Again, I own 3 guns and have had a  lifetime permit to carry a gun for a long time.

I strongly support gun ownership. 

That was the best speech content of Biden's life and I've seen at least, many hundreds by him.

If we can't get the 2 parties to agree on something this no brainer and that the majority of American people want.............it's a pretty sad commentary on our politics.

Why Republicans Won’t Budge on Guns

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans support some restrictions on firearms, but G.O.P. lawmakers fear they would pay a steep political price for embracing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/republicans-gun-control.html

WASHINGTON — The calculation behind Republicans’ steadfast opposition to any new gun regulations — even in the face of the kind of unthinkable massacre that occurred Tuesday at an elementary school in Texas — is a fairly simple one for Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

Asked Wednesday what the reaction would be from voters back home if he were to support any significant form of gun control, the first-term Republican had a straightforward answer: “Most would probably throw me out of office,” he said.

His response helps explain why Republicans have resisted proposals such as the one for universal background checks for gun buyers, despite remarkably broad support from the public for such plans — support that can reach up to 90 percent nationwide in some cases.

The reality is that that 90 percent figure probably includes some Republicans who are open to new laws, but would not clamor for them or punish a lawmaker for failing to back them, and the 10 percent opposed reflect the sentiments of the G.O.P. base, which decides primary contests and is zealous in its devotion to gun rights.

The political threat from any perceived support for gun restrictions was on display just this week in a hotly contested Senate Republican primary race in Alabama.

Mike Durant, an Army helicopter pilot once considered a contender for the Senate nomination, was reproached by his opponents for an 11-year-old speech in which he seemed to suggest that disarming an urban population would be a step toward reducing crime.

“Mike Durant — dangerously wrong on guns,” said one attack ad.

Mr. Durant said his remarks, made at the Army War College, were related to the civil war in Somalia, where he had piloted a helicopter in the famous Black Hawk Down incident, and were being twisted and taken out of context. But the damage was done, and the attack was considered a factor in his finishing third on Tuesday, in a contest whose victor was all but certain to be elected. Such outcomes are not lost on other Republicans.

What follows is a word for word copy paste rant of a lifetime dedicated teacher I worked with back in the day:

"I can’t believe I am still seeing posts about arming teachers. I don’t care about your stance on gun control or gun rights, that is just positively insane. Schools are chaotic places under the very best of circumstances. If I listed the amount of crisis situations school staff handles on a daily basis you literally wouldn’t believe me. Funny how we aren’t trusted to select reading materials or decide what can be discussed in class, but suddenly it’s ok for us to be locked and loaded around children. I know people are used to teachers filling in for counselors, nurses, parents and custodians when needed, but we aren’t going to be armed guards and human shields too."

President Biden calls for assault weapons ban and other measures to curb gun violence

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102660499/biden-gun-control-speech-congress

President Joe Biden called for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines or for the age to buy a gun to be raised from 18 to 21 if they can't be banned and other measures to curb gun violence in the United States.  

Biden delivered a prime time address for the second time in 10 days following recent mass shootings to call on Congress to pass legislation aimed at curbing gun violence in the United States.

   The remarks came the day after the 233rd mass shooting in the U.S. this year took place in Tulsa, Okla., that resulted in five people dead including the shooter at Saint Francis Hospital.                                    

This was a week after 19 students and two teachers were killed, and 17 others  injured at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas.

   And a little over two weeks after 10 people were killed and three others were injured during a racist attack at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y.

    "There are too many other schools, too many other day places that have become killing fields, battlefields here in America," Biden said Thursday evening. "The issue we face is one of consciousness and common sense... I want to be very clear. This is not about taking away anyone's guns. It's not about vilifying gun owners."

metmike: He also called for stricter background checks and better regulations  on the red-flag gun control system. Every single proposal makes complete sense but many on the other side, are not wiling to even debate/discuss it and not willing to help make our country safer by adjusting anything related to guns.

The "guns don't kill people, people do"  narrative is so jaw dropping absurd, that it's biggest value, is when we  try to psycho-analyze people that actually think that way to justify this non negotiable position............to  figure out what's actually going on in their heads:

This is just one of dozens of studies that I randomly picked doing that below.........without reading thru it and agreeing with all the points.

It relates exactly to what Joj stated

Guns don’t kill people…: good guys and the legitimization of gun violence

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00673-x

The idea that any and all gun control policy must be resisted because it represents a fundamental threat to liberty is part of what Horwitz and Anderson (2009) call an “Insurrectionist” belief, according to which government must be kept in constant check by a heavily armed and vigilant citizenry. Such a view rests on a myth that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms for the purpose of violently overthrowing government, a position that is unsupported by the historical record: “Neither the Second Amendment nor an inchoate right to armed revolution allows for violent opposition to the policies of a democratically accountable government, even if some citizens view those policies as tyrannical” (Horwitz and Anderson, 2009, p. 110). As the authors explain, the Second Amendment was written not to empower individuals to resist government but to give states the right to form government-organized, democratically controlled militias.^{Footnote 1} Importantly, the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision—the first to interpret the Second Amendment as granting individuals the right to bear arms—does not preclude the state from enacting gun control laws.

