50 Shot dead in Orlando nightclub and dozens injured

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yadda Yadda yadda ,if anything on this topic you have stated made any sense it might be different.
And how kind of you to think of others

Actually it's purely just thinking of myself. I really enjoy the Valkyrie community that we have here. I don't want to be part of its degeneration.

But by continuing  to make ignorant comments and questions you are contributing  to its degeneration. We all know you would vote to have our guns taken away, so why stay here and comment on this subject? You're  not changing any minds.

You know nothing about me.   I'm quite well aware of the majority thought on this board. That doesn't mean I don't have things in common and care to debate ideas. While I may seem ignorant to you I have a different opinion of myself. I'm sure if I contribute to the degeneration of this board I will be shown the door. Hopefully that's not the case.

[MP]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

Would you be okay with requiring a $30 poll tax and a 15 minute background check on every voter, every time they voted?

Then I take it your answer is no ?

How about answering the question, instead of dodging it with another?

Are you OK with a $30 poll tax, and a 15 minute background check to be sure you are eligible to vote?  Yes or no.

Progressives are LIVID that Conservatives want people to produce a picture ID, provided FREE OF CHARGE WITH NO WAIT TO VOTE, to prove they are citizens. 

2 completely different scenarios MP. No First Graders were slaughtered by a voter.

Still avoiding the question.  I see you will never answer it.  That, in itself, is the answer.

[The emperor has no clothes]

MP, I apologize. What was your question again ?

[Bighead]

Don't think Gavin called you ignorant.

[Bighead]

MP, I apologize. What was your question again ?

but  

[mike72903]

dont ban meathead.  He's about the only sane person here.  Well, at least that cares to comment on issues like this.

[Gryphon Rider]

dont ban meathead.  He's about the only sane person here.  Well, at least that cares to comment on issues like this.

Willow's sane too.  Well...most of the time.  We can excuse him for not commenting on this thread, or any other recent one, as I assume he's been busy dealing with our fellow PIA's face-to-face. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

dont ban meathead.  He's about the only sane person here.  Well, at least that cares to comment on issues like this.

Willow's sane too.  Well...most of the time.  We can excuse him for not commenting on this thread, or any other recent one, as I assume he's been busy dealing with our fellow PIA's face-to-face. 

[Momz]

Make terrorists eat bacon before they're killed

[..]

Make terrorists eat bacon before they're killed

Why waste good bacon. Just kill them.

[Roadog]

A guy, for whatever reason, gets a high powered semi auto weapon and kills 50 people in a night club.

Doesn't matter the religion.
Doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the victims.
Doesn't matter where.

What would have stopped this slaughter?

Background Check laws?  The guy passed them.

Even if he didn't could he have purchased the weapon illegally? Of course.

If we really and I mean really made that nightclub an ABSOLUTE Gun Free Zone would that have discouraged the guy? Probably not. I'm sure he would have felt real bad breaking the gun free zone law before he slaughtered 50 people though.

Gee, I wonder what would have worked to stop this guy or at least lessen the carnage?

More background check laws?



Another unsafe gun free zone....

Roadog
More waiting periods?
More and larger gun free zones?

or

If just a handful of those 50 people that were killed had been carrying a personal firearm and were able to put that guy down after his 1st or 2nd shot there would be at least 48 - 49 people still alive.

That's the facts Jack.

My vote is to strengthen laws that promote and encourage safe and legal gun ownership.

I don't think anybody has said that background checks would have stopped the Orlando shooter. Also I believe there was an off duty cop there doing security that engaged the guy right away.

I believe there was. In my opinion one of the things that made this so bad is that the killer apparently was fairly accomplished in firearms usage since he was a trained security guard. That makes him different than the criminals citizens would normally encounter who are generally poor shots with poor firearms handling ability and frequently trying to operate a stolen gun for the first time. Even if the first four out of five armed citizens were unsuccessful at stopping him, the fifth would still have saved lives. And at least the first 4 would have died on their feet instead of cowering in terror.

