GUN OWNERS-- OK, we aren't going to take your guns away, but...

[TreasonousBastard]

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO HELP STOP THE VIOLENCE?

We've done pretty much all we can.

[WestIndianArchie]

1. No we should take their guns.

This has to stop. No more debate or townhalls take their guns

[MichMary]

2. Yeah, good luck with that

Which other Constitutional rights do you want to eliminate?

[DetlefK]

4. The constitutional right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Or how about the three-fifths-compromise.
Or how about the 18th Amendment banning the transportation and sale of alcohol nationwide.

[sharedvalues]

7. You dont even need to amend. SCOTUS interpretation created gun rights

And a scotus decision could ban guns too.


P.s. Scalia has blood on his hands for these shootings.

[GulfCoast66]

24. Scalia actually ruled the state has huge power to regulate guns

AR15s and high capacity magazines are legal due to a lack of political will, not a Supreme Court ruling.

And BTW the last Democratic Party platform acknowledged the right to own firearms under the constitution. And the need for proper regulations.

[MichMary]

15. The 3/5s compromise

and the 18th Amendment were both reversed by Constitutional Amendment. If you know the process for amending the Constitution you know how impossible it would be to enact an Amendment banning guns.

A Supreme Court decision could place limits on the 2nd Amendment, but could not possibly eliminate gun ownership, which is what the person I replied to was advocating.

[sharedvalues]

5. No right to own private arms. Created by Scalia.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Eyeball_Kid]

32. Assault rifles have to go. Having assault rifles is not a Constitutional right.

Government's JOB is to regulate. Without regulation, people should be able to buy all kind of military hardware designed for killing people. What's next that falls under "gun rights"? Hand grenades, grenade launchers? Anti-aircraft weapons (for those government "spy" planes)? Other countries have NO problem with regulating the possession of killing weapons. Oh, but the US treasures killing machines so much that regulation is considered anti-American.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

46. Okay, so what does that look like?

[MichMary]

3. I heard this a.m. that the security guard

was unarmed. He saved students' lives by shielding them with his body. Probably he could have saved a lot more if he had been able to blow the shooter away.

At Columbine, Eric Harris was involved in a shoot out with a school security officer outside the school. If the guy had been a better shot, a lot of lives would have been saved.

Maybe the answer is to make sure that the people whose jobs it is to protect the students are equipped and competent to do so.

[DetlefK]

6. The security-guard brings a gun? The shooter brings a bulletproof vest and an assault-rifle.

[sharedvalues]

8. So 10 would die instead of 19? Cant stop first shot with more guns

[MichMary]

9. I bet those 9 additional saved people

would think it was worth it.

[sharedvalues]

12. Until the next shooting. See below. Dont repeat NRA talking points

Nm

[MichMary]

22. Sometimes, there is merit

in listening to the other side. Guns are not going to be banned in this country. Probably not ever. A SC decision could place limits. So--maybe there's a chance of that happening, in 50 years or so.

In the meantime, an armed security guard in this situation would have saved lives. It's not unreasonable to think that if you are hiring security guards to protect students that they should be equipped to do so in extreme situations. Otherwise, what's the point of having them at all?

[LanternWaste]

26. suburban arms races will become a new normal should we consistently follow your agenda.

Urban and suburban arms races between law enforcement and spree shooters will become a new normal should we follow your agenda.




Gun. Shoot them. "Otherwise, what's the point of having them at all?" (six of one, half a dozen of the other)

[zanana1]

19. I've heard every pro-gun argument there is.

In the end, we just wind up with more dead kids. No more "pro-gun, anti-gun" contests. That's it.

[MichMary]

21. So--what's your solution

Realistic solution, that is. Because gun confiscation isn't realistic.

[chowder66]

49. Here's my solution

Impose strict gun laws as they did in Australia with a buy-back plan and have ICE round up the rest of the guns instead of humans.

[MichMary]

50. Think that's realistic?

I don't.

