LA Grant

Well, hold on here — why should a gun get locked up on a first offense? First time DUI offenders get leniency, and we don't take their cars away. I don't see why we should have to be so harsh on guns if they've only shot people ONCE.

Are you a veteran? Why do you suppose you could speak for them? Here's 2 veterans directly contradicting you, and this whole stupid idea of guarding schools with guns.

Why should they question their beliefs? It's every 18-year-old's inalienable right to own an AR-15. I know this because it was George Washington's wet dream. Besides, how could the guns be at fault? They're poor innocent guns! They don't shoot themselves, do they? All I'm saying is give guns a chance. In a teacher's hand.

As long as everyone has easy access to AR-15s so I don't have to question my beliefs at all, I say we're all for putting kevlar on your mom. Sorry, it's the only way. For freedom. Just please don't blame any guns.

"Institutions don't fail people, people fail people. Nothing we can do for the future to change it. People will be bad. Authorities will fail. And if you make different laws, they definitely won't work." That's the line of thinking here? It is amazingly cynical and lazy. All to prevent "going nuclear" and "eviscerating" the 2nd Amendment. In other words, back to the original point of this thread — there is no way to strengthen the laws without possibly inconveniencing the "Good Guys with Guns" which is unacceptable regardless of collateral damage. The refrain from the right is ALWAYS the same on this issue — "Never Blame Guns. It Is Never The Gun's Fault." It's not surprising. It's not convincing. Hey! Glad you're so concerned about life! Say! A question. Why doesn't "Pro-Life" include similarly pro-life stances, like "pro-gun legislation, anti-death penalty, pro-UBI"? Seems like a contradictory term, no? Seems like someone so concerned about protecting life, such as yourself, would be really motivated to save life across the board. Again, though, it's yet another tangent and distraction. "Never Blame Guns. It Is Never The Gun's Fault." The only way to stop a moral relativist with a gun is an ethical egoist with a gun! Correct. In the other thread, they are currently discussing the logistics of armed officers or teachers wearing body armor. Nothing would suggest to a reasonable mind that this is remotely a good idea but... gotta have faith to never blame guns.

Tasker is both a weasely liar & very possibly a genuinely low IQ. His posts are almost entirely cobbled together from Glenn Beck & Wayne LaPierre talking points. His last few posts have made it pretty clear that gets his embarrassingly child-like version of history from Glenn Beck, and his horrifyingly apocalyptic politics from the NRA. (btw, Tasker, still can't wait to hear your ideas on fixing the problem without addressing gun laws in any way) (and how those ideas compare to whatever Glenn & Wayne's talking points are for the day)

Tasker, I know you're earnestly going for the "Junior Glenn Beck/Constitutional Historian with a GED" thing but would love to hear your thoughts on the future, not just your misinterpretations of the past. In case you missed this earlier invitation to spread your wisdom, here it is again: OH yeah, this. Assuming you weren't just saying this to try to gain the unearned moral high ground in an online argument, can't wait to hear how you will be solving the problem that killed them!! Lay it on us, Tasker, you are the smartest man in the room -- it says so right below your name. While you're at it Tasker — go ahead and explain why you're paraphrasing Wayne LaPierre and passing off the NRA head's words as your own? '"The elites don’t care not one whit about America’s school system and school children,” he said to a favorable reception at the conservative event. “If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. They care more about control and more of it, their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so that they can eradicate all individual freedoms.” http://www.newsweek.com/wayne-lapierre-nra-cpac-guns-816294 Can't wait to hear your own original ideas, Tasker, for how we will fix the problem without doing anything differently with guns!! (I understand if you need to wait to answer before Glenn Beck or the NRA tell you what to say, based on your learning disabilities) I know you can't but I'd love to see you try to prove that you aren't the useless, lying, simple weasel that you've shown yourself to be here. You stupid POS.

We're aware.

And yet those methods clearly did not work, right? These measures were ineffective, despite the THIRTY NINE complaints in this instance where the gunman was practically waving a "I'm going to shoot up the school" flag, and obviously this problem isn't an isolated incident, as you point out. So, tell me: if the current measures are ineffective, then what? Seriously? How bad is your reading comprehension that this is what you took from ODB's post?

