The problem is the legal gun owner who would likely shoot anyone may share a house with someone who may have mental health issues.

A reason why these incidents don't happen if ever in a lot of countries is that people with social issues would never be able to navigate the black market to get their hands on an illegal weapon.

We have a friend here in NC who was married to a girl who has serious mental health issues we thought she had worked through (turns out she's an excellent liar). He has several hunting rifles and a shotgun he had to store in a locked gun safe in a locked closet that she couldn't have any access to. Like a reinforced door she couldn't hack through if she went nuts. Local law enforcement could show up at any time to be sure his guns were locked down- he agreed to it when they married- which was a good idea for when she really did go bat crap crazy. All she could do in the end was take a rocking chair from the porch and break all of the windows she could reach from outside the house.

He wasn't in denial of the potential risk of her mental illness so he took precautions, though I can't say I'd agree to law enforcement showing up whenever. I think a big problem is people are willfully ignorant of the mental health issues in themselves or family members and have the "it will never happen to me/this family" mentality. That's dangerous.

She must have been a real sweetheart when she was 'normal' because I can't understand why he would marry her.

---

This is what I'd absolutely agree with. You buy a firearm 10 years ago, but go off the deep end 2 years ago, you still legally own a firearm even if you cant buy one now. I have no idea how to address that.

It would be a crack in the system, sure, but a slotted spoon can still scoop more gravel than no spoon at all.

Funny you don't accept that same argument when applied to a border wall.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It would be a crack in the system, sure, but a slotted spoon can still scoop more gravel than no spoon at all.

Funny you don't accept that same argument when applied to a border wall.

Bc a wall is a colossal waste of money. Adding those flags to a background check doesn't cost much.

---

IT WAS ALWAYS THE JAGS

Funny you don't accept that same argument when applied to a border wall.

Bc a wall is a colossal waste of money. Adding those flags to a background check doesn't cost much.

Expanding the background check will catch innocent people who don't deserve to be blocked from buying guns. And that's even excluding the possibility that the government abuses the system, which based on the FBI lately seems to be likely. OTOH, a wall does not exclude anyone who has the right to enter the US.

How big is "colossal"? The cost of a border wall might save money spent on other enforcement costs, medical costs, and education costs of those here illegally. It is much less than the money wasted on "renewable" energy. I guess that would then be a "gargantuan" waste.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Bc a wall is a colossal waste of money. Adding those flags to a background check doesn't cost much.

Expanding the background check will catch innocent people who don't deserve to be blocked from buying guns. And that's even excluding the possibility that the government abuses the system, which based on the FBI lately seems to be likely. OTOH, a wall does not exclude anyone who has the right to enter the US.

How big is "colossal"? The cost of a border wall might save money spent on other enforcement costs, medical costs, and education costs of those here illegally. It is much less than the money wasted on "renewable" energy. I guess that would then be a "gargantuan" waste.

The speak as the Left would have it, foreigners have rights while citizens do not.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We have a friend here in NC who was married to a girl who has serious mental health issues we thought she had worked through (turns out she's an excellent liar). He has several hunting rifles and a shotgun he had to store in a locked gun safe in a locked closet that she couldn't have any access to. Like a reinforced door she couldn't hack through if she went nuts. Local law enforcement could show up at any time to be sure his guns were locked down- he agreed to it when they married- which was a good idea for when she really did go bat crap crazy. All she could do in the end was take a rocking chair from the porch and break all of the windows she could reach from outside the house.

He wasn't in denial of the potential risk of her mental illness so he took precautions, though I can't say I'd agree to law enforcement showing up whenever. I think a big problem is people are willfully ignorant of the mental health issues in themselves or family members and have the "it will never happen to me/this family" mentality. That's dangerous.

She must have been a real sweetheart when she was 'normal' because I can't understand why he would marry her.

I've been around some pretty interesting people in my life but she takes the cake on being the most.....creative and imaginative liar. She had everyone fooled. Everyone. Watching her come unglued was like watching a slow motion version of Jekyll turning into Hyde. Seriously, a true nightmare.