My understanding is the armed security officer was at the entrance. The club it's self was a gun-free zone. Which means the law-abiding people were required to be unarmed victims. They were required to wait to be shot or saved by good guys with guns. Seemingly most were shot.

In retrospect, the only change in the law which could have resulted in less people being killed would have been if this club wasn't a gun-free zone. A background check was done and made no difference. Gun-free zones kill.

[dinosnake]

I'm sorry, but contrary to hopes and dreams this isn't the Wild West and Roy Rogers does not come in and save the day.  The good guys don't pull out their weapons to defend the innocent and just, and everyone is in the middle of a gunfight yet only the bad guys are the miracle ones to actually get hit.

In case you missed it, the club was NOT a "gun-free" zone; there was a fully-deputized, and armed, LEO at the front door.  Repeat that: a duly-deputized, armed and TRAINED LEO at the front door.  And yet Mateen got past him and inside, anyway.

45 or 50 people, armed civilians, firing in a crowded and exceedingly dark nightclub?  And that would actually be effective?!

Let's stop the damn dreams of playing the hero, gun in hand, when duty calls.  Everyone should wear a gun to protect themselves?  I think I'll arm my 101-year old grandmother right now!  Never know when a trip to the grocery store will end up in a shootout at the armored car!

It's no longer the unsettled West of the 1830, it's the 21st Century.  There is no excuse for not changing with the times, believing that we can't even expect to go outside without a level of lethal personal protection needed.  If that is true, then we are as uncivilized as we were those 160 years ago.  A *reasonable* request is to try to prevent the wrong people, via some reasonable restrictions, from getting their hands on lethal weapons.  I completely understand the conservative's complaints about some of the recent plans: you can't have due process in a "secret court", now can you?  For sure, they are 100% right with that complaint.  

But most pro-gun special interests want an absolute: always guns available, always.  The same parties never even grant their opponents a single absolute, yet here they are, expecting it for themselves.  Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you only deal in absolutes.

[Serk]

Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you only deal in absolutes.

Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you're dealing with civil rights.

Fixed that for you.

[Chrisj CMA]

I'm sorry, but contrary to hopes and dreams this isn't the Wild West and Roy Rogers does not come in and save the day.  The good guys don't pull out their weapons to defend the innocent and just, and everyone is in the middle of a gunfight yet only the bad guys are the miracle ones to actually get hit.

In case you missed it, the club was NOT a "gun-free" zone; there was a fully-deputized, and armed, LEO at the front door.  Repeat that: a duly-deputized, armed and TRAINED LEO at the front door.  And yet Mateen got past him and inside, anyway.

45 or 50 people, armed civilians, firing in a crowded and exceedingly dark nightclub?  And that would actually be effective?!

Let's stop the damn dreams of playing the hero, gun in hand, when duty calls.  Everyone should wear a gun to protect themselves?  I think I'll arm my 101-year old grandmother right now!  Never know when a trip to the grocery store will end up in a shootout at the armored car!

It's no longer the unsettled West of the 1830, it's the 21st Century.  There is no excuse for not changing with the times, believing that we can't even expect to go outside without a level of lethal personal protection needed.  If that is true, then we are as uncivilized as we were those 160 years ago.  A *reasonable* request is to try to prevent the wrong people, via some reasonable restrictions, from getting their hands on lethal weapons.  I completely understand the conservative's complaints about some of the recent plans: you can't have due process in a "secret court", now can you?  For sure, they are 100% right with that complaint.  

But most pro-gun special interests want an absolute: always guns available, always.  The same parties never even grant their opponents a single absolute, yet here they are, expecting it for themselves.  Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you only deal in absolutes.

Here's an absolute for you.  I would absolutely rather have one of my carry guns on me EVERY time I go out the door (when allowed by law) and NEVER need it than for one single time not have a weapon and something happens where I could have made a difference and its not there.

I respect your opinion that I am somehow barbaric for thinking this way, its your prerogative.  However its my prerogative to absolutely disregard your opinion and continue to be ready to defend myself and ones around me.

[Jess from VA]

There is no excuse for not changing with the times

As long as they don't change my constitution with the times. (short of the Herculean task of actually amending it, and I'm against that for the 2d A.... of course I am)

If that is true, then we are as uncivilized as we were those 160 years ago.

