Fake Gun Store, NYC

[Run To State]

When are we allowed to talk about it? How much time is acceptable after a multiple firearms murder? Because if that is the gold standard, it will never get done.

 

Which is what ol' cynical papa believes many want.

 

But you aren't talking about it. All you're doing is making snide remarks and personal attacks. You guys aren't serious about it. Several of us have told you things that we're OK with and why were not okay with other things. But like a class clown, you gotta get your chuckles in instead of making a point. There's been several questions asked of a few of you, especially TTP, that have gone unanswered. I pointed out why some of what you guys are proposing won't work and you and a few others consistently twist it into I don't care or that you're not allowed to talk. I don't think you guys are really ready to talk about it.

[mcpapa]

Case in point of the silliness by you and a few others. I honestly don't know why you guys even venture into these threads, it's like debating on lhe grade school playground.

 

Because in some respects, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

To coin a phrase.

[Run To State]

I feel your pain.:lol:

 

If the answer is short, it's infantile. If it's long, it's War and Peace and can't be answered without an exhaustive Google search.

 

Come on now, we all know bball fan is extremely long winded although very poignant. All I was saying there is that I don't have time to break down what he said tonight and will do so later. I consider him a a friend and I'm sure he knows I'm not trying to offend him.

 

You have a great sense of humor, however when you don't have answers I think you use your humor as a deflection. I've certainly seen that in this thread. Again, nothing personal.

[Run To State]

Because in some respects, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

To coin a phrase.

 

The funny thing is, you don't realize you're one of the fish in the barrel.

[mcpapa]

Come on now, we all know bball fan is extremely long winded although very poignant. All I was saying there is that I don't have time to break down what he said tonight and will do so later. I consider him a a friend and I'm sure he knows I'm not trying to offend him.

 

You have a great sense of humor, however when you don't have answers I think you use your humor as a deflection. I've certainly seen that in this thread. Again, nothing personal.

 

Who said this in Post 25?

 

I don't have the answers any more than you do.

[Run To State]

Who said this in Post 25?

 

I don't have the answers any more than you do.

 

And yet you continue to chastise me even though you yourself don't have answers. Yeah, makes sense.

[mcpapa]

And yet you continue to chastise me even though you yourself don't have answers. Yeah, makes sense.

 

 

[Run To State]

 

So we know now that your solution is to post funny pictures. Great, Obama could have used you for a few extra pages in the health care plan. Bravo. But you still sit there and claim that I have no answers and nothing to offer all the while you bring your comedy act to the thread. Thanks for the input, although it's been useless at least it's been entertaining. :lol2:

[Run To State]

Who said this in Post 25?

 

I don't have the answers any more than you do.

 

Just for the record, I never claimed I had answers, I'm the one who said the problem is too complex for simple solutions. Look back and you'll see that. Think about it and be honest with yourself and you'll realize I'm right.

[Twotoplace]

TwoToPlace, what would you add or subtract from my post listed below? Thanks.....

 

"I agree with shoring up the background checks, background checks for all gun purchases gun shows included, having HIPPA changed so there is a more detailed background check to search for any possible mental health issues. Mental illness and drug addiction are a huge issue as you stated, and this has been long overdue to mend them. I have no issues with bringing up these issues after a tragedy, as we have to start somewhere to get the discussion going. But, I do not see a need for a limit on guns, ammo, or capacity."

What do countries with low gun-violence rates do that we don't do in Wild West U.S.A.? Study what works in "civilized" nations, then apply same here. Investigate the culture as well as rules/regulations. Sounds like a good idea, but that ain't going to happen in my lifetime, which is why 2nd Amendment issues are low on my priority list these days.

[B-Ball-fan]

To this and of course the original post I will simply say that I'm not surprised that you both want to make it personal rather than what it was originally about. You guys went off the rails a long way back, the video hasn't even been discussed in I couldn't even say how many posts. But that's okay, I'm used to the way the typical suspects do business.

 

Regarding the video, I agree with you that it feels a bit staged. I'm not terribly freaked out by it for wherever you see adds for or against something they will always be slanted to promote their agenda.

 

There are extreme organizations in this country that would love nothing more than to increase its numbers of followers, and with with these type tactics they'll likely grab a decent portion who have little ability to completely think for themselves.

 

Truth is that I believe that it's very infrequent that we ever hear from the moderates because they're not so typically impassioned enough to drive a point, while in reality the number of moderates probably outweighs either extreme side to an issue, but we only hear from the extreme sides of issues, which give us the false sense that they are strong in numbers.

[SportsGuy41017]

What do countries with low gun-violence rates do that we don't do in Wild West U.S.A.? Study what works in "civilized" nations, then apply same here. Investigate the culture as well as rules/regulations. Sounds like a good idea, but that ain't going to happen in my lifetime, which is why 2nd Amendment issues are low on my priority list these days.

 

Let's assume that the U.S. forms a committee to study and make recommendations for lawmakers to work out the gun issue.

 

1) On this committee there will be no one who strongly opposed guns or advocated taking away guns. Not would there be anyone from the gun industry or lobbiest. That the committee will be composed of those people in the middle. Would this be a start?

 

Let's assume that this committee looks at reforming health care and drug care, make HIPPA assessable for background checks, that every single gun sale will require a federal background check. There will be new rules concerning when firearms should be taken away from someone, example being if someone is depressed about a death, loss of job, home or spouse or such. That it will be worked out that no one will have thier firearms taken away unless they are a real threat. And that types of firearms and capacity will not be touched.

 

Would this be ok?

[CBDV]

Let's assume that the U.S. forms a committee to study and make recommendations for lawmakers to work out the gun issue.

 

1) On this committee there will be no one who strongly opposed guns or advocated taking away guns. Not would there be anyone from the gun industry or lobbiest. That the committee will be composed of those people in the middle. Would this be a start?

 

Let's assume that this committee looks at reforming health care and drug care, make HIPPA assessable for background checks, that every single gun sale will require a federal background check. There will be new rules concerning when firearms should be taken away from someone, example being if someone is depressed about a death, loss of job, home or spouse or such. That it will be worked out that no one will have thier firearms taken away unless they are a real threat. And that types of firearms and capacity will not be touched.

 

Would this be ok?

 

Once again I do not have a problem with it on the surface.

 

The problem is you get an administration like this one and one like Mrs. Clinton would have, a lot of people would lose guns.

 

 

 

The IRS targeting people is a perfect example.

 

I am 100% for it thought if a repeal of Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 is on the board.

[Twotoplace]

Let's assume that the U.S. forms a committee to study and make recommendations for lawmakers to work out the gun issue.

 

1) On this committee there will be no one who strongly opposed guns or advocated taking away guns. Not would there be anyone from the gun industry or lobbiest. That the committee will be composed of those people in the middle. Would this be a start?

 

Let's assume that this committee looks at reforming health care and drug care, make HIPPA assessable for background checks, that every single gun sale will require a federal background check. There will be new rules concerning when firearms should be taken away from someone, example being if someone is depressed about a death, loss of job, home or spouse or such. That it will be worked out that no one will have thier firearms taken away unless they are a real threat. And that types of firearms and capacity will not be touched.

 

Would this be ok?

Your reasoning is sound. I'm not in lockstep with you on all your proposals, but, yes, this would be a solid first step.

[SportsGuy41017]

SHAME on Cruz, for using a murder to push his agenda! Shame on those who will not condemn him for this action!

 

Cruz blames Obama and senior officials for deputy's death