---

What evidence is there to actually fear the situation you've described?   Confiscation of existing owners' weapons has been exclaimed over and over again to NOT be part of the agenda by those presenting any sort of reasonable legislation about vetting. 

Why live in so much fear that someone is coming for your guns when folks are simply seeking better vetting for new owners?   It's such a basic baby step that has nothing to do with your existing guns.

That's just not true the last speaker of the house Nancy Pelosie went on record a while back that if she could she would round up and confiscate every last firearm. 

Im not disagreeing this guy should've been flagged I'm just pointing out the statement that confiscation is not the end motive or result of most legislation is incorrect. I for one never want to live where only the state is armed. 

The landing is a gun free zone obviously laws didn't stop this nut job.

Even the most liberal politicians of any influence over the past two decades have publicly conceded numerous times that they realize they can't pull off any legislation that involves confiscation and many have plainly said "we're not coming for your guns." 

I find it odd how often this is ignored or twisted.

 I'm sure Pelosi has some "ideals" involving confiscation, but if asked point blank about the goals of specific legislation, even she would likely concede that confiscation is a fairy tale. Because it is a fairy tale. Gun ownership is too embedded in our constitution to allow for such legislation. The government coming for your guns is just something you're being told to fear by the gun lobby. And many folks, including my family and friends,  are all hook, line and sinker swallowing that crap.  I find it truly odd.

---

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

What evidence is there to actually fear the situation you've described?   Confiscation of existing owners' weapons has been exclaimed over and over again to NOT be part of the agenda by those presenting any sort of reasonable legislation about vetting. 

Why live in so much fear that someone is coming for your guns when folks are simply seeking better vetting for new owners?   It's such a basic baby step that has nothing to do with your existing guns.

1. History is replete with governments confiscating fire arms.  The results speak for themselves.  

2.  So you are saying that law abiding citizens don't need any protections?  We should just trust the establishment?  Is this across the board or only when it comes to the 2nd Amendment?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

What evidence is there to actually fear the situation you've described?   Confiscation of existing owners' weapons has been exclaimed over and over again to NOT be part of the agenda by those presenting any sort of reasonable legislation about vetting. 

Why live in so much fear that someone is coming for your guns when folks are simply seeking better vetting for new owners?   It's such a basic baby step that has nothing to do with your existing guns.

1. History is replete with governments confiscating fire arms.  

 Is our American history replete with it?

---

1. History is replete with governments confiscating fire arms.  

 Is our American history replete with it?

No, we have 6 major national legislative works on it since 1934 (NFA '34, FFA '38, GCA '68, Brady '93, and the now defunct '94 Assault Weapons Ban on the "restrict more" side) plus a host of state regulations that vary throughout the country. Which, frankly, is too many when the Constitution has that whole "shall not infringe" bit to it. If they want to take away Constitutional rights then modify the Constitution by its proper process so we can all know who is trying to do what. No more of this backroom compromise that leaves us open to micro-aggression against our rights.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's just not true the last speaker of the house Nancy Pelosie went on record a while back that if she could she would round up and confiscate every last firearm. 

Im not disagreeing this guy should've been flagged I'm just pointing out the statement that confiscation is not the end motive or result of most legislation is incorrect. I for one never want to live where only the state is armed. 

The landing is a gun free zone obviously laws didn't stop this nut job.

Even the most liberal politicians of any influence over the past two decades have publicly conceded numerous times that they realize they can't pull off any legislation that involves confiscation and many have plainly said "we're not coming for your guns." 

I find it odd how often this is ignored or twisted.

 I'm sure Pelosi has some "ideals" involving confiscation, but if asked point blank about the goals of specific legislation, even she would likely concede that confiscation is a fairy tale. Because it is a fairy tale. Gun ownership is too embedded in our constitution to allow for such legislation. The government coming for your guns is just something you're being told to fear by the gun lobby. And many folks, including my family and friends,  are all hook, line and sinker swallowing that crap.  I find it truly odd.

