions provide a foundation we plan to build on during the 2015 legislative session.
LikeLike