But to change a rule for the purpose of obtaining a particular result requires a showing of very serious need and no other way to obtain it.


Got it. So appointing federal judges is a very serious need and no other way to obtain it.

Gun Laws: Mass shootings every day. Trying for Decades to convince the GOP new laws will work has failed. Is that not serious. Do you think the GOP is going to change their mind?


Add Abortion Rights and Climate change. I guess dead kids, women, and our environment are the cost of protecting civil discourse in the upper chamber. Thank god the democrats took the chance and secured those federal judges!

You obviously support changing the rules here in order to pass common sense gun laws. I hope you contact your members of Congress to let them know how you feel.

Here is Cathy’s link which is very easy to use. I used it to contact mine.

https://www.nea.org/...on-sense-gun-reforms

You obviously support changing the rules here in order to pass common sense gun laws. I hope you contact your members of Congress to let them know how you feel.


My member of congress is Pelosi's lap dog. He only listens to her. But I hope you contact your Senator to let them know how you feel about their endless finger pointing and demand passing common sense gun laws.

You are correct that neither side does anything about the issue.

Republicans do nothing because they will lose republican votes.
Democrats do nothing because they will energize the republican base to come out and vote.

The problem with both sides is rooted in the same place.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Hah, you're trying out your faux sanctimony over in this thread too. :)

Big Kahuna is somewhere wiping a single tear from an eye.

No. People would still be able to get a very basic gun for not much more than it costs now. Basic as in fully manual with no more than six rounds, or a single shot rifle that must be reloaded after every shot.

---

Don

Tri-ing to have fun. Anything else is just a bonus!

A simplistic view of the dynamics in 2009. Dems won multiple red districts/states, because of the catastrophic failure of Bush43. The "Blue Dog Caucus" numbered 59 in 2009, and were centrists or conservatives in red districts who opposed the Democratic platform on many issues (gay rights/abortion/guns among them). Of course, they were dead men/women walking, and many of them were ousted as their conservative districts shifted even redder. The Blue Dog Caucus shrank from 59 to 26 to 14 after the 2010/2012 elections. Given the attitudes of their electorate, they never had the mandate to pass legislation. That's a more honest appraisal of the 2009 political situation. I don't expect you to ever acknowledge these inconvenient facts.

Winner for stupidest post on the thread.

To this I agree with you on. To SOME degree the parties have to decide what they are going to pass, for various reasons. They cant do it all.

in 2008 Obama decided to bail out the economy + give people free healthcare instead of a lot of other things on the dem agenda. On the large scale, this was essentially a show in the policies that were important to them.

In 2016 trump tried to take away said health care + give corporations huge tax break instead of a lot of other things on the GOP agenda, such as cutting entitlements/immigration reform. On the large scale, this was essentially a show in the policies that were important to them.

How enshrined is the 60 votes, taking earlier points, do you want to be in a situation where rules are changed every time you want a different outcome.

The Supreme Court is looking at expanding second amendment rights. Maybe stop voting for the GOP and appointing judges who think a functioning democracy is one where everyone has a machine gun and women have less rights than one sperm that swam up to an egg and said, hey how you doing!!

Given the attitudes of their electorate, they never had the mandate to pass legislation.


And I thought we were a representative democracy.
I guess no one go a Profile in Courage Award that year.

Winner for stupidest post on the thread.


I'm quite sure all these subjects are beyond you. I suggest Schoolhouse Rock as a starting point.

No one ever wins that award on either side (or they win it exactly once, like Jeff Flake). That is the nature of representative democracy. You represent your constituents, you keep your job. We blame our elected officials, while ignoring the fact that tens of millions of voters in gerrymandered districts love their own biased and endlessly repeated talking points more than kids who are victims of mass shootings.

There is a potential path forward right now. At this moment most primaries have happened, and a large number of GOP representatives have survived being primaried, and are in non-competitive general races. They actually have a narrow window to vote for a rational policy and against their constituents and hope that their choice will not damage them in 2.5 years. Unlikely, as the GOP base that votes in primaries has largely gone off an ideological cliff, and lives primarily to punish RINO's (and "own" liberals). A small hope, but that is all we have.

If we didn't flinch when one man killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at the Pulse night club or when one man killed 60 people, shot 411 more ( almost 500 damn people) and a total of 867 people injured just 15 months later what makes anyone think we will actually do anything? Skyrocketing murder rates at the same time we have skyrocketing gun sales. No connection.

We see the same tired excuses. Video games, divorce, porn, loneliness, decaying morals, ... But no other country on the planet has this problem. And they all have video games, porn, divorce, loneliness,... The difference is easy access to guns.

And we love our guns so much more than we hate dead children.

We need to stop the kabuki theater and admit it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Would people who are pro gun be ok with having a limit of the number of guns someone can own, the number of guns you can buy in a year, or the amount of ammunition?

I remember seeing some pictures of people with 100+ guns. Their generally isnt a need for that many guns. It would be like owning 5 mountain bikes. I get it that people want a gun to walk around with, a gun for home protection, and a hunting gun. But any more than that seems kinda silly.

My FIL has hundreds of guns. I'm not sure I would call him a collector but whenever he sees a gun that interests him, he buys it. There are probably a dozen he uses for hunting but the rest are never fired. He isn't a target shooting or gun range guy. He just really likes guns.

I don't really get it but I don't really get why people collect a lot of things. I once met a guy that had one of the world's largest collection of railroad nails.

It's likely someday I'll become the owner of a couple of hundred guns, I have no idea what I'll do with them.

I can 100% understand collecting things. I collect lego minifigures and magic the gathering cards. Its silly.

I would think most collectors would be fine with not also collecting large sums of ammunition for their guns. "Collectors"/hoarders in general will want a lot of different things, not a lot of the same thing. I am sure there are studies on this. Also most collectors generally would have zero problems with taking inventory of their collections, and having this inventory known - as most collectors think they have things of value that others want and would be willing to buy.

I live in RED territory and many of the 2A people I know, literally believe there should not be a weapon they cannot own. There are a few that have a lot of guns but they are hunting rifles that have been handed down through generations and in general believe the 2A guys are nuts. Unfortunately, they are not the majority. The company I work for has about 450 people, there are at least 50 who wear 2A regalia regularly and have all the tacticool shit as well and have a fit that they cannot carry their weapons at work.

Many, if not most of the gun people I know do not believe there should be a limit to their weaponry.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

I have more guns that you would deem reasonable but based on your comment "a hunting gun" I'm guessing you know very little about firearms and hunting in general. It's like saying a person only needs "a bike" to a cyclist.

An additional issue is that guns don't "go away" or become obsolete (not very often). They're not consumed and other than some space in my safe, they don't cost me anything to keep. They're passed down for generations and before you know it, it's pretty easy to have a dozen or two.

This makes a regulation based on number pretty difficult to justify IMO.

general reply FYI...

Here's a big part of the general problem - the perspectives and views of Marty Daniels, Daniel Defense (manufacturer of gun used in TX).

This is a guy that thinks it's ok to advertise toddlers with guns... start them early.

https://www.yahoo.com/...unman-210311160.html

You are wrong on both.

They want large sums of ammo to ensure the gun is usable forever. What good is an expensive collector rifle if you cant shoot it?

Inventory and let it be known - absolutely not. Would you want your expensive possessions (i.e. jewelry as an example) known?

Most people’s most expensive possession is their car or home. Both of them the government knows about.

Hard to steal a house.

"Fun" fact, in Texas there is no law that regulates how many guns you can have, but there is a law that limits you to 6 dildos. Kinda odd how someone justifies one and not the other.

With that attitude it will be hard.

What about cars? Are they stolen?