Thoughts and Prayers

[moevillini]

Well, it is called an amendment, to be fair. I think it certainly could and will happen when today's youth starts voting. Do you read Reddit by chance?

It takes 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to take effect - - that just leaves 12 that can vote against ratification. (maybe 13, depending how DC fits into the equation)

But before it can even get to the ratification stage, it must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the US House and US Senate.

So no, it's not likely to happen any time soon.

 

[Archie Moses]

It takes 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to take effect - - that just leaves 12 that can vote against ratification. (maybe 13, depending how DC fits into the equation)

But before it can even get to the ratification stage, it must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the US House and US Senate.

So no, it's not likely to happen any time soon.

I bet it will happen within the next 10 to 20 years. Certainly, sometime in our lifetime.

 

[moevillini]

It takes 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to take effect - - that just leaves 12 that can vote against ratification. (maybe 13, depending how DC fits into the equation)

But before it can even get to the ratification stage, it must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the US House and US Senate.

and to clarify, states don't have to actually vote "against" ratification - - taking no action has essentially the same effect

 

[Rubashov]

I bet it will happen within the next 10 to 20 years. Certainly, sometime in our lifetime.

You're too old to have any hope Archie.

 

[Archie Moses]

You're too old to have any hope Archie.

Nah, dude. I have hope because I've seen our country and culture change so much over the course of my life. Sometimes change takes a while to happen, but in the grand scheme of things, we're rapidly changing.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Not sure if this has been discussed or not.

I think this is a really good option.

It would be if you did not take the position that gun ownership is a fundamental, individual right.

 

[babe]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Not sure if this has been discussed or not.

I think this is a really good option.

Ths is necessary common sense in many cases.... being on certain psycotropic drugs should be preceeded by such a GVRO stipulation, for example. Having association with certain types of FBI agents and CIA agents who are known to have megalomaniacal assignments with these fundamentally anti-US Constitutional agencies should be grounds for GVROs.....
These provisions would have stopped 27 of our last 30 mass shooting incidents....

hmmm...... wait..... we should end these kinds of government-paid-for lawbreaker agencies. All together.

#FBINOMO. #NOMOSPOOKS.

It would also be a good idea to have a PCRO for some people. A Political Candidacy Restraining Order. Such an order would make certain people ineligible to run for political office of any kind. If a person expresses belief in irrational anti-US Constitutional political ideologies like Marxism, for example. Or support for an anti-Constitutional fascist World Government that does not require officeholders to be subject to voter approval, election campaigns or oaths of affirmation of supporting fundamental human rights.... such as gun ownership, free speech, free assembly, limits on actions law enforcement officers can do... no warrantless search and seizure of private property(no tolerance for "war crimes" like the War on Drugs' asset forfeiture.

It would be great to get certifiable law-breaking loonies like Hillary Clinton out of our political life.

Another excellent idea is to require professionals who specialize in law enforcement and court work ineligible for public office in the legislative and executive branches of government. Too much conflict of interest, folks. These people have professionally taken up a sort of warfare against the rule of ordinary citizens in our country.

#NOMOCROOKS. #PEOPLE'SGOV.

We gotta take down our Administrative Courts.

(sigh) won't happen as long as we let government run our schools, as long as we retain tenure for insane college profs who teach communism/progressivism, and do not teach anyone about ordinary human rights and precautions against runaway governments.

 

[Archie Moses]

I'm not a fan of Trump, but since I'm willing to find common ground and I want what's best, or at least in my opinion, for our country, I approve of him trying to ban bump stocks.

Hopefully, next we'll see ARs banned. I get that to some they are fun to shoot at the range, but I don't get why anyone should own one.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm not a fan of Trump, but since I'm willing to find common ground and I want what's best, or at least in my opinion, for our country, I approve of him trying to ban bump stocks.

Hopefully, next we'll see ARs banned. I get that to some they are fun to shoot at the range, but I don't get why anyone should own one.

We don't even have automatic rifles banned...why would we ban AR-15's?

And why just AR's and not semi-automatic rifles. Is there a significant difference to you? Because there really isn't a difference at all.

 

[Archie Moses]

We don't even have automatic rifles banned...why would we ban AR-15's?

And why just AR's and not semi-automatic rifles. Is there a significant difference to you? Because there really isn't a difference at all.

1. Didn't reference AR 15s (to be completely honest, I don't know a lot about ARs.
2. I'm in favor of banning both. I'd rather see fully automatic banned first if I had to choose though.