Actually, I really believe we are certainly less civilized than we were 160 years ago.  We may be better educated, and are certainly more politically correct.  But as a society, we are certainly LESS civilized.  Why?  Because as a purely mathematical correlation of population, we have hundreds of thousands of more criminally and/or mentally defective human animals today, than existed 160 years ago. 

Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word,

We 2d A people have already compromised way more than we ever should have.  We're done compromising from here on out (for law abiding citizens... we're always ready to listen when they have new ideas for dealing with criminals).

I am no Roy Rogers, and 63yo, but I will tell you that had I been there and armed, I am reasonably certain I could have put 2-3 rounds in him (and no one else) before he killed 49 and wounded many more.  The only answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.  More gun laws will not do one thing to stop or deter crime with firearms.  Not one single thing.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I'm sorry, but contrary to hopes and dreams this isn't the Wild West and Roy Rogers does not come in and save the day.  The good guys don't pull out their weapons to defend the innocent and just, and everyone is in the middle of a gunfight yet only the bad guys are the miracle ones to actually get hit.

In case you missed it, the club was NOT a "gun-free" zone; there was a fully-deputized, and armed, LEO at the front door.  Repeat that: a duly-deputized, armed and TRAINED LEO at the front door.  And yet Mateen got past him and inside, anyway.

45 or 50 people, armed civilians, firing in a crowded and exceedingly dark nightclub?  And that would actually be effective?!

Let's stop the damn dreams of playing the hero, gun in hand, when duty calls.  Everyone should wear a gun to protect themselves?  I think I'll arm my 101-year old grandmother right now!  Never know when a trip to the grocery store will end up in a shootout at the armored car!

It's no longer the unsettled West of the 1830, it's the 21st Century.  There is no excuse for not changing with the times, believing that we can't even expect to go outside without a level of lethal personal protection needed.  If that is true, then we are as uncivilized as we were those 160 years ago.  A *reasonable* request is to try to prevent the wrong people, via some reasonable restrictions, from getting their hands on lethal weapons.  I completely understand the conservative's complaints about some of the recent plans: you can't have due process in a "secret court", now can you?  For sure, they are 100% right with that complaint.  

But most pro-gun special interests want an absolute: always guns available, always.  The same parties never even grant their opponents a single absolute, yet here they are, expecting it for themselves.  Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you only deal in absolutes.

I'm sorry but you should do your home work. It was a gun-free zone. All establishments in Florida which serve alcohol are. It's true there was an armed security guy there. It's also true this killer had been in and out of this club many times and I'm sure was looking for the armed security guard to take him out, probably first so he didn't even know to draw his gun. At the time of first shot, if citizens were there and armed they would have been alerted.

I personally know a guy who stopped a plant shooting and saved at least one life by retrieving his firearm from his truck. He never had to fire his gun, just show it. Many on this board went to bat with E mails and calls and helped this guy keep his job afterwards.

Below are 12 examples I found in less than a minute of armed citizens stopping a killer or wanna be killer with their firearms. One you'll notice was a lady who stopped a man with an AR with a few shots from her carry pistol, undoubtedly saving lives.

But the real truth is, this shooting would almost assuredly have never happened if that club wasn't a gun-free zone. There would have been no shots fired, no excitement, everyone would have went home alive. Gun free zones are where cowards go to target & kill people. And just so you know, as of the last study I heard of on this subject, firearms are used by the law-abiding around 3.5 million times a year in the US for defense. In the vast majority of those cases no shots are fired, the criminal just changes his mind when he realizes he has accidentally picked an armed victim.

Also, according to an FBI report not to many years ago, crime victims who resisted a criminal with a firearm were less likely to be injured than those who resisted any other way or didn't resist at all. The 12 examples are below. Thousands and thousands more could be found in a short amount of time I'm sure.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

[..]

I'm sorry, but contrary to hopes and dreams this isn't the Wild West and Roy Rogers does not come in and save the day.  The good guys don't pull out their weapons to defend the innocent and just, and everyone is in the middle of a gunfight yet only the bad guys are the miracle ones to actually get hit.

