DaveTN

They want the drama of a cop shooting an innocent bystander. They fully understand that if someone is dropping bodies, the cops may have to take shots that have the risk of shooting bystanders (as in this case). However, if that happens they want to make a bunch of noise about that being unacceptable. Unless of course their family or friends are about to die.

It’s filing a false police report. That’s a felony in many places. You have to be able to prove it was malicious. That can be really hard to do. I agree with you, but I can think of a lot of worse crimes that don’t have a mandatory prison sentence. My main concern should Tennessee decide to make changes is due process. An absolute amount of time a person has, to go before a Judge. And if it is decided that person is not a threat; the weapons are returned immediately with no further BS requirements.

The guy was standing in a crowd killing people when the Police opened fire. One of the first questions I heard asked at a news conference was if any of the victims were shot by the Police. I could not be in politics because I would have answered with “possibly” and moved on.

And it won’t happen. But no one, including politicians is going to throw their hands up and say “There is nothing we can do; deal with it” I think there is something that can be done. But I also think the laws are already in place to do it.

Well of course not. Schumer doesn’t want incentives to states to pass Red Flag laws; he wants Federal Red Flag laws passed. That and of course he doesn’t want anything Trump might be agreeable to. He’s such a loser.

They (news people) were arguing on the news about whether it was 20 seconds or 30 seconds. Oh my gosh!

I’m seeing a lot of the photos posted recently, that I think are new, with a big azz PhotoBucket Watermark through them. Whats up?

The store won’t warranty the gun long enough for you to take it and see if it fires?

Here ya go...

I was cleaning up some of my forum stuff and marking some forums as read. I ended up with a link to a thread titled “Charlie Haffner Memorial Range”. When I try to open it I get the following error… What’ s up with that? I can't make it "read". Also, is there a way to mark pictures as read? I ended up with a bunch of pictures on my front page. (This happens anytime someone uploads pictures) The only way I get each one of them gone was to click on each one of them. There must be a faster way?

Joe....along with many others, Trump included sometimes...didn't get the memo.

Point made. You won't have to worry about that happening again.

The FBI is initiating an investigation on the Dayton murderer to determine if hate was a factor. That’s true…. you can’t make this stuff up.

Biden had an interview with Anderson Cooper yesterday. In case anyone questions if Biden wants confiscation; let’s look at this. He makes no sense. He isn't mentally fit to be involved in these discussions yet alone President. Cooper confronted Biden with the likely right-wing rebuttal: “So to gun owners out there who say ‘Well, a Biden administration means they will come for my guns.'” “Bingo. You’re right, if you have an assault weapon,” Biden quickly replied. “The fact of the matter is they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapon people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka or have a flamethrower. The guys who make these arguments say ‘The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots, we need the protection against the government.’ Well, you’ll need an F-15 for that. You need something well beyond whether or not you have an assault weapon.” The ban and buyback programs Biden proposed is not gun confiscation, he clarified. “That’s not walking into their home, knocking on their doors, and going through the gun cabinets,” Biden said. “Right now, there is no legal way to deny them the right, if they legally purchased them. But we can, in fact, make a major effort to get them off the street and out of the possession of people” through a buyback program. And Biden also offered a subtle rebuke of 2020 rival Sen. Kamala Harris, who has promised to sign a number of gun control executive orders in her first days in the Oval Office. “The problem with that is if it’s just an executive order, when the next guy comes along and wipes it out, which the president [Trump] did,” Biden pointed out. “You have to get legislation to do that. But to say that you need to eliminate the gun show loophole to define what constitutes — I’m the guy that pushed the Brady Bill through the United States Congress when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee on background checks. You can in fact do those kinds of things, but cannot as a matter of executive order constitutionally say ‘This is what we’re going to do relative to this particular weapon.'”

I'm guessing that leaves out nuclear weapons for you?

My 308 is heavy without using drum mags. But I have enough 25 rounders.

Of course not. But then again you don’t know. TBI puts out numbers on how many people have been refused. Did those refusals do any good? We have no way of knowing. When a cops stops a DUI; does he save an innocent family? He will never know, and we have no way of knowing.

But M4’s are for sissies. I was thinking of something more effective.

Correct, although they obviously aren’t being passed over they are in the national news daily. Young male minorities are shooting young male minorities. That’s isn’t an opinion; it is a fact. But…stopping and arresting young male minorities carrying guns and drugs before they kill someone… is racism. At some point the law abiding people will get tired of this. They will ask for and authorize change.

You should be able to stop and buy a machine gun. You either believe that the “being necessary to the security of a free State” means that “The People” may need arms to protect themselves against an out of control government or you don’t. If that is true a group with machine guns have an obvious advantage over those limited to semi-autos or magazine capacity. Of course the whole “Nuclear Weapons” issue is in play also.

Chuck you know better. I believe we should be able to have machine guns, suppressors, SBR’s, and no government requirement for a carry permit or training of any kind. I’m discussing what going on the news, the thoughts of the people I know, and my WAG’s about how the courts will rule. I also think you know I don’t like Trump as a person. But if people just whine and complain (or post pictures) without having an alternative; they are just a whiner and complainer with cartoons and no answers.

Really....huh??

It must be discussed. It is wording the SCOTUS has used. We can use that same wording to argue against changes. In intelligent discussions we use our words.

And that’s why it will have to pass muster with the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has interpreted the 2nd amendment as allowing “reasonable restrictions”. I would suspect they would find that keeping convicted felons, drug users, or documented mentally defectives from getting guns as reasonable restrictions. I doubt they will allow a gun database, and I doubt they may allow any of it based on intrastate vs. interstate.

No. Background checks will have zero impact on shootings of any kind. The problem is that most Americans don’t understand what goes on, or what is being talked about and suggested. They believe that people can buy guns from dealers at gun shows without a background check. They believe that people can order guns online and have them shipped to their house. However… when most I worked with asked how convicted felons can buy guns; I explained it to them. They didn’t think that was a good idea. And neither does the average American; even most gun owners I know in this state. I’m buying mostly new guns anymore; so I’m going through background checks. If background checks are required for used gun sales; I don’t think either party should have to pay for them. That’s an unreasonable cost for something that will do nothing and is taxation without representation. Meaning the states don’t agree with it.