[chowder66]

51. It hasn't been tried. nt

[MichMary]

52. There's a reason for that. n/t

[chowder66]

54. Yes. Gun loving americans don't give a shit about massacred children and adults. nt

[sharedvalues]

11. Also, this is the DUMBEST right wing talking point

Guns kill people.
More guns lead to more deaths.
You can’t stop the first shot by arming more people.
The US has the most gun deaths by far because we have the most guns by far.
More guns fired means more people die in crossfire.
Reducing guns, especially handguns and assault rifles, reduces deaths, as is obvious in Canada and Australia.

The right has tried to propagandize Americans into thinking that more guns is somehow better. That talking point is asinine on its face. You’re better than that, don’t echo that NRA talking point.

[phylny]

16. Yeah, I remember how well that worked when the Secret Service shielded Ronald Reagan

from getting shot.

Oh, wait....

[MichMary]

20. John Hinkley, Jr. was mentally ill

Sounds like this guy is, too. Maybe better mental healthcare would be part of the answer.

[MrsCoffee]

23. No shit. Yet the Russian funded KGOP gun humpers would rather kill healthcare and Americans.

More guns is not the fucking answer. The fact that anyone here would suggest that shows just how much money and effort the deplorables have invested in their deadly propaganda.

[mac56]

35. As long as we're shooting each other

Putin is happy.

And therefore, Dufus is happy.

[Brainstormy]

30. Good fucking grief

your thinking is the perfect example of why nothing ever changes.

[aikoaiko]

10. Unfortunately, a lot of people remember when fun controllers did want to ban guns.

And contemporary calls for "Assault Weapons Bans" also undermine your OP.

Banning the purchase or transfer of certain guns IS "taking away guns'" to many Hun owners.

[sharedvalues]

14. More than ban assault rifles. Ban handguns. Like Canada

Canada has lots of hunting rifles.
But few gun deaths.
Because they ban handguns and assault rifles.

We should do the same.

[EX500rider]

53. Canada does not ban handguns.

Here's what they ban:

Prohibited devices
Replica firearms (i.e.: "any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm&quot
Suppressors (i.e.: "a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm&quot
Handgun barrels that are 105 millimetres (4.1 in) and under (excluding barrels of pistols used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union)
Electrical or mechanical devices designed or adapted to render the trigger mechanism of a semi-automatic firearm to discharge in a fully automatic fashion
"Any rifle, shotgun or carbine stock of the type known as the “bull-pup” design, being a stock that, when combined with a firearm, reduces the overall length of the firearm such that a substantial part of the reloading action or the magazine-well is located behind the trigger of the firearm when it is held in the normal firing position."[30] (i.e.: only removable stocks are prohibited by this regulation, fixed-stock firearms such as the FN P90 and IWI Tavor are excluded)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada

[Fred Sanders]

55. Misleading. Handguns are highly restricted.

Under the Criminal Code, handguns require an "authorization to carry."

The number of "authorizations to carry" issued averages 8,169 per year.

Most authorizations go to armoured car guards and people working in remote wilderness areas.

The general public is indeed mainly banned from ownership.


Protection of life authorizations rare

Very few authorizations are made under the protection of life category. These would mostly include cases where there is an active police file and a verifiable threat as well as police confirmation that they cannot provide adequate protection for that person.

Section 117 of the Criminal Code of Canada exempts on-duty police officers, members of the Canadian Forces, peace officers and persons training to be become police or peace officers from the restrictions on carrying handguns.

There are also provincial regulations that cover who may or may not legally carry a handgun. For example, Alberta regulations set out two levels of peace officers, with different weapons authorizations.

There are also laws and regulations that apply to shooting ranges, guns shows and transporting handguns to them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-may-carry-handguns-in-canada-1.1135084

[NightWatcher]

13. Lock your guns up in safes that kids and criminals cannot access.

It would not have prevented this past tragedy, but it can save lives.

I have multiple weapons for work and they are all locked up where not even my spouse can get to them. I also will not let my child go to any friend's house who does not use a safe for their weapons.

[Sailor65x1]

56. This is such a simple step

Yet it always seems shockingly few take it seriously. Like you said, it would not have stopped this one, but would stop pretty much all of the accidental kid-shoots-kid scenarios. I have always wished penalties would be exponentially stiffer when people fail to do this very simple thing.

[pintobean]

17. That's like public transit users

telling car owners to stop impaired driving. We all only have control of what we do with the things we own.