In case you missed it, the club was NOT a "gun-free" zone; there was a fully-deputized, and armed, LEO at the front door.  Repeat that: a duly-deputized, armed and TRAINED LEO at the front door.  And yet Mateen got past him and inside, anyway.

45 or 50 people, armed civilians, firing in a crowded and exceedingly dark nightclub?  And that would actually be effective?!

Let's stop the damn dreams of playing the hero, gun in hand, when duty calls.  Everyone should wear a gun to protect themselves?  I think I'll arm my 101-year old grandmother right now!  Never know when a trip to the grocery store will end up in a shootout at the armored car!

It's no longer the unsettled West of the 1830, it's the 21st Century.  There is no excuse for not changing with the times, believing that we can't even expect to go outside without a level of lethal personal protection needed.  If that is true, then we are as uncivilized as we were those 160 years ago.  A *reasonable* request is to try to prevent the wrong people, via some reasonable restrictions, from getting their hands on lethal weapons.  I completely understand the conservative's complaints about some of the recent plans: you can't have due process in a "secret court", now can you?  For sure, they are 100% right with that complaint.  

But most pro-gun special interests want an absolute: always guns available, always.  The same parties never even grant their opponents a single absolute, yet here they are, expecting it for themselves.  Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you only deal in absolutes.

All the good guys hand in their guns.

Please tell us the percentage of bad guys you honestly think would do the same.

Following the hand in the police would also be able to hand in their guns just like all the gun free countries around the world. What the police didn't. Why not?

Do you have a gun free zone sign at your front door? At the end of your driveway? At the end of your street? At your town limits?

If not why not?

[mike72903]

I'm sorry, but contrary to hopes and dreams this isn't the Wild West and Roy Rogers does not come in and save the day.  The good guys don't pull out their weapons to defend the innocent and just, and everyone is in the middle of a gunfight yet only the bad guys are the miracle ones to actually get hit.

In case you missed it, the club was NOT a "gun-free" zone; there was a fully-deputized, and armed, LEO at the front door.  Repeat that: a duly-deputized, armed and TRAINED LEO at the front door.  And yet Mateen got past him and inside, anyway.

45 or 50 people, armed civilians, firing in a crowded and exceedingly dark nightclub?  And that would actually be effective?!

Let's stop the damn dreams of playing the hero, gun in hand, when duty calls.  Everyone should wear a gun to protect themselves?  I think I'll arm my 101-year old grandmother right now!  Never know when a trip to the grocery store will end up in a shootout at the armored car!

It's no longer the unsettled West of the 1830, it's the 21st Century.  There is no excuse for not changing with the times, believing that we can't even expect to go outside without a level of lethal personal protection needed.  If that is true, then we are as uncivilized as we were those 160 years ago.  A *reasonable* request is to try to prevent the wrong people, via some reasonable restrictions, from getting their hands on lethal weapons.  I completely understand the conservative's complaints about some of the recent plans: you can't have due process in a "secret court", now can you?  For sure, they are 100% right with that complaint.  

But most pro-gun special interests want an absolute: always guns available, always.  The same parties never even grant their opponents a single absolute, yet here they are, expecting it for themselves.  Because "compromise" is a horrible and dirty word, when you only deal in absolutes.

+1

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

When the 2nd amendment was written, weren't "arms" single shot black powder rifles ?

[Serk]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

When the 2nd amendment was written, weren't "arms" single shot black powder rifles ?

Two points...

#1. When the 1st amendment was written, "The Press" was literally a manually operated press. Should the 1st not apply to modern electronic communications like the Internet? Rights don't change just because technology advances.

#2:

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

When the 2nd amendment was written, weren't "arms" single shot black powder rifles ?

They were. And those guns were the top of the line, top of technology, as good as or better than the military guns of the time. They were the AR of that era. The founders could have specified only "match locks" or "pin locks" or "muskets" or some other limitation. Instead they intended the American people to have the best firearms currently available. Just as we should and do, now.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

When the 2nd amendment was written, weren't "arms" single shot black powder rifles ?

