The Challenge is made: Gun Control

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Logical conclusion. Funny people, they would rather spend lots of government money Reacting to gun crimes in progress, than try and stop crime before it happens. Like Waco, who argued for days that a Church Murderer had the ''right'' not to be asked to take off his coat, where he had a gun concealed, and had the ''liberty'' to enter a private Church and murder 2 people. Nope, just wait until the Shooter starts killing, THEN you can respond.

I think we should start stopping frisking and arresting Asians in case they are part of human trafficing. You know... get 'em before the crime is committed.

If it saves just one girl am I right?

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by texassapper

I think we should start stopping frisking and arresting Asians in case they are part of human trafficing. You know... get 'em before the crime is committed.

If it saves just one girl am I right?

No. Wrong as usual.

It would help if you had any familiarity with the Case I'm talking about. You don't, but I posted the details over and over. You will never agree with my conclusion, because your narrative is to disagree no matter what.

And that makes you soft on crime. In the name of liberty. Hahahaha!

[dilbert firestorm]

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

...Nope, just wait until the Shooter starts killing...

Not to be too technique, but uhhmmm Shooter is a past tense word. You are not a shooter until you have shot. So tell us more of this Minority Report pre-crime method of which you advocate Comrade.

Seems to me, your opinion, as opposed to point of fact, is that someone with a gun is automatically a mass murder by having possession of a gun. Therefore, what you really want is no possession of a gun being allowed. Nice try Comrade. Tell Robert Francis O'Rourk to go blow chunks when you see him.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Seems to me, your opinion, as opposed to point of fact, is that someone with a gun is automatically a mass murder by having possession of a gun. Therefore, what you really want is no possession of a gun being allowed. Nice try Comrade.

Seems to me that deliberate mental retardation is a position you chose recently, as opposed to it being a legitimate birth
Stain.

Why bother saying I want no guns? Can't you debate without absurd calculation? I am more pro-gun than you are (and your soft on crime comrade, waco). I wanted the Church Security to take charge and stop murder. Fuck, he was as armed as the Shooter, but pussied out before 2 were murdered. What good is your own gun when you sit back and watch the other armed guy kill innocent people?

[Salty Again]

... We Australians have a trite saying:

"Tis' better to have a gun and loss then have no gun at all."

### Salty

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

...
Why bother saying I want no guns? Can't you debate without absurd calculation? ...

You the one saying it. You're pre-crime BS. IF they shoot, they should get shot. If they survive, it's off to Siberia or worse yet - Newark for life.

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

...What good is your own gun when you sit back and watch the other armed guy kill innocent people?

Would not be my experience.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Spit or swallow??

Bipartisan Gun Deal Announced: No ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, No Raised Minimum Rifle Age

A bipartisan group of senators announced a deal on gun control legislation Sunday in the wake of recent mass shootings — though the compromise excludes President Joe Biden’s “assault weapons” ban and a raised minimum age for rifle purchases.

The deal includes Republican priorities such as expanded mental health services and school safety. It nods to Democratic priorities by adding expanded background checks for those under the age of 21, who will now have juvenile records screened before gun purchases.

A press released from the bipartisan group outlines the contours of the proposed legislation (original emphasis) :

BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS ANNOUNCE AGREEMENT

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Cory Booker (D- N.J.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) issued the following statement:

“Today, we are announcing a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country. Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities. Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons. Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense proposal into law.”The proposal includes:Support for State Crisis

Intervention Orders
● Provides resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others, consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections.

Investment in Children and Family Mental Health Services
● National expansion of community behavioral health center model; major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery.

Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
● Convicted domestic violence abusers and individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders are included in NICS, including those who have or have had a continuing relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.

Funding for School-Based Mental Health and Supportive Services
● Invests in programs to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including: early identification and intervention programs and school based mental health and wrap-around services.

Funding for School Safety Resources
● Invests in programs to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools, support school violence prevention efforts and provide training to school personnel and students.

Clarification of Definition of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer
● Cracks down on criminals who illegally evade licensing requirements.

Telehealth Investments
● Invests in programs that increase access to mental and behavioral health services for youth and families in crisis via telehealth.

Under 21 Enhanced Review Process
● For buyers under 21 years of age, requires an investigative period to review juvenile and mental health records, including checks with state databases and local law enforcement.

Penalties for Straw Purchasing
● Cracks down on criminals who illegally straw purchase and traffic guns.

It is unclear whether the proposal can pass the 60-vote threshold required to defeat a legislative filibuster in the Senate — or whether the “progressive”-led Democratic caucus in the House would pass what they would see as a watered-down bill.

[1blackman1]

Now all they need is 10 republicans.

[dilbert firestorm]

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

At least two, not counting the fact there are only 3 fingers

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

[tman1847]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Seems to me that deliberate mental retardation is a position you chose recently, as opposed to it being a legitimate birth
Stain.

Why bother saying I want no guns? Can't you debate without absurd calculation? I am more pro-gun than you are (and your soft on crime comrade, waco). I wanted the Church Security to take charge and stop murder. Fuck, he was as armed as the Shooter, but pussied out before 2 were murdered. What good is your own gun when you sit back and watch the other armed guy kill innocent people?

I think a lot of people have a big misunderstanding about CCP or CCW. To many states now allow “conceal and carry” without proper training.

95% of the class covers the legal responsibility of being armed. And the main point is that you can not pull your weapon unless your life is in imminent danger.

It’s 11 p.m. and you hear a noise outside, grab your Glock and go outside to discover someone breaking into your car. Stealing your shit or maybe the car. You can not shoot them unless they are an imminent threat to your life.

If you shoot them, your legally responsible. If you miss and hit and damage something else, your legally responsible for that as well.

So, a CCW permit holder or church security see a person holding a weapon. They can tell them to “drop the gun” but when are they able to shoot them? You are at the mercy of the court system.

CCW was never meant to be a mobile police force. But the libs hate the fact when a “good person” with a gun stops a “bad person” with a gun. They do everything possible to keep those events from being publicized.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]