DaVinci

Say, like a hunter owning firearms? In Johns defence, he doesn't advocate the abolishment, or even confiscation of your fire arm. He just thinks it should be as difficult to acquire one as, say, for instance, a Doctorate in Psychology. I'm not convinced he would allow just Master Degree holders be eligible, but doctorates, absolutely, my guess is cuz he are one. So then he would be fine if some religious nutbag demanded that gay people go through a background check and say 100 hours of education and continuing checks before they are allowed to marry?

Indeed, but no effective process in place to enforce it. Courtesy of the gun lobby, which emasculates any and every effort to establish an effective process. That's not true at all. You're saying they don;t do enuf checks before a felon can get a gun -- we're saying when a felon is CAUGHT WITH A GUN there damm sure is a way to enforce the the law -- PROSECUTE HIM! .. Nonsense! They aren't convicted felons UNTIL they've been prosecuted and found guilty. Then after getting released they can avoid any background check on gun purchases with trivial ease because the gun lobby opposes any effort to tighten the checks, most recently after the Newtown massacre. The guy in Chicago was convicted TWICE of a felony and only got 'boot camp'. . Already corrected. Do try to keep up, dear boy. Yes, but you skipped this part "The guy in Chicago was convicted TWICE of a felony and only got 'boot camp'. ....Why are you not working on fixing THAT? " To date, you have offered no suggestion on how to fix the real problem... Preferring to offer up strawmen.

Sure it is. It is not an accident only if I intended to shoot THAT person. Shooting Aunt Mae would be an accident. Try to follow along... It is not that difficult. First the TOPIC of the THREAD is "Armed Citizens stopping mass shootings" That right there would give a rational person a clue to what the topic of the thread is. Next, lets dive into the discussion. Someone writes: "Someone with a gun but without that training might potentially do more harm than good, especially if they are a little bit gung ho about "taking out" the terrorists" This seems to fit in with the TOPIC OF THE THREAD... So when I reply: "And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse......." Then you reply with something about cops.... But again, this is not about cops, the thread is titled "ARMED CITIZENS STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS". So when I reply to you: "Police != armed citizens. Police HAVE to intervene... Civilians do not. A swing and a miss" Then you bring in accidental shootings... so YOU tried to change the topic. The topic of the thread is very clearly citizens stopping MASS shootings.

There is no reason to keep them. Criminals who are surveyed also claim they do not buy guns legally anyway. And it didn't stop anything in VT, CO, AZ, CT, or DC. The idea that universal background checks will do anything is a fallacy sold to soccer moms to make them feel like something is being done. You want to stop violent crime? 1. Violent criminals should serve real time. 2. Repeat violent criminals should never see the light of day. 3. A felon that is in possession of a firearm should never see the light of day. 4. And this is the biggie, make life better for inner city urban youths 13-29. Making my buddy go through a background check so I can sell him a shotgun will do nothing. Just look at the Chicago shooting... Can't own a weapon (1). Can't own an "assault weapon" (2), can't carry a weapon (3), can shoot at people (4). I also bet the shooter didn't have an IL gun owner ID card (5) None of the gun control laws suggested would have stopped the park shooting in Chicago.

Say, like a hunter owning firearms?

A great question. Article 12 encourages encourages registration and for the records to be delivered to the nation that made the firearm... So I buy a Beretta shotgun and that information is not only recorded in the US (Illegal under US law) but also given to Italy. Further it encourages Countries like Italy to not sell weapons to Countries that are not signatories. So in essence Beretta is not supposed to sell weapons to the US.... A shame since I really want a Silver Pigeon III at some point for skeet shooting. That is just one example.

Having a hard time understanding "Shall not be infringed"? Besides the USSC has already ruled a ban on an entire class of weapons commonly used for legal reasons would not be constitutional.

Yes, how dare the Senate actually uphold the Constitution!!!!

