1. @Michael Dwyer Okay… Well, as I said. Middle ground. And I mean that seriously… If you have a dim view towards politicians, how about we start by looking at The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and their reports and recommendations? Maybe the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP)? That would be a good start, wouldn’t it?

    2. @Rahim Majid well I’m offering middle ground. What you’re proposing as moderate is still just defaulting to what we’ve been doing as it comes to gun control. My whole point is that gun laws simply don’t impact crime rates. Middle ground would be acknowledging that this methodology hasn’t worked and the source lies somewhere else. As for looking abroad for our solutions, we can’t do that because we are unique in our issue and it’s a constitutional right. Other nations don’t have that and so it’s an issue we have to resolve internally.

      When it comes to middle ground, I believe you have the line confused. For us to reach the middle, the line is going to have to move quite a bit. This starts by trying something new instead of resorting to the same methodology. We need to be addressing things like mental health instead of perpetually insisting that more gun laws will just convince people to stop being violent. All you’re doing is limiting one of a flurry of mediums a perpetrator could use. It’s not stopping the intent of the user, it’s not deescalating the situation.

    3. @Michael Dwyer Dude…I’m proposing that we look at what law enforcement officers have to say about this. I’m all for it if you want to include the mental health aspects and more. But law enforcement officers are the ones that are most at risk of gun violence. They are the ones who risk their lives daily and are most likely to get shot while at work. And generally, they are also knowledgeable about weapons, probably more than the average person or a politician. Shouldn’t we at least hear what they have to say about gun violence and what they think can help reduce it? I understand your dislike of left-wing politicians and the things they say about gun reforms. I feel the same about right-wing politicians. My idea is about listening to people with real experience and knowledge about gun violence… Law enforcement. Maybe even input from the military. It’s not like I’m proposing some liberal university professor here. Is this something so difficult for us to agree on what the middle is?

    1. @Willy Woodrow Your complete lack of punctuation makes it difficult to even understand what is you’re trying to say.

    2. @Willy Woodrow And why is that? Because we have too many guns and too little regulation. You just made the case for me. Thanks. Until we seriously sit on the gun industry and prescribe relevant solutions, people will be buying guns out of the back of people’s cars. But that takes genuine care about your community. You don’t have that.

    3. @Willy Woodrow The most misrepresented quote by Franklin. He was talking about the Penn Family who attempted to bypass paying taxes to pay for security in 1755 when French and Indian forces were attacking frontier communities. The quote refers to the wealth class not paying their fair share. It has nothing to do with gun policy. More deflection from Willy.

    4. We need background checks for protesters too. Any restriction added to the 2nd can and should be applied elsewhere.

      Voter IDs, felons cant vote or protest, red flag laws for protesters, leave it up to the states (Like guns are), etc

  1. ” You can take my job, food, health care and to some point freedom! But heck no you can’t take my gun or rights” ~ adult film star Peter North 👍👠

  2. When you use the terms “responsible”, “sensible” and “common sense” for this situation, you must take into account that this must apply to all involved. It means different things to different people. We’ll get nowhere unless we can come to an agreement on what those words mean. Neither extreme works, and we know this. Everyone wants what they can’t have and if your not willing to, at least acknowledge the differences in opinions, then we get nowhere real fast. For those who want all guns taken away, that’s a pipe dream and isn’t going to happen, for those who want any firearm they want, it’s not going to happen either. All of us know this, but if you stay at the extremes, all or nothing, it just doesn’t/won’t work. If we can’t meet somewhere in the middle, than we’ve solved nothing. EACH side must, must, be willing to give some, otherwise it won’t work. If I knew an answer acceptable to all, would anybody listen? Probably not. One American’s thoughts.