 

[Gameface]

1. Didn't reference AR 15s (to be completely honest, I don't know a lot about ARs.
2. I'm in favor of banning both. I'd rather see fully automatic banned first if I had to choose though.

Because of all the crime and murder committed with fully automatic rifles?

 

[RandyForRubio]

1. Didn't reference AR 15s (to be completely honest, I don't know a lot about ARs.
2. I'm in favor of banning both. I'd rather see fully automatic banned first if I had to choose though.

AR's and AR-15's are usually used synonymously by most people, I just assumed you were doing the same. I think I'm order for people to actually be accurate, they should just say semi-automatic rifle. Of course, expecting people to be accurate when discussing banning things they clearly know nothing about is quite difficult.

I don't believe an automatic rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting (excluding war). Why should we ban them? We don't have a problem there.

 

[Archie Moses]

AR's and AR-15's are usually used synonymously by most people, I just assumed you were doing the same. I think I'm order for people to actually be accurate, they should just say semi-automatic rifle. Of course, expecting people to be accurate when discussing banning things they clearly know nothing about is quite difficult.

I don't believe an automatic rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting (excluding war). Why should we ban them? We don't have a problem there.

If we banned semi automatic guns and not fully automatic guns too, I'd imagine they'd be a great replacement option for a mass shooting or no?

Again, I'd like both banned first and foremost.

 

[Archie Moses]

Because of all the crime and murder committed with fully automatic rifles?

If it were up to me, they'd both be banned.

 

[RandyForRubio]

If we banned semi automatic guns and not fully automatic guns too, I'd imagine they'd be a great replacement option for a mass shooting or no?

Again, I'd like both banned first and foremost.

You have no idea how to purchase an automatic rifle, do you?

You should try to do a little research here before you call for banning things. Just a thought.

 

[Archie Moses]

You have no idea how to purchase an automatic rifle, do you?

You should try to do a little research here before you call for banning things. Just a thought.

You can buy one at age 18. There is no need to have an AR. They do more harm than good. I've done all the research I need to know I'm against owning one.

 

[moevillini]

Baby steps... but still, good news from the NYT, I'll add a link shortly

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that imposes a 10-day waiting period on firearms purchases.
As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for deciding not to hear the case. The court has turned away many Second Amendment cases in recent years, to the frustration of gun-rights groups and some conservative justices.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an impassioned 14-page dissent in the case, Silvester v. Becerra, No. 17-342. “As evidenced by our continued inaction in this area,” he wrote, “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.
The California law at issue in the new case was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which accepted the state’s arguments that the waiting period was justified by the need to conduct background checks and the desirability of a “cooling off” period for gun buyers inclined to commit immediate violence.

 

[RandyForRubio]

You can buy one at age 18. There is no need to have an AR. They do more harm than good. I've done all the research I need to know I'm against owning one.

List all the crimes committed with an automatic rifle.

Thanks!

 

[Archie Moses]

List all the crimes committed with an automatic rifle.

Thanks!

At least three too many...

Look, like I said before, I'm all for banning both semi and fully automatic rifles. Yeah, I said I'd ban automatics first if I had to choose and I realize I should have said semis. That said, I can not think of a reason anyone should own one - both semi or fully auto. I can think of plenty of why the shouldn't though.
I own guns and have my whole life, but evidently, there needs to be some sort of change. I'd be happy to give up my guns if the government asked and I just put in for four hunts. Yeah, it sucks I think this way for the many responsible AR gun owners. I just value life and realize there needs to be changes or we're going to keep repeating mass shootings in the US. I also understand and value opposing opinions.

 

[♪alt13]

One important factoid to remember, polls consistently indicate that 85 percent of Americans support gun control. Only 3 percent of the population owns 50 percent of the guns. Gun nuts are the minority. Much like trump supporters, they’re the loud yet mobilized minority.

It’s time for the majority to become just as engaged and wipe this scum out. We need sensible gun control, fair economic and tax policy, immigration that makes sense, science-driven environmental policy, and a leader who will stand up to cyber warfare from Russia.

Why do you make **** up even when there is an argument to be made? Pulling **** out of your *** doesn't help your case.

"Sixty-six percent of Americans want stricter gun control laws — the highest level recorded by Quinnipiac University since it started polling the issue after Sandy Hook."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/amp/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686