Indeed, but no effective process in place to enforce it. Courtesy of the gun lobby, which emasculates any and every effort to establish an effective process. That's not true at all. You're saying they don;t do enuf checks before a felon can get a gun -- we're saying when a felon is CAUGHT WITH A GUN there damm sure is a way to enforce the the law -- PROSECUTE HIM! .. Nonsense! They aren't convicted felons UNTIL they've been prosecuted and found guilty. Then after getting released they can avoid any background check on gun purchases with trivial ease because the gun lobby opposes any effort to tighten the checks, most recently after the Newtown massacre. Nonsense! They were already convicted felons before they got caught applying to get a gun! Then when they got caught with a gun the gov't couldn't be bothered to prosecute them for it because they don't seem to have a problem with felons breaking the law! Sorry, I misunderstood your time line. I agree a felon with a gun needs to go away for a LONG time. But that is after the fact. The gun lobby has ensured that said felon can obtain a gun with trivial ease. That needs to stop. Didn't happen in Chicago. Two time felon was given 'boot camp' instead of being thrown under the jail. See, we can agree. A Violent felon caught with a weapon should never see the light of day again. Why are you not working on fixing THAT?

Both. The problem is the DOJ prosecutes WAY less than 1% of the reported issues.

Indeed, but no effective process in place to enforce it. Courtesy of the gun lobby, which emasculates any and every effort to establish an effective process. That's not true at all. You're saying they don;t do enuf checks before a felon can get a gun -- we're saying when a felon is CAUGHT WITH A GUN there damm sure is a way to enforce the the law -- PROSECUTE HIM! .. Nonsense! They aren't convicted felons UNTIL they've been prosecuted and found guilty. Then after getting released they can avoid any background check on gun purchases with trivial ease because the gun lobby opposes any effort to tighten the checks, most recently after the Newtown massacre. The guy in Chicago was convicted TWICE of a felony and only got 'boot camp'. Funny you mention New Town... You do know that the shooter tried to buy a gun and stopped when he was going to have to go though a background check..... right? You also know that no background check could have prevented the shooter since his MOM bought the guns and he KILLED her and STOLE them... right? You also know that VT, Aurora, and the Navy Yard all PASSED the background check to claim will fix everything? The problem is in the reporting, not the lack of background checks. You can't legally buy an 'assault weapon' in Chicago... Yet the park shooters had one. So your claims are bogus.

Oh look more personal attacks from you... It seems it is the best you can do. No, you claimed you didn't want to get into semantics.... then tried to get into semantics... Hypocrisy score 10/10. And yet... More personal attacks... Proving once again that it is the best you can do.

And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse....... . I can certainly find examples of armed police making things worse. Police != armed citizens. Police HAVE to intervene... Civilians do not. A swing and a miss Funny how you snipped this sentence: "And we have examples of armed civilians shooting people they thought were intruders, but in fact were just visitors or even family members." Funny how you ignored the first part. Yes, accidents happen. No law will prevent this. Maybe you should state what law you think would prevent it. Because it is pretty clear that you don't want honest citizens to own weapons. But please, tell me what law would prevent the type of accident you brought up. Just answering the question YOU asked: "And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse....... " Short memory you have. Try to keep up. Talking about accidents in the home vs someone in a public setting trying to help is not the same thing. To put it very simply for you... You have no significant data where an armed person trying to help a mass shooting made things worse. Try to keep your arguments straight. I feel you are doing this on purpose since you know your position is lacking. And you ignored this, " Maybe you should state what law you think would prevent it. " So please, pretty please with sugar on top.... What law do you suggest that would prevent accidental shootings when people sneak into a house?

Yet another fundraising ploy by the NRA to extract $$$ from the fearful. "The UN Boogeyman is coming for your guns!" I thought Obama was coming for your guns? That is SO 2008. The NRA (along with the gun manufacturers it represents) probably extracted all the $$$ it's going to get out of that scare. So it needs a new boogeyman to keep the $$$ flowing in. You are saying Obama DIDN'T call for a ban on an entire type of weapon? Cause... He did.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you? Ah look, personal attacks.... This the best you can do? Ahh this is the whole heart of the thread right here. Is it OK to tell a bat-shit crazy person they are bat-shit crazy? If so is it OK to do something to help ensure the bat-shit crazy person cannot have access to guns? Or is it a personal attack on them? When they are judged mentally deficient by Dr's and/or ruled by legal methods... then it is perfectly fine to label a person as mentally deficient. What is not allowed is you you to claim I am, or me to claim you are and have that result in the loss of your rights. See, you may claim I am so I should not be allowed to own guns. But then I could claim you are and have your right to vote removed. See the problem? And even you must admit that in the past claiming the person was not capable of higher thinking has been a reason to deny or remove rights from them. "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln–Douglas Debates of 1858 All one really needs to do is look at the voter suppression in the 40,50,60's to see it. But while that bothers you, the idea of restricting gun rights IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER does not.