Once again, here's a lovely example of veterans who served in our military fighting in Iraq strongly encouraging gun reform. Don't take it from me, take it from a couple of vets you love to casually assume the responsibility of speaking for. Unlike you, they don't claim to speak for everyone, and unlike you, they are coherent. But still worth a listen. You're an idiot. Then there truly is nothing more to say to each other. You're a hardcore fundamentalist, arguably extremist in some of the views you laid out as most people do believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people. I'm leftist, obviously, but also a pragmatist. Government can do things that other institutions can't. I'd rather see the government take action than hope that all gun sellers will independently develop the conscience to work harder to not make sales, but hey, maybe your way will work. Since you clearly believe government should have no role in restricting gun access or addressing gun violence, but still want to beat your chest sanctimoniously that, in spite of all the evidence, you actually care about the murdered more than anyone else here, I'm eager to hear about how you will be helping to address the myriad issues you raised... let's see, what was that quote... OH yeah, this. Assuming you weren't just saying this to try to gain the unearned moral high ground in an online argument, can't wait to hear how you will be solving the problem that killed them!! Lay it on us, Tasker, you are the smartest man in the room -- it says so right below your name. I have the same experience. I've never heard the actual veterans in my life ever come close to sounding nearly as close-minded as the people that pretend to speak for "the troops." I've also never personally known a veteran who really liked firing guns or being around guns or was casual about the idea of death. The people I've known who have had those experiences would be called "snowflakes" etc on this board of he-men gun-lovers.

Thank you for admitting that your gun purchases will be emotional fear- based decisions. You will be in good company amongst gun owners. Interesting conclusion. Alaska leads the nation in gun violence despite having one of the lowest poverty rates, which is usually connected with gang/drug culture. Just as long as nobody blames guns, right? 1. Alaska Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 23.0 per 100,000 Total firearm deaths 2016: 177 (suicides: 113, homicides: 45) Violent crime rate: 804.2 per 100,000 (the highest) Permit required to carry handgun: No Poverty rate: 9.9% (6th lowest)

Great. Well, as the article points out, it's a stretch of a definition and not an ideal solution for anyone involved. But congratulations on your "not gotcha moment" that is instead a "gotcha, ignorant moron moment" which is somehow different. You have done a wonderful job of articulating no coherent point whatsoever. Obviously you don't care who I agree or disagree with because you don't seem to have core values you're brave enough to share. Instead, it's this pathetic play at "sniping at retards from the balcony" with a freaking Muppet avatar. You, just like a child, have adopted a South Park approach to politics — "everyone is wrong and I'm just pointing it out." Cool, bro. Your posts offer zero ideas, zero discussion, and offer no value to anyone but yourself; a pointless and shallow exercise in masturbation. This, here, of course, is what you want — this is always the gun debate. The anti-reform defenders only have tactics of distraction. It can never actually be about guns. It's always some other stupid rabbit hole of nonsense. You should run for president.

Here's the thing. I actually really like the "outside the box" idea of a high-value QB2 when you have an uncertain QB1. This has been one of the most maddening things about the Bills QB carousel — when EJ struggled, we had no other viable option (until we brought in Orton for that one season). When Tyrod struggled, we had no other viable option. When Tyrod was not getting it done, would've rather seen a bit more experienced coming into games like Ryan Fitzpatrick/Brian Hoyer type at QB instead of throwing Nate "i won the chance to QB for a day" Peterman to the wolves. If you're not certain about QB1, you'd better invest in a solid QB2. Seems obvious and yet...

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner. How do you solve?

Guessing you read the headline but not the article? Otherwise I have no idea what point you're trying to make besides "gotcha" or maybe "drugs and guns are the same thing." Because I tend to agree with the father of the victim. Like guns, the answer seems to me to be restricting access and making these harder to get.

Ha.

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it. I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution. The fight against tyranny is vigilance, not your rifles. Having an AR-15 is no help in that scenario, and it's also a pointless hunting weapon. All it does is be the widely available weapon of choice for mass shooters in America. It's the same damn message every time — Make it harder for these weapons to get in the wrong hands. But because we don't want to inconvenience these men's fantasies or interrupt their gun cosplay in the basement, we will never consider it to be a problem or part of the solution when it comes to mass shootings. Guns are never the problem.