They were. And those guns were the top of the line, top of technology, as good as or better than the military guns of the time. They were the AR of that era. The founders could have specified only "match locks" or "pin locks" or "muskets" or some other limitation. Instead they intended the American people to have the best firearms currently available. Just as we should and do, now.

Then why not grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons ? Aren't those arms ?

[Jess from VA]

Arms, from then till now, in common parlance, meant small arms: pistols, knives, swords, clubs, and rifles, shotguns.  It also generally means man-portable.  No one reasonably reads the 2d A as covering artillery, cannon, mortars, tanks, nukes, missiles, subs, ships, or even hand grenades or mines (explosive devices).   

As Mike aptly pointed out, the flintlock muskets of the revolution (and perhaps some rifled barrels) were the state of the art small arms of the day.  The 2d A means the people are entitled to the same small arms in use by police and military.  Since all power resides in the people, the idea was to keep the playing field equal with govt forces.  We were deprived of full automatics in the 1930s, unconstitutionally.  We will therefore never give up mag fed semiautos.......... unless of course the police and military want to give them up (and of course they won't, so neither will we).

And just for grins, take a look at state and local laws strictly limiting knives, swords, clubs, nupchucks, brass knuckles, kubaton, throwing stars, yada.  All of that is small arms.  How about concealed carry without a permit?

Yes, we have compromised too much already.   

[Roadog]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

When the 2nd amendment was written, weren't "arms" single shot black powder rifles ?

They were. And those guns were the top of the line, top of technology, as good as or better than the military guns of the time. They were the AR of that era. The founders could have specified only "match locks" or "pin locks" or "muskets" or some other limitation. Instead they intended the American people to have the best firearms currently available. Just as we should and do, now.

Then why not grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons ? Aren't those arms ?

IMHO that was the most ridiculous statement of this thread .   If that maggot couldn't get his hands on an AR 15, he would have used a backpack bomb or a pressure cooker bomb ect. to kill everyone in the place.   He just wanted to commit jihad ,  and he did.  Another unsafe gun free zone .

Roadog

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm all about compromise. As a matter of fact, the citizens have compromised quite a bit.

Although the 2nd Amendment originally covered all arms. Now it's been defined as limiting full-auto firearms, with a few difficult and expensive exceptions solely to the realm of government.

The rest including all semi-autos are in the realm of civilian ownership.

I don't necessarily like that compromise but I can live with it for now.

That's all the compromise citizens should ever be required to accept. Any new firearms related laws should expand our firearms freedoms, not erode them. 

When the 2nd amendment was written, weren't "arms" single shot black powder rifles ?

They were. And those guns were the top of the line, top of technology, as good as or better than the military guns of the time. They were the AR of that era. The founders could have specified only "match locks" or "pin locks" or "muskets" or some other limitation. Instead they intended the American people to have the best firearms currently available. Just as we should and do, now.

Then why not grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons ? Aren't those arms ?

IMHO that was the most ridiculous statement of this thread .   If that maggot couldn't get his hands on an AR 15, he would have used a backpack bomb or a pressure cooker bomb ect. to kill everyone in the place.   He just wanted to commit jihad ,  and he did.  Another unsafe gun free zone .

Roadog

Maybe, I can think of a few others though. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Arms, from then till now, in common parlance, meant small arms: pistols, knives, swords, clubs, and rifles, shotguns.  It also generally means man-portable.  No one reasonably reads the 2d A as covering artillery, cannon, mortars, tanks, nukes, missiles, subs, ships, or even hand grenades or mines (explosive devices).   

As Mike aptly pointed out, the flintlock muskets of the revolution (and perhaps some rifled barrels) were the state of the art small arms of the day.  The 2d A means the people are entitled to the same small arms in use by police and military.  Since all power resides in the people, the idea was to keep the playing field equal with govt forces.  We were deprived of full automatics in the 1930s, unconstitutionally.  We will therefore never give up mag fed semiautos.......... unless of course the police and military want to give them up (and of course they won't, so neither will we).

