TheGreatBuzz

I was about half way through your response when that question came to me and I don't know the answer either. I do know that FT Hood and the Navy Yard did NOT have armed "civilians" (I'm including non-security military members in that for this discussion. Military isn't allowed to carry on base. Makes sense, right?) in the area. They had to wait for base security to respond. I know Sandy Hook and Aurora did not have reports of an armed person in the area. Orlando is the only case that I can think of where it was reported of a "good guy with a gun" in the area that didn't stop the threat. But you are right, there could be others.

Believe me when I say this isn't meant to be seen as blowing you off. I'm sure I will appreciate what you posted but my computer is slow as crap at work right now and won't stream video. Can you give me a short rundown of what is in the video? If not, I understand but I won't be able to address it until tonight.

After considering your points I have determine: 1) True 2) False I have never hid my disdain for the NRA. You will get no argument from me about them being probably one of the worst organizations on the planet. As to point 2, prove it. Show me a link where I can get an automatic war weapon that easily. That would be highly illegal. In the rare chance you are able to prove this, I guarantee I will immediately forward that information to the ATF and FBI so they can stop it.

I meant more than just that. I was using it as an example to make my point. Would you prefer I list every single item that I believe Scalia was referring too?

Responding to Beal's Scalia post: Where is that line drawn though? I believe Scalia was saying the 2nd didn't give me permission to have heat seeking missles and a .50 cal machine gun. Or to carry my personal weapon in the White House. Others believe it means the people shouldn't be allowed to have anything more than an antique black powder rifle. EDIT: I'm curious what this election cycle is doing for gun/ammo sales. I know I'm going to probably stock up some. If Trump wins, I fully expect riots, nuclear holocaust, and other general mayhem that I want to be prepared to protect my home and family in. If Hillary wins, I expect some tighting on gun laws over the next 8 years (not saying I think she is coming for my guns) which will cause a) things to be no longer available/harder to come by and/or a whole crap load more expensive which makes buying now make sense. If the libertarians win (haha) then I don't expect much change but guns and ammo hold value well so I won't lose money. Guns and ammo are actually a better thing to invest in than most people would think.

That's why us not-crazy gun rights people are usually fine with the proposals regarding training and such. I personally don't agree that just anyone should be able to get a CCW with minimal training.

Youre right. I accidently mixed you up with some other posters. I apologize.

Burgold I respect you and your arguments usually but you are starting to do the same thing the Right does when it argues. "Well since it didn't stop this instance, it must not be able to ever help in any situation so we shouldn't consider it." You call the right out all the time for that crappy style of arguing. Don't do it yourself.

This just shows how little you know about guns. Even gun control advocates admit the Clinton assault weapon ban had more to do with looks than function. Now if you want to talk about laws based on gun FUNCTION, that that is a worthwhile discussion. One that has already been had actually. Larry and I even actually agreed on something. Surprised that crap outta me. You and I have already agreed that neither one of us have an issue with a law like this. But the issue comes in that I don't mind it because it still suits MY needs. But the "gun nuts" will point out that a law like this goes against the premise of the second amendment and why the FF thought citizens should have guns. That is where we the people need to decide if the 2nd still applies in it's original context. I can definitely see valid points on both sides of that discussion. (Note that isn't my argument, but one that will be and is made.) That is why I see the balancing act best done buy leaving current regulations in place regarding type and function of weapon. We need to expand things like back ground checks though. I actually like the R bill proposal because I think it was a good balance between protecting the rights of those that haven't been convicted of a crime but still flagging the people who seem suspicious. If someone on one of the "lists" buys a weapon, it gets flagged and the FBI is immediately notified. Now the FBI will need to **** or get off the pot deciding if that person is really a threat.

Well I don't recall the Constitution giving gun rights so we can hunt deer........... Out of curiosity, do you have any clue what it would take to convert a modern AR-15 to an automatic weapon? And what the reliability of that weapon would be unless you changed a bunch of other parts also? And how much that would all cost? And just how illegal it is? And how far up your backside the ATF and FBI would be if you got caught? If not, please don't purchase any weapon ever.

I'm on my phone so not going to write a long winded response Larry. Read what tshile said. He is doing a good enough job saying what I want to say.