Ah look.... you went personal again.... How surprising But all I really have to do is read what you type to know what you want to do.

The problem is you have never said how EXACTLY you want to do this. Other than your "look it up" claims. Neither. But just like you claimed that you should not have to go through paperwork and background checks to fly toy rockets.... Honest citizens should not have to jump through hoops to own firearms. Not a difficult concept, honest citizens should not be subjected to bull shit just to make you feel better. The VT shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors. The Aurora shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors. Giffords shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors. The Navy yard shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors. Your solution? Make everyone pass a background check. Well if it didn't work there.... What makes you think it works at all? Fact is all you really want to do is to make it difficult and expensive to own a firearm. Simple put... If you would not accept the SAME process in voting as to own a firearm, your agenda is crystal clear. And it is not to reduce violence. The FBI crime data shows that 90% of gun crimes are black males 13-29 in cities with populations over 250k. So maybe you should look at that demographic rather than try to make every gun owner in the US jump through whatever hoop you can dream up.

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ. I guess you are in the new world?

Once again... Personal attacks.... That the best you have?

No way it makes it through THIS Senate. The problem with this bill is two fold: 1. It does not go away till it is "unsigned". So it can be voted on at any time. 2. It can be used to allow more executive branch decisions to support it... Even if it is not voted on, the Executive branch can use it as a reason from more restrictions.

It is already illegal. And you have stated several times that criminals are going to get guns. Of course they are, because people like YOU oppose every effort to make it difficult for felons to get guns. Making something illegal without any effective way of enforcing the law is the same as having no law at all. Oh look.... More personal crap... The best you have? I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of felons... I am not however going to join you and remove or restrict a right from honest citizens to make that happen. I have to stand up to people like you, people who want nothing more than to remove the right from honest citizens. You claim to care about the victims, but all you really want it to make us all disarmed because of your personal fear of firearms. It is evidenced in the fact you refuse to state clearly what you would like.... Instead you make claims of already saying it... Once years ago... Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

Here we go. Your reply was not generic, but I don't care to argue semantics with you. It is interesting to note, however, that the 2nd says the right of the people ... shall not be infringed. It doesn't say citizens. A literal interpretation would imply that illegal aliens have the same right to be armed as any citizen. Huh, you claim to not want to argue semantics... Then you start. Hypocrisy score 10/10

Indeed, but no effective process in place to enforce it. Courtesy of the gun lobby, which emasculates any and every effort to establish an effective process. There is a background check process in pace. It has been emasculated because the laws are not being followed. Each of the mass shooters had a history if it had been reported would have prevented them from buying a weapon. But even with all the current laws, the Newtown shooter would not have been stopped. The problem is with the reporting, not the current laws. You don't like citizens owning firearms... It is clear with every post you make. It is clear with every suggestion you make. It is clear with every argument you make. You care less about disarming violent criminals than you do honest citizens.

And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse....... . I can certainly find examples of armed police making things worse. Police != armed citizens. Police HAVE to intervene... Civilians do not. A swing and a miss Funny how you snipped this sentence: "And we have examples of armed civilians shooting people they thought were intruders, but in fact were just visitors or even family members." Funny how you ignored the first part. Yes, accidents happen. No law will prevent this. Maybe you should state what law you think would prevent it. Because it is pretty clear that you don't want honest citizens to own weapons. But please, tell me what law would prevent the type of accident you brought up.

You replied to ME and avoided my question with some distraction about lawmakers. "For being a felon and getting caught using a firearm after being a felon... He was sent to a 'boot camp'. Why was this repeat offender ever let out into society again? A violent criminal should never be in a free society. If a violent criminal is caught with a firearm or committing another violent crime, they should never see the light of day again." Be honest and admit you made a mistake.