In reverse order... c) Exactly, weekend hunters are not the problem, but it's the lax gun laws that are exploited by the psychos. If preventing mass shootings means weekend hunters are inconvenienced, that should be an acceptable trade off. b) We agree to a point. I acknowledge from the beginning that comparisons to airline security, DMVs, job applications — those are not perfect systems. And we agree on over-reaching on 4th/5th, Patriot Act surveillance, etc., as you point out. Our country is nothing but a mess of broken systems, frankly. The disagreement is on two things — the idea that nothing can be changed in the Bill of Rights - clearly it can; and the idea that changes will always be broken, useless, and worse than before. I don't think you're right on your conclusions, either, because we also know the importance of surveillance, especially as what that means changes with technology. There is over reach, no argument! Point I'm making is it's not an absolute, it's not an either/or. Its a question of "how much is too much" and what's the trade-off? We live in the most invasive surveillance state in history, alright sure. We also live during a time of more school/mass shootings than ever before. The correct answer is that these are both unacceptable, obviously the ideal is a balance between freedom and security, for privacy and for guns. Simply put: for privacy - too much security, need to dial back; for guns - too much freedom, need to tighten up. a) Exactly. There were a terrible amount of warning signs. It did nothing. We agree: this is bad. Solution: More restrictive gun laws. Enforce those laws. He should not have been able to buy that weapon in that manner. Period.

Foolishness. It's not like I don't understand your position. Here, to your point, a quick read: https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/ Obviously something can be done. The idea that nothing can be done is asinine. That's the point, because nothing will continue to happen with stubborn attitudes like you're laying out. Cops in Parkland, supposedly one of the safest places, specifically have said that stronger gun laws would have allowed them to do something earlier. There are stronger laws to make the airport more of a hassle to prevent another 9/11 by taking your shoes off, somehow we all accept this; grumble, but accept. At the very least it wouldn't hurt. Except that you think it would not only hurt, but be some dramatic red-skied invasion where troops are coming in to your home to take your weapons. That is not the endgame. I'm not a hostage negotiator so I don't know how to talk you off of that ledge other than to say again and again that it isn't the case. I don't care about your stupid guns hunting deer, or shooting beer cans in the woods. You can deal with some additional forms and tests for that privilege, because those measures could clearly save lives. Again, this podcast below. Take a listen. Really. Its 2 Iraq vets talking logistics on how to secure a HS similar to a government embassy and estimate it would take minimum 60 but really 120 infantry to secure the building properly. And what weapons are they carrying to counter AR-15s? Rather than restricting guns, in ANY way, which you think inevitably immediately leads to dystopia, somehow THIS is a better solution, despite armed guards throughout schools practically being a dictionary definition of dystopia.

Glad to see. This is the right decision, IMO. It would be unwise to move on from Tyrod until you have someone demonstrably better.

I know your angle is to just try to identify hypocrisies & call it a day, but even I have a hard time believing you're dumb enough to be suggesting that "opioid death" is murder. And yet!

a) I don't expect to change the Constitution on PPP, if that's what you think my goal is?? But bridging the gap of understanding is not going about it backwards. b) A ban on semi autos is not impossible just because it has failed before. People determine laws. People (theoretically) are capable of adapting to new circumstances. This is (theoretically) one of the upsides of people in a representative society. c) Now you are beginning to get it. Legal Gun Owners are part of the problem. They do not think they should be inconvenienced. Yes, they should. Your drunk driving example is inaccurate — the solutions proposed are to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the "drunk driving" of guns. Would your solution to drunk driving be "de-regulated traffic laws"? Would your solution be "what about mental health & fatherhood"? Of course it wouldn't (presumably). Look. We cannot know the future. If someone who has a legal license will someday drive drunk, you can't predict that ahead of time. Similarly, if someone who purchases a gun is going to use it for mass murder, it can't always be predicted. SOMETIMES IT CAN. If you get DUIs, you lose your driving privileges. But if you say "I'm going to shoot up the school," you can still exercise your GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS to purchase an AR-15 in Florida and own it without any problems. That's the closest you're going to get to knowing someone is a danger to others as clearly as drunk driving. Unlike a DUI, you can't merely take the gun privilege away from someone after they've used it improperly because by that time, they are a murderer and you've already lost. Can you see why the problem is madness? Does this really not make any sense to you? d) Correct, the issue is guns. They are the common root in mass shootings. Are there other variables? Obviously. But to pretend guns are not part of the root problem is pure lunacy, as you put it.