Thanks joj!

so Senator MM comes along and does a way with the 2nd amendment. The new Senator aoc comes along and does away with free speech. The Senator Idiot Schumer cones along and does away with the supreme court who he has repeatably threatened .  already. Then come senator Feinstein who does away with freedom of the press so as to protect rich lib in congress. Next comes senator Dodd who does away with the '64 voting rights act because the libs never supported that in the first place. And what did all these brilliant people have in common. None of them cared very much for our constitution and all of them think they are far wiser than the wisest bunch of Americans ever, our founders.

Previous discussions here:

                Deadly shooting            

                            63 responses |    

                Started by metmike - May 24, 2022, 10:16 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/

                Guns, Lets Take a Poll                        

                12 responses |            

                Started by mikempt - May 29, 2022, 4:51 p.m.    

       https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84997/

Thanks much mcfarm,

Yes, that's one of the oddest things that republicans use to defend absolute gun rights with no room  for negotiating or adjustments, no matter what.

Their belief/justification is that if we/they give in to ANYTHING related to guns here, they will take away (from your own words) these items below.......and everything else:

1. The 2nd Amendment

2. Free Speech

3. The 1964 voting rights act

4. The Supreme Court

And I know that you honestly believe that too mcfarm.

That would be like claiming a speed limit for safety will lead to them taking away the right to drive at night or the right  to own a car. 

Guns laws are completely independent from voting laws which are independent from  free speech laws.

 This is a pathological  US vs THEM mentality that's especially convoluted in this case to have a meaning which justifies something using something else that has no significant connection.........except the connection completely imagined in the minds of the ones thinking it.

Added: The only idea that this authentically represents is that if republicans NEVER negotiate or make concessions with the democrats on anything and win every time, they can have their way on everything, every time......... no matter what.

That mentality is exactly what's very wrong in this country right now, making it mega divided/divisive.

And I am totally for people standing firm with a non compromising position when they are completely right and it helps MOST Americans or is good for our country or they are the ones willing to make the sacrifice for the principle or position.

But it's the opposite.

It's by the party that has control of something they don't want to give up.........for selfish reasons.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#85004

Such a silly notion that the founding fathers were so brilliant that we should apply the principles that they used 200+ years ago to their world(which was in fact brilliant then) , here in 2022 as if they had a crystal ball and took into account the next 500 years and wanted no deviations.

Maybe I should use that principle that you want applied to government/laws in weather forecasting too?

https://www.weather.gov/ict/NationalWeathermansDay

Use the same equipment and techniques that the father of US meteorology, John Jeffries used in those days to predict weather  (-:

Hannity had a ridiculous response, after showing a clip of Biden's speech tonight. 

He hearkened back to the days of Obama/Biden when he says they did nothing about the gun violence in Obama's hometown of Chicago.

Hugh?

That's the reason he gives for suggesting that Bidens pleas tonight are disingenuous and should be ignored. 

Like there's a law that says you only get a limited amount of chances to stop gun violence and it has to be in your own hometown first.

A person that stoops to using such embarrassing nonsense, more often than not, does that because they lack substantive authentic reasoning.......or else they would use it instead of using the nonsense.

At least heraldo called him and the republicans behavior here “appalling”

MM,  some friendly advice.    You have far to mcuh to learn, and far too many misconceptions to unlearn, to engage in an inteligent debate about gun control.

For example,   you love the term "Assault Weapon".    Could you define that for me?  Surely you have an extremely well grounded definition as you are all for banning them.

TIA.

Until you realize that gun control is not the real problem, it will always be a problem. And also a means to control your life by the government. Which is their goal. Whether you realise it or not.

No one can predict the crazy outcomes of mass violence from an individual. Such people have learned to hide their emotions, untl they feel that they have to act. But there are those who believe in a different system so much, that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives, to initiate a kneejerk reaction. They hope that you will be the ignorant fool.

This guy must read MarketForum  :-)

The dishonest gun control debate (msn.com)

If you support the Second Amendment, you've likely heard the nonsensical argument about "need," as if that is relevant in a discussion about constitutional rights. It doesn't matter if I "need" a new Glock 17 or an AR-15. The question is whether the Second Amendment protects my right to have one, and it does. Naturally, some people disagree, and it's worth having those debates, but only if they are willing to discuss the issue in good faith, and they often are not — hence the declaration that someone does not "need" a particular type of firearm.