[hack89]

18. I vote for pro-gun control leaders

I lock my weapons up.

[alarimer]

25. I absolutely want to take guns away from every fucking fuck that owns them.

Fuck you, gun owners. Yes, ALL of you. ALL of you enable the massacres. ALL OF YOU. If you had any morals at all, you would destroy them yourselves. So, yeah, "good" gun owners, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

Fuck the holy worship of the second amendment.

[Phentex]

29. Yes. I think we have reached the point of all or nothing...

The second amendment crap isn't working any more.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

31. +1

[sarisataka]

37. Every gun owner

Needs to be charged with accessory to murder. Make them all felons so their guns can be confiscated and they can't get more.
Also they will all lose their right to vote so all pro-gun politicians can be voted out.

[GulfCoast66]

43. Better get to work on the Democratic Party Platform

Because we as a party support a person s right to own a firearm.

Of course we also support reasonable regulation.

[C_U_L8R]

27. How about a $10 tax per bullet sold

and all funds received would go to support gun violence victims.

[LonePirate]

28. I disagree. We need to take away their guns, even if we need to amend the Constitution to do it.

[MichMary]

36. Do you know the process for amending the Constitution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Simply proposing an amendment requires a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and the Senate. Have you looked at the make-up of Congress? The votes are not there, nor will they be after the next election. Probably not at all in the foreseeable future.

OR, it can be proposed via a Constitutional convention, called for by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Again, look at the make-up of the state legislatures.

Then, IF you could get a proposal through, it would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

IOW, it isn't going to happen.

[LonePirate]

42. Your gun-loving, do-nothing, defeatism is duly noted.

[MichMary]

48. Okay.

You said something about amending the Constitution. I pointed out how the Constitution is amended, and how unlikely it is to happen.

Please tell me how you can amend the Constitution without following the Constitutional rules set up to do so.

[sarisataka]

33. Who is "we" and

What exactly have you all done?


Myself, I have campaigned among gun owners to support a DV bill that removes firearms from the possession of those subject to restraining orders. It passed with such overwhelming support of gun owners so that even the NRA endorsed it's passage.

I continue to convince other gun owners to support UBC and safe storage laws.

[tenderfoot]

34. Turn schools into prisons

[MichMary]

38. How about enforcing the laws as they exist?

Isn't it illegal for someone with a history of mental illness to own a gun? Maybe if the people treating him had followed the law and reported him, he wouldn't have had a gun at all.

[Lars39]

44. Trump repealed gun checks for mentally ill

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

[MichMary]

45. Snopes:

https://www.snopes.com/congress-gun-legal-mental/

WHAT'S TRUE
Congress passed a law repealing a measure that was originally intended to make it easier to prohibit the sale of firearms to people deemed “mentally defective” by requiring the Social Security Administration to provide disability benefit information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

WHAT'S FALSE
The repeal does not change any actual firearm regulations; there have been (and still are) laws on the books that prohibit the sale of guns to some groups of people based on mental illness.

[Lars39]

47. Well, bless your heart, you have an answer

for everything.

[sinkingfeeling]

39. Let 'em keep all their guns...take away the ammo.

[Paladin]

40. Same talking points, same taunts and insults, same result: nothing.

Those of us who favor effective control of firearms in this country might as well admit defeat, put our energies into more productive causes, and pray to God that none of our loved ones are victims of the next several dozen mass slaughters by lunatics wielding high-capacity, military-styled guns---because those dozens of slaughters are bound to happen. Sandy Hook wasn't enough to turn the tide in our favor, and the latest batch of killings in Florida won't, either. Hell, these latest killings won't even be news by this time tomorrow, unless trump says something unusually stupid in his address to the nation today.

Gun Enthusiasts, you win. Enjoy your sick victory.

[Initech]

41. Nothing. They won't do a damn thing.

I know exactly how this is going to play out:

1. Thoughts and prayers
2. Alex Jones and his ilk will trot out his his usual fearmongering bullshit about how it's the democrats fault.
3. The Christian right will blame the victims saying they deserved it because Jesus.
4. The republicans in Congress will do anything they can to prevent any meaningful legislation from being passed.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[samir.g]

57. Take them all away

Interpret the 2nd correctly, if they want a gun they can join the national guard.