A) It does not need to be different by state. DMVs are state regulated but the requirements/tests/procedures are largely, if not wholly, identical. B) Never say never. Why is it unnecessary? Better yet — why are (semi)automatic weapons necessary? How do those provide liberties we do not enjoy without automatic? If you need an AR-15 to "defend your home from burglars," you should not have a gun. It means you're a terrible shot. It means you're a liability with a dangerous weapon. See, you're not actually picking up the funny thing about my position, which is — I'm pretty flexible for what "gun reform" looks like. We have to be, because the other side (your side) is so immovable, we have to take whatever inch we can get. Like most people, I think the most important things are (1) improved background checks/tests/registration processes; (2) reduced access. These systems largely go hand in hand. None of those solutions involve "coming to your home & removing your weapons." They might involve "local police checking on a weapon they have record of you purchasing, but not registering" -- or, the equivalent of being pulled over because the tags on your license are expired. If you can pass the tests* and really want your AR-15, I don't really care what you do, as long as you're not hurting other people. Most people feel this way. The goal is to prevent mass shootings. Mass shooters have been able to easily legally buy weapons designed for mass shooting. There are a number of ways to prevent that. Unfortunately, the most efficient ways tend to involve restricting access to the instrument doing the mass shooting, and as your side wants to keep "guns as a problem" entirely off the table, you'd rather send everyone interested in helping down a number of different rabbit holes to avoid addressing the clear, obvious issue. Your side of the argument is tired and predictable: "Guns aren't the problem, it's the people that use it." But then if the conversation is about the government helping those people, well that's also off the table, because those services would cost money. And that this has always been about is not inconveniencing the Rural Baby Boomer White Man. They need their deer-heads on the wall. Those participation trophies remind them that they could overthrow Hillary, if necessary. *Anticipating this hypothetical rabbit hole: "Well but who's to say who's fit and who's unfit?" Yes, well, it will always be subjective. The DMV's assessment is subjective. I maintain the comparison to the DMV and Wal-Mart as a baseline example. Companies like that often make applicants take 20-minute repetitive tests to weed out antisocial tendencies, not to mention drug tests, references, and so on. This should not be an unreasonable requirement for owning a gun. I expect most Lawful Gun Owners would be perfectly fine. But it could have prevented Parkland, and it could have prevented others. And if you don't pass the test, well, sorry if you're deemed too crazy to own 100 guns. I suppose a Lawful Gun Owner might worry these tests would be as gruesomely unfair and oppressive as Jim Crow voter laws, which is adorably paranoid. But don't worry, if our country has shown anything, it's that justice is an illusion and "what goes around comes around" simply isn't true.

Idiot! You are not born with a gun. Yes, you have the God-given right to defend yourself, if that's what you're arguing, you doofus. A person should not be entitled to a gun. Exactly what liberties are you enjoying with a gun that you're unable to enjoy without a gun? I'd like to know. Answers are simple. I'm banging the drum because, despite its simplicity, we live in a chaotic jungle full of deranged rhinos who will stomp over reasonable measures just to make sure they're not personally inconvenienced in any way. National gun laws. Enforced evenly. Background checks. Behavioral assessments. Competency tests. Annual registration renewal. No automatics. If you want try to shoot up a school or a night club with a revolver, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, a big knife — there will still be deranged rhinos out there. But they don't need to be able to shoot weapons capable of holding 30-100 rounds w/o reload for home defense or hunting. http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/06/4_things_you_need_to_know_abou.html

Argument is the same, you simple mutant. I'll repeat myself, repeat arguments that have existed forever, as it is easily distilled. The government can have a role in solving societal problems. We should all want to have a government that can adapt to society's problems, based on majority rule w/checks & balances. The fact that it does not work that way in practice is a problem. It is a major reason why, despite gun reform having widespread support, it is not on the books. Like... this is complicated a little bit but it's not that complicated. The solution is obvious. Gun Reform. Even a mutant like you should be able to process. 1) "But... gun legislation NEVER WORKS!!!!!" <--- Then out comes Chicago, California, any number of "what about" or "what if"s. The data overwhelmingly supports it. But the reason "gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument is because WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT. Not on a national level. Not even to the degree of making gun laws & traffic/vehicle laws similarly restrictive (and ideally more). 2) "But... the founders said guns keeps tyrants away!" <---- This is a harder fantasy to break because it's like, how do you tell a 50-year-old man that he's not going to win in a fire fight? I know we grew up learning that the Revolutionary War was won a certain way, but you are not those people. Our lives are not those circumstances. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing is so dumb. Even that Dan Bilzerian dork, the instagram poker-millionaire guy who posts all about guns & poker & hookers, he was at the Las Vegas shooting, wasn't he? Did he "good guy with a gun" save people? No. He ran from the gunfire, obviously. Also, my little mutant child, while we're learning simple lessons — forks don't go in the socket & peeing on a woman isn't how you make babies. Tom, you ignorant slut, I clearly write my own material. (The concession stand line was me, tho)