"You have far to mcuh to learn, and far too many misconceptions to unlearn, to engage in an inteligent debate about gun control.

For example,   you love the term "Assault Weapon".    Could you define that for me?  Surely you have an extremely well grounded definition as you are all for banning them."

Thanks for the worn out "I'm the expert on guns and you're uneducated and it's your ignorance which is why you have this flawed position"  attack again.

You even used an example to mischaracterize me as loving the term "Assault Weapon" so that you could attack it and claim it's that weapon that I don't understand that I want to ban and asked me to define them so that you can educate me. 

Tim, there were 14 posts here and 63 posts  in the previous thread, 77 total. Please show me one time that metmike used the term "Assault Weapon" that according to you, I love. Somebody else using it in an article I posted doesn't count. 

What does me, defining a term that I never used here have to do with me needing a well grounded definition from you, the expert on that term?

"Until you realize that gun control is not the real problem, it will always be a problem. And also a means to control your life by the government. Which is their goal. Whether you realise it or not."

Thanks Mark,

It's the same, worn out expression of, this is just "a means to control your life by the government. Which is their goal" false narrative.

You must not have read any of the posts above, especially to mcfarm who actually gave some crazy imagined examples of all the other rights that would be stolen away if this independent, unrelated "right" was taken.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85198/#85209

The study from "Nature" was one of many from people that specialize in psychoanalysis that discussed an aspect of this flawed thinking with regards to misguided interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to justify the flawed thinking that you guys gave on the previous thread and both you guys have noted previously.

Scroll down on the page below. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85198/#85204

MM, so MM you are arguing that Biden and left crazies do not want to control the production of fossil fuels? They do no want to repeal the 2nd? Really? They are not fear mongering on roe v wade? Have you ever seen a tax passed that disappeared? Ever seen even a conservative state like Indiana lower our current 59 cent/gal gas tax? I could go on all night with the things the started with on a small scale that suddenly are suddenly larger than most countrys' gnp and you your reply is  "dpn't worry" the left really didn't mean what they promised to do to this country" sure thanks MM I fell as reassured as the day Bin laden promised misery on this country and 9-11 followed.

Thanks for the worn out "I'm the expert on guns and you're uneducated and it's your ignorance which is why you have this flawed position"  attack again.

Honestly MM,  you crack me up.  For someone who claims to hate strawmen arguments you rely heavily on them.

I have never claimed to be an expert on firearms, I just say you know very little.

As far as assault weapons,  if you don't use the term,  support the idea of banning them etc,  why do you insist on posting articles that headline with "Banning Assault Weapons" to support your argument? There's at least one example in this thread, and a quick scan would show several more.  You copied text from the articles that elaborated on the need to ban assault weapons.    But, according to you, that doesn't count?  <G>..      

Imagine the fun I could have linking and copying text from articles, then disclaiming any responsibility for it.   But I am nearly certain you would not accept that argument.  Why use it now? 

Anyway, asking you to define "assault weapon" is a trick question.  There is no such thing and anyone who gets within 20 feet of the term demonstrates their ignorance on the subject. It's a marketing term made up by democrats.

So, don't bother trying to define them. It would go no where as they do not exist.

Let's move on to your next flawed assumption.

"How could the founders have known what sort of weapons we'd have today? ".

See, it doesn't have any impact on the 2nd amenment anymore than the internet has an effect on the 1st.

Until I use the internet, or a weapon, to infringe on your rights,  it's none of your business. 

So I can have a basement full of AR-15's or pretty much any other weapon, and it has absolutely no influence on your rights.     It's really that simple.

Thanks mcfarm, 

So let me add these  new items to your list that you have specifically connected to this independent topic in order to just justify opposing gun legislation:

"Their belief/justification is that if we/they give in to ANYTHING related to guns here, they will take away (from your own words) these items below.......and everything else:"

1. The 2nd Amendment

2. Free Speech

3. The 1964 voting rights act

4. The Supreme Court

NEW items:

5. Fossil fuels

6. Gas taxes

7. Roe vs Wade

8. Specifically the will REPEAL the 2nd Amendment

mcfarm,

I know a thing or 2 or 100 things about this administration/parties objectives related to fossil fuels(or the other items on the list). Trust me, it has absolutely nothing to do with guns. You can read that  it 500 times someplace else or refuse to believe the truth because that belief gives you a reason to believe what you want to believe but that's totally on you. I did what I'm here for, which is providing the party independent,objective truth.

When team republican or team democrat matters more than the truth, the truths that contradict the party lines get trumped with group think and tribalism.