    1. @Stacey Cramer “The Columbine shooting happened during the last “assault weapons” ban”. You cannot distort the facts by cherry-picking events such as that tragedy. The facts remain….. the overall rate of death due to guns was lower during the assault weapon ban. It makes perfect sense to those with rational minds: the less guns available, the lower number of innocent lives lost. America needs to better educate people, as there’s many who simply are not using facts to form their opinions.

    2. ​@Jeff V

      Gun ownership has been increasing for years while gun deaths have dropped. Thus proving your BS wrong.

    1. Exactly. I live in Illinois and since our unconstitutional awb was passed shootings just went up. It never works

  3. Maybe we should challenge ourselves to do more to provide healthcare (including mental health) to all Americans. The disease doesn’t get cured by only treating the symptoms.

    1. @Eric Heick The Supreme court has changed it’s opinion on gun laws and you know it. Interesting that you suddenly became an expert on The Federalist Papers but really can’t understand the modern day issue. It’s like you’re cherry picking what you use to prove your point as long as it fits your world view. As soon as someone puts a hole in that logic you pivot to something else. No values, no standards, no core understanding of right and wrong.

    2. @Eric Heick Updating the 2A so that we can protect individual and societal rights is common sense. Yes, we will get it done because it’s important.
      It’s what a mature and healthy country will do.

    3. @Eric Heick I could make the same argument about the 1st amendment. There were no pictures, video and audio when it was written. So Hollywood cannot claim to be covered by the 1st amendment

    4. @Lea Garner  you need 38 states to change the constitution, so no, you won’t accomplish that. Beside. The majority of americans DONT want to remove thw 2A, per every poll ive seen on the subject. So you would be working AGAINST the wishes of tue majoroty. Cope.
       You say i suddenly become an expert? No, I just have the ability to read.
      Well Regulated means EXACTLY what I said, per the words written in the Federalist Papers. Notice you don’t have an actual arguement to refute what “well regulated” means?

  4. For years, we have called for stricter gun laws. For years, gun laws have gotten more and more rigorous- especially in democrat strongholds. I’m tired of us blaming the medium of violence and punishing said medium instead of addressing the source; the shooters.

    Unequivocally, we have found the sole connection (aside from using a firearm) between shooters is severe mental illness. We’ve talked about red flag laws, we’ve continued to rehash the background check process, yet the states I’ve found to be most safe are those that have high gun ownership and relaxed to moderate gun laws. While people hate to hear it, our country cannot be without guns anymore. Should the legal market be eliminated even, illegal firearms will boom between cartels and gangs and others that are interested. If you want to buy a gun in this country, you can make it happen with or without legality.

    This begs the question- what do you do when gun legislation continues to not impact shootings whatsoever? You accept a failure in trials and adjust your hypothesis. We need to be addressing culture and the poli-social divide. We continue to create a reality in which people *are* unwell and at each others throats. Politically motivated killings spiked exponentially since 2020.

    What we need is a genuine, bipartisan round table about the culpability of media, the government, and our institutions to create such a toxic space that negatively impacts the morality and mental fortitude of their constituents. We aren’t well and it’s in large part to our institutions. They keep kicking this can down the road with feel good legislation that yields no benefit. Decades now of the same promises. Absolutely over hearing this position and disappointed in this administration for taking the lazy way out of a very important conversation.

    Side note- it may not be mental illness efforts that solve this, but it would be more productive than what we’re doing. Shootings or otherwise, it’s a long neglected issue.

  5. Mental health facilities started being defunded in the 1960’s. Bring them back. You can also incentivize sellers and buyers through buy back programs.

    1. @Henry Roman And what about innocent until proven guilty? Is there some reason why Hunter doesn’t have the same rights as everybody else?

    2. @Lea Garner and those 112000 applicants won’t even be approved in a background check when buying a firearm whats your point

  6. Funny story, Every gun i have ever bought i was required to do a background check. 18-46 yo Never shot anyone.

  7. Bidens’ gameplay is one for history books! No questions, no answers. Lie? Who’s gonna check me? 😆

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.