You used the example of beer and a 16byear old to justify banNing people who haven't been convicted of a crime and would otherwise legally be allowed to buy a gun. Now explain how I don't know what I'm talking about.

Apples and oranges larry. But since you like to argue using those I'm guessing you are fine banning ANY group of people from something as long as Congress passes it? You should love Trump then. Banning Muslims from the country even though they haven't actually done anything wrong. Yes I'm aware that is a bad argument but no worse than yours.

Larry if I thought you weren't being intentially obtuse, I'd give a better written response but since I'm sure that is what you are doing, this is all you get. If the government wants to say only SOME people can have guns and those that can't have them are determined without DUE PROCESS, that's wrong. Or if they want to say SOME people can have pot but others can't, same thing. You shouldn't deny people's ability to exercise a right because you SUSPECT they MIGHT do something bad but don't have enough evidence to do anything about it. That's just un-American.

Good thing the democrat president never used it then. *cough* Does this help? due proc·ess noun noun: due process; noun: due process of law fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. So the GOP says "due process" (see definition above) in an attempt to point out that denying someone a right based on being on a list that requires no notification or trial is not "fair treatment through the normal judicial system". See how that works? Though I admit that while the GOP may SAY that is their reason, I suspect it is really because the NRA is protecting purse strings of gun makers. Which is why the Left should have come up with a legit rebuttal instead of just reading off names in an attempt to tug at heart strings. Maybe a rebuttal that included how their bill was NOT against due process. Crazy concept, I know. But it wasn't inconsequential. It may have been less then the Left wanted but it was still something meaningful. I won't get into the assault weapon ban example because I suspect we have different opinions on why it was pointless.

So after the R's made a valid point regarding due process, the D's decided to just pull at heart strings instead? Shocking.

Sorry. That was meant as a response to LSF. I know that but I was getting the impression that she gets to decide and if she doesn't like it, it's wrong.

But who decides what far enough is? You won't get 100% of people to agree on a perfect solution. That's why there are negotiations and compromise. I don't expect that from my party which is why they are barely holding on to me by a thread. But the left showed they aren't much better by not agreeing to something that was at least better than the current situation. As I said before, our government system is broken and I fear it may be beyond repair. And the ACA was a **** show on both sides. Neither should be using that as an example of how they can do things well.

I'm not going to debate Obamacare here, it's the wrong thread. But did you see something in the Rights bill that would have just been a huge pay day for the gun makers? Who was getting paid off in that bill? I think you were missing the point of my post. I wasn't saying I agreed that the DHS director should be doing that. I was more making a point about making progress, any progress. And none of the bills voted on required that anyways so I don't know why it keeps getting brought up. If you want to ignore my overall point and debate the bills, what do you think was BAD in the R bill? Not just what you didn't think went far enough but what was actually HARMFUL?

Dunno. Just read the cliff notes (the news).

Burgold if you think that will ever happen I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Our system is broken. And I'm afraid it's beyond repair.

Copy. So the fact that that wasn't the bill that was voted on makes the argument moot. And the fact that the rights Bill would have at least moved us a millimeter closers to where we need to is a bad thing. The left missed an opportunity to move at least one voter closer to their side. Larry here is the meat of the rights Bill pulled from CNN. Sorry I'm on my phone or it would be prettier. Please tell me what part of this was BAD, not just what wasn't as much as the left wanted. The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.

Well there were 4 bills proposed. 2 from each side. The rights bills were much softer versions of the lefts. But they all just voted down party lines. Larry do you think the DH director having that power would be a BAD thing or just not as much as you want? If you can get the right to budge even a millimeter why wouldn't you take it seeing how that's huge progress? If nothing else it would have made me and the other 80% who support reform say well at least one side is trying.

Not when the vote is pretty much right down party lines. That to me shows a lot more "voting my team" than "voting for something that a helps". My understanding is the rights Bill was much softer. But isn't that better than nothing? Pass that and say "see we at least got SOME gun reform passed and we're willing to work together". Things like that would go a lot further towards pulling me across the aisle.

I don't see how the Ds can blame the right for their Bill failing when all the Ds voted against the Rs bill. To me it's blame on both sides. And shows what a **** show our broken government is. Why wouldn't the left at least agree to the Rs Bill? I get it wasn't what they wanted but it's better than nothing. I expect this from the right. But it reminded me that the left is no better.