Again, I have been the one learning the most here as moderator. Others are welcome to participate in the learning to their hearts content!

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77012

Thanks for completely ignoring every word that I stated in the previous post and proceeding with the exact same flawed attack as if that post doesn't exist.

That's how it is on this topic....and many in politics. Just ignoring every item the other side says and continuing, like a conditioning during hypnosis to repeat the exact same false narratives and  with the faith of a religion. 

You will note, once again that I made all the relevant points long ago and am analyzing  behaviors and learning things from people all the time.

Changed to generalize and at least try to minimize the personal attack element(though some is unavoidable with specific responses)

I've learned a great deal about you as well MM.

Note.  I did not ignore everything you said. I merely pointed out how your actions contradict your words.

Thanks Tim!

Not only do 80-90% of Americans support sensible gun control legislation but a majority of NRA members do as well!

Not to mention cops who favor reducing the lethality of the weapons they face on the street.  (blue lives matter indeed)

But the do nothing GOP blocks it every time it comes up.  They are owned by the gun making lobby.

Washington DC is broken.  It's as simple as that.

Side bar for our constitutional experts out there.  Is there a line anywhere?  Are nukes guaranteed?  Are anti tank stingers guaranteed by the constitution?  I don't mean to be hyperbolic.  When the constitution was written the fire arms in production could get off 2 rounds per minute.  Where is the line?  ...and why?

where is the line you say. ever wonder why so many gun killings by mentally disturbed peoplehappen at "gun free zones"?

The line is,,   Can the weapon be legally used.   And that essentially means, can the weapon be used in a reasonable manner, with reasonable judgement/caution, without infringing on the rights of others.

That pretty much rules out nukes and quite a few other weapons.  Pretty sure you can buy a tank, but good luck getting it registered  and street legal.   Better have a really big yard and if you decide to fire a few rounds, assuming you can find any,   you better have a really really big yard or you're likely to get visited by a lot more than the police and they'll probably be driving F 16's

As far as common sense "gun laws", no one will argue that. Where the argument comes in is ..  just what do you mean by "common sense"?    Randomly banning weapons because of their appearance does not fit the bill for many.

Everyone I know supports background checks.  The flaw in those is exeplified by the Fla school shooting a few years back. The shooter had a long history of violence, some of it felonious, but they didn't want to hurt the kids chances for futrure success, so none of it was reported/recorded.  This was actually official policy.  Something about a pipeline from High School to Prison.  Anyway, this allowed him to easily pass the back ground check and easily buy the weapon.

This is not isolated.  There are lots of "loop holes" in data collection that leave too many gaps to make a back ground checks a viable solution.  Close those loop holes and you'll solve a lot of problems.

BTW.  Before I got my concealed carry, I had a waiting period of about 5-7 days from the time I bought a weapon till I could pick it up.  Some sort of red flag in my file, tho I can't imagine what it may be.  I'm told it might have something to do with my military background.

Cops want "less lethality" on the streets?    I got news for ya.  There are a lot of weapons with a hell of a lot more lethality than AR-15's that are never discussed.  The cops I know want criminals taken off the streets and kept off. Sadly,  that just doesn't happen.  I'm told that roughly 80% of the violent crimes in Atlanta are from a few 100 individuals.  They revolve through the system.  Why?  And is Atl unique?     I Bet it's not.  How about we take a look at that?  Seems like common sense to me.

But in the final, and this seems hard for many to comprehend..  It is morally and constitutionally wrong to deny the rights of the vast majority because of the actions of a tiny minority.    It's also likely inneffective.  The last thing that stops criminals/crazy people is laws.   Let's focis on the tiny minority and figure out why the hell they exist and what the hell to do about it.

BTW,  republicans have proposed  "Common sense laws" that have been blocked by ..  guess who?   But there is a marketing campaign going that has convinced a significant portion of our society that anything other than banning "assault weapons" is doing nothing.

This was a "common sense" gun law - check out which politicians rejected it (lawenforcementtoday.com)

Gun control: don't make me laugh ....

Robb Elementary School, site of massacre, will be razed, Uvalde mayor says

“You can never ask a child to go back or a teacher to go back in that school ever,” the mayor said hours after a top Texas official called the response to the shooting an "abject failure."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/robb-elementary-school-site-massacre-will-razed-uvalde-texas-mayor-say-rcna34696

The Uvalde, Texas, elementary school where a gunman killed 19 students and two teachers last month will be demolished, the city's mayor said.

Speaking during an emotional council meeting with residents Tuesday, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin said he did not believe any child or teacher should be asked to return to Robb Elementary School, where the deadly shooting unfolded May 24.

My understanding — and I had this discussion with the superintendent — that school will be demolished,” he said.