And just for grins, take a look at state and local laws strictly limiting knives, swords, clubs, nupchucks, brass knuckles, kubaton, throwing stars, yada.  All of that is small arms.  How about concealed carry without a permit?

Yes, we have compromised too much already.   

So then Jess we can agree there are limits. The real question then is figuring out where they should be. In reality we are not that far apart in where we think it is. And to me that is the most frustrating part of this debate. We as a people can figure a reasonable solution. But our representatives are impotent to even try. I truly think you and I could sit down and find some solutions to help. But alas we are just an old broken down butcher and an old retired lawyer. 

[..]

Facts!
Facts?
We done need no steenkin facts!

[Jess from VA]

Arms, from then till now, in common parlance, meant small arms: pistols, knives, swords, clubs, and rifles, shotguns.  It also generally means man-portable.  No one reasonably reads the 2d A as covering artillery, cannon, mortars, tanks, nukes, missiles, subs, ships, or even hand grenades or mines (explosive devices).   

As Mike aptly pointed out, the flintlock muskets of the revolution (and perhaps some rifled barrels) were the state of the art small arms of the day.  The 2d A means the people are entitled to the same small arms in use by police and military.  Since all power resides in the people, the idea was to keep the playing field equal with govt forces.  We were deprived of full automatics in the 1930s, unconstitutionally.  We will therefore never give up mag fed semiautos.......... unless of course the police and military want to give them up (and of course they won't, so neither will we).

And just for grins, take a look at state and local laws strictly limiting knives, swords, clubs, nupchucks, brass knuckles, kubaton, throwing stars, yada.  All of that is small arms.  How about concealed carry without a permit?

Yes, we have compromised too much already.   

So then Jess we can agree there are limits. The real question then is figuring out where they should be. In reality we are not that far apart in where we think it is. And to me that is the most frustrating part of this debate. We as a people can figure a reasonable solution. But our representatives are impotent to even try. I truly think you and I could sit down and find some solutions to help. But alas we are just an old broken down butcher and an old retired lawyer. 

In my opinion, the solution is aggressive use of the laws we already have (and have had for many years).  Take a look at Project Exile used in Richmond VA in 1997 (an NRA initiative) (and other cities).  Using existing laws to reduce firearm violence by career felons.  It worked better than anything, but was politically unpopular in the cities where most of your violent career felons reside (and where the most lenient sentences exist).

I also think the immigration policy of an open southern border, non reinforcement of existing immigration law, and unfettered and unvetted immigration from the middle east is suicide for this country, and will exponentially increase violent crime for the coming decades.  Can you imagine living on the southern border without firearms?  You're a lot closer to it than I am.

New laws is just a smoke and mirror facade, as it is in nearly any avenue.  Passing laws and regulations does not change human behavior (but it makes for great sound bites, and reelections, and wasted tax dollars).  The carrot and the hammer does, both with children and adults.

Clearly there is a breakdown in mental health management in this country.  We can no longer lock people up who are nuts, if they don't seem to be a danger to themselves or others at the time of their hearings.  And the crazy (as a class) are entitled to due process like everyone else.  But there are so many of them (indeed there are simply too many humans, everywhere).  Old quote:  God must love crazy people... he makes so many of them.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=3192&issue_id=112013

http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/profile38.html

[98valk]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1172715/posts

[RP#62]

Neither the existing or new laws will work as long as those charged to enforce the laws hands are tied by political correctness.  A TSA friend of mine was telling me that they were not allow to look like they are interested in the people that they are interested in.  You hear similar things from the border patrol, the FBI, etc.  If they were allowed to do their jobs, they would do their jobs.

-RP

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

On a related topic. I have to say, in my opinion, a president who imports thousands of homophobic, homicidal lunatics into our country, then reacts by disarming law-abiding citizens when his lunatics or their disciples commit crimes is not protecting our people, he's committing treason. November can't come soon enough.

[fudgie]

No mentions of banning the mini-14 

[Serk]

No mentions of banning the mini-14 

Of course not... As they've shown over and over again, liberals are the most racist folks out there, they wanna get rid of the black ones first.