If you think the complete disarming of the civilian populace is not the agenda you either do not understand plain English or you are a willing participant in a treasonous deception to rob the people of their natural, civil and Constitutional right of self defense.

So which is it?

---

...The government coming for your guns is just something you're being told to fear by the gun lobby. And many folks, including my family and friends,  are all hook, line and sinker swallowing that crap.  I find it truly odd.

If you think the complete disarming of the civilian populace is not the agenda you either do not understand plain English or you are a willing participant in a treasonous deception to rob the people of their natural, civil and Constitutional right of self defense.

So which is it?

I do not believe that is the agenda of those allowed by our system of checks and balances to ultimately represent any large number of constituents. 

I do trust the system of checks and balances we have in place. It has proven effective time and time again to help moderate any "agendas" or trends in legislation that drift too far into dangerous territory. 

Extreme measures are difficult to implement in our system for a reason and the system works pretty darn well. 
It's the same system that kept Obama from going in a far more socialist direction than he did, and the same system that will likely prevent the current POTUS from building a border wall anywhere near the scale he's proposed. 

A confiscation legislation would be FAR, FAR more difficult to pass than many of the things we see commonly shut down by designed partisan voting.

---

I believe that every time you allow your government to change or amend one of your rights, you set a new precedent for the next time. I believe this eventually COULD lead to some sort of complete confiscation.
I believe that the right to bear arms was put in to protect citizen from government. As the whole bill of rights was written that way.
However.... this was long before tanks and bombs. And no matter how many guns we get as citizens... ARs and 22s, auto or semi.... can't and won't compete with the full force of our military unfortunately.
Even still... we should never go easily or quietly. And if people feel like situations are used as tools to push through political agendas for political gains... people should push back against that. It's why I'm against a lot of the regulation of size, or quanity... the focus should be on mental health, education, and training.

---

I believe that every time you allow your government to change or amend one of your rights, you set a new precedent for the next time. I believe this eventually COULD lead to some sort of complete confiscation.
I believe that the right to bear arms was put in to protect citizen from government. As the whole bill of rights was written that way.
However.... this was long before tanks and bombs. And no matter how many guns we get as citizens... ARs and 22s, auto or semi.... can't and won't compete with the full force of our military unfortunately.
Even still... we should never go easily or quietly. And if people feel like situations are used as tools to push through political agendas for political gains... people should push back against that. It's why I'm against a lot of the regulation of size, or quanity... the focus should be on mental health, education, and training.

And, to take it one step further, ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST.

---

I believe that every time you allow your government to change or amend one of your rights, you set a new precedent for the next time. I believe this eventually COULD lead to some sort of complete confiscation.
I believe that the right to bear arms was put in to protect citizen from government. As the whole bill of rights was written that way.
However.... this was long before tanks and bombs. And no matter how many guns we get as citizens... ARs and 22s, auto or semi.... can't and won't compete with the full force of our military unfortunately.
Even still... we should never go easily or quietly. And if people feel like situations are used as tools to push through political agendas for political gains... people should push back against that. It's why I'm against a lot of the regulation of size, or quanity... the focus should be on mental health, education, and training.

And, to take it one step further, ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST.

Not sure what laws aren't being enforced... if you're caught with a firearm you're not supposed to have I don't think cops are letting guys go.
If we could catch people selling firearms illegally without proper papers and processes I'm sure they'd be charged...

What laws are being ignored by law enforcement?

---

And, to take it one step further, ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST.

Not sure what laws aren't being enforced... if you're caught with a firearm you're not supposed to have I don't think cops are letting guys go.
If we could catch people selling firearms illegally without proper papers and processes I'm sure they'd be charged...

What laws are being ignored by law enforcement?

Not law enforcement, necessarily, but we continually hear about people buying guns that somehow slipped through the cracks of laws that are already in place that should've prevented them from getting them in the first place..  Or, in Florida's case, they weren't even doing background checks on some people as happened recently.

---

Not all the people who have access to guns are nuts - but all nuts have access to guns.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Not in Merica!

