TheGreatBuzz

With all this respectful discussion between the two sides, I'm amazed we can't come to an agreement.

Patriot Act anyone?

Population control? :shrug:

Well look at that! Burgold and I agree again!

While a mag limit wouldn't prevent everything, it allows more of a chance for something to be done. Every time a mag is changed, there is a chance for error. It allows a few seconds for someone to try to stop the person. You also can only carry so many mags so you would have to get mags out of a bag. A mag limit would help a little and has more of a chance of passing than your "everything needs to be bolt action" idea. Go ahead and try to lump me into the "clueless about guns" crowd. I dare you.

I never said I have a problem with one and not the other. In fact, I don't think I have seen anyone say that. I, and I bet most people, would be fine with both if there were transparency to the system. And some sort of appeals system so I can be quickly removed if it's found to be an error. It would be except the government is involved. Hell, Ted Kennedy had trouble getting his name off the list.

Is this referring to me?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140624/15302927673/court-says-process-getting-off-no-fly-list-is-unconstitutional.shtml There are a bunch of other articles that show how ridiculous the No fly list is with how people are put on it and how hard it is to get off it. But here is just one article about it. This is why I have an issue with saying you can't exercise a constitutional right if you are on the list. Now if they did a better job managing the list, then I would fully support such action.

Larry there is validity to both sides of the argument. See what I posted right above. I quoted my post from the other thread.

Good call. It probably does belong here. So I will copy my response here also.

Well the post I was referring to ask for an either/or conclusion which usually means 100% on one side or the other. But you did not hit the four keys that type out "100%" so I guess I shouldn't have assumed that. ****ing pain in the ***

Does it have to be 100% one or the other Larry?

Posted this in the Orlando shooting thread but deserves to be said here also.

See? In a matter of 10 minutes the two of us who are on different sides were able to come up with some reasonable guidelines. But politicians can't do it because compromise is seen as a bad thing. And that isn't just with gun control, it's with all things.

I am glad to see that Sisko and skinsfan you are both being pretty reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5 round limit IF you could still be able to get other things after a much more stringent background check.

Okay. Not bad criteria. I don't agree with you but at least respect your opinion.

So since we are bringing up assault weapon bans again, what would be your criteria? Is it just going to be a "scary looking weapon" ban? What about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Or semi-auto shotguns? Where do you draw the line?

TWA raises a valid question. This guy apparently bought everything legally and had all required licenses, etc. OTHER THAN AN OUTRIGHT BAN (not gonna happen) what needs to be done better?

You say "we" like that is all every person advocating for gun control wants. But there are people out there that want a lot more gun control than just better background checks. I am a gun owner and a pretty hard core defendant of gun rights. It is a big thing I look at when voting. I have no problem with better background checks. But there are people that are proposing a lot more. So please don't just say that is all "we" want. The real problem is politicians don't compromise any more. We can debate why that is but it has been shown that reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement. I believe it was Bang (could have been someone else) and myself who are on very different ends of this argument came to a reasonable agreement in like 15 minutes in this thread a while ago. You shouldn't be to happy about that idea considering it would probably lead to some form of civil war. Right or wrong, there are a lot of crazies out there.

IMO that's no way to live. I try to do things like not sit with my back to the door but other than that, I won't let these things keep me from doing what I want. If you do, they win. I just figure if it's my time, then there is no stopping it. Just my $.02 though.

Thanks for reminding me about the SC vacancy. May be the one thing that get me to vote R.

What state is that tshile?

Yea I've never read the actual decision because it's lawyer speak and can be hard to interpret. But it seems to me that ScaLia meant that criminals don't get CCW but California said NOPE to most everyone. I see a supreme Court case coming again. Edit: I've read interpretations and articles about it. I'm not com l lately uninformed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/index.html Interesting. Doesn't this go against the Supreme Court Heller decision? Can they do that?

His name has been done for a while. I'm surprised he hasn't cashed out and moved to a nonextradition country for his last year's. That's what I would do.....if I were an old rapists.