They already terk er jerbs they’ll never take mah gerns!

You really have no clue what the opposition is concerned about do you?  Ranger just spelled it out to you yet you missed it.  There is not one single sane gun advocate that is opposed to credible, unbiased background checks.  The issue is who administers them, and what protection is there against a rogue government hell bent on confiscation.  Just like most everything political these days, empathy is non-existent, and should someone disagree with "my" position they must be a mental midget and not worthy of civil discourse.

Not a South Park fan. Noted.

---

That's just not true the last speaker of the house Nancy Pelosie went on record a while back that if she could she would round up and confiscate every last firearm. 

Im not disagreeing this guy should've been flagged I'm just pointing out the statement that confiscation is not the end motive or result of most legislation is incorrect. I for one never want to live where only the state is armed. 

The landing is a gun free zone obviously laws didn't stop this nut job.

Even the most liberal politicians of any influence over the past two decades have publicly conceded numerous times that they realize they can't pull off any legislation that involves confiscation and many have plainly said "we're not coming for your guns." 

I find it odd how often this is ignored or twisted.

 I'm sure Pelosi has some "ideals" involving confiscation, but if asked point blank about the goals of specific legislation, even she would likely concede that confiscation is a fairy tale. Because it is a fairy tale. Gun ownership is too embedded in our constitution to allow for such legislation. The government coming for your guns is just something you're being told to fear by the gun lobby. And many folks, including my family and friends,  are all hook, line and sinker swallowing that crap.  I find it truly odd.

Just read a study from YouGov that said 82% of self-identified democrats favor banning semiautomatic weapons (almost all of them), and 

Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden, Cuomo, Clinton, Schumer, etc. etc. have all expressed interest in an outright ban or a ban on semiautomatic rifles. This doesn't include politicians that have shown unfettered support for the gun control protests that often ask for full confiscations. This isn't an isolated issue among certain democrats. This is a widely held view, and people like Clinton openly admit that she has a public view and a private view.

---

Even the most liberal politicians of any influence over the past two decades have publicly conceded numerous times that they realize they can't pull off any legislation that involves confiscation and many have plainly said "we're not coming for your guns." 

I find it odd how often this is ignored or twisted.

 I'm sure Pelosi has some "ideals" involving confiscation, but if asked point blank about the goals of specific legislation, even she would likely concede that confiscation is a fairy tale. Because it is a fairy tale. Gun ownership is too embedded in our constitution to allow for such legislation. The government coming for your guns is just something you're being told to fear by the gun lobby. And many folks, including my family and friends,  are all hook, line and sinker swallowing that crap.  I find it truly odd.

Just read a study from YouGov that said 82% of self-identified democrats favor banning semiautomatic weapons (almost all of them), and 

Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden, Cuomo, Clinton, Schumer, etc. etc. have all expressed interest in an outright ban or a ban on semiautomatic rifles. This doesn't include politicians that have shown unfettered support for the gun control protests that often ask for full confiscations. This isn't an isolated issue among certain democrats. This is a widely held view, and people like Clinton openly admit that she has a public view and a private view.

"expressed interest in" versus knowing damn well what they admittedly can't accomplish with actual legislation is the distinction I've already pointed out.  

Clinton (who I did not support BTW) even frankly stated in a 60 minutes interview of all places "I'm not coming for the guns of law abiding American citizens." 

I find it strange that statements like that, of which there have been many, cannot be taken at face value but must be painted as subterfuge.

I'm sure there are independent and liberal-leaning politicians out there that take harder lines than others on their approach to assault weapons and semi-auto rifles and wish to blur the line between the two. 
However  - I trust the constitution and the system of checks and balances in place to sort it out. I guess I'm patriotic that way.  I've witnessed no egregious infringement on the rights of gun owners in my lifetime and seriously doubt I ever will. 

Folks that live in fear of gun confiscation seem oddly fearful to me. I just don't see the reason to fear that, and believe me I've heard all about it from more than a dozen friends and family members.

---