No I’m not. I have tried to leave all of that out and want ways to a solution. You have jumped the gun and have put all of your fear of what might happen into your argument. Ppl, like you, want to pin me down when I don’t have the answer. It’s more complicated than the 2A community saying hell no to everything because we risk loosing everything.
You have succeeded in one thing. I understand you lack the capacity to set aside your emotions and think beyond your worst fears.
Goodbye
If you don’t have an answer, please stop suggesting more control laws and more restrictions.
Throwing infringements at the wall to see what sticks is not an answer.
I’m sorry you don’t see that my objections are based in reality while your suggestions are based on nothing but “we have to do something”.
Once I listened to a world class researcher discuss AI predicting mental illness from samples of person’s voice. Beware of Amazon Alexa and the likes.
But there are already laws in place that call for this. That weren’t acted on in this case just like they weren’t acted on in many others. How will another law covering the same topic help?
Show me a new law that would do something different while clearly protecting the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and I would give it serious consideration.
But the anti gun crowd would never go for it. It’s the antis who are unwilling to compromise and find actual solutions and it is the antis who aren’t letting a good crises go to waste by seeking to pass laws that would not have prevented the crises in the first place.
Since they can’t achieve their utopian fantasy of a disarmed society they are willing to chip away at our ability to defend ourselves one right at a time.
I don’t know and was the point I was trying to make to the other guy. All I know is that the 2A community needs to be part of the solution. I wanted to brain storm ideas but encountered “hell no”. IMHO, that’s not the way forward.
Throwing infringements at the wall because you think we “have to do [read, restrict] something” is definitely not the answer, or the way to arrive at an answer.
Are you on board with the list of 5 ideas I provided?
Are you willing to spend $28 to call and order that countering the mass shooter book?
It is absolutely stuffed with ideas, and facts, and data, and reasoning, supporting them.
You won’t have to just throw restrictions at the wall but, instead, can reference the book.
And it’s only $8.99 on kindle. I’m ordering one right now.
I ordered it - I’m already 19 pages into it. Definitely good reading!
I think a lot of the people here are very fed up with all the rights and tools for self defense that have been taken away over the decades and continue to be taken away in many places. We have gotten some rights back in some places lately but events like this create an opportunity for the just do something middle of the road anti gunners along with the no one needs a gun to defend themselves crowd to take many of our rights away.
So I can understand the hell no attitude. I also have a family and don’t want them shot while at school or shopping for groceries. So I can understand the let’s do something to make people safe push. The problem is that it is easy to do something. Politicians see a problem throw some money at it and call it good. It is much harder do something that actually solves a problem which has been around for all of human history and to do it in a way that doesn’t create a dozen new problems.
I personally think the proposals @Nathan57, myself and others have put forward are a good starting point. The firearms community is uniquely qualified to step in and make sure that schools and their guardians receive the funding and training they need to defend our children.
I am fairly open minded and not completely against compromise. But any compromise would have to return rights that are being denied to myself and others.
Here is a sample of a compromise law I might consider though I know I will get roasted here for the proposal. Seems like everbody, many republicans included, are talking about red flag laws. I think they are unnecessary because we already have all the laws we need to disarm people who clearly threaten others. But let’s make the do something people happy by passing yet another redundant law that says people should be disarmed if they directly threaten others. It can’t be a he said she said thing. It has to be a legitimate threat, there has to be due process with legal representation and there has to be a process for getting your rights back in a timely manor. In return I want guarantees that the government will not create new laws denying the right to own semiautomatic firearms. I also want our right to keep and bear arms to be restored in the anti gun states and I’d like silencers to be legal to purchase without a tax stamp and waiting period. These rights would allow citizens to better defend themselves from these mass murderers.
I’m pretty sure the anti gunners would never go for it even though it gives them something they think they need and the pro gun provisions would clearly save lives.
But I am completely unwilling to support new laws that clearly won’t solve the problems at hand and will just make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. I am as hell no on that one as the anti gunners are on my right to own a semi auto firearm with standard capacity magazines.
Every congressperson for sure. And drug test too. you know, the old pee in a cup routine.
As an emergency physician, I perform mental health evaluations on patients several times per week. I’ve been doing this for about ten years. I have not met any person experiencing a crisis that could have been measured with any test a few days earlier to tell us they were dangerous. Nor have I found involuntary committal to be a particularly effective long term treatment plan. The only thing that remains constant, is that human beings know how to make tools to accomplish their goals: Sticks, rocks, knives, pills, guns, bombs, snares, cars, planes, they are all weapons. You can only ensure your own safety while you are prepared and aware of your situation. No piece of paper from a doctor or lawyer is going to ensure the snowflakes of the world that they won’t melt.
So how far back would they be allowed to dig into someone’s past as part of this mental evaluation? What are the criteria used to judge if someone is a risk? What is the threshold used to determine if someone is a risk?
We are. “Constitutional Carry” is now at almost half the nation. Being pro-rights can win. Cowering and giving in is not winning, nor is it “compromise”.
The Soviet Union used this sort of crap to throw people they didnt like in the boobyhatch. No thanks. I wouldnt want to judged by the same government appointed head shrinkers who think there are more than 2 genders and guys can get preggers.
No and not necessary. All “they” need do is enforce the existing 20,000 gun laws. And defind ‘neutral 3rd party’ and who gets to decide who this is? Nancy Pelosi? Biden? Kamala? The WHO? Puhlease. No thank you.
Many so-called red flag laws don’t even require adjudication, your “guns” (not you) are arrested and good luck getting them back. My ‘hell no’ stems from the fact that politicians are very bad at their jobs.
I am definitely not at all advocating for any of the red flag laws currently being pushed by Democrats or Republicans. All the ones I have seen so far violate several constitutional Amendments. As I stated above- Any new law would have to have very strong due process protections and give us back significant 2A rights in return.
There should be, in order to run for President. 
It is a standard screening inquiry promoted by anti-gun medical associations and institutions. They throw it into a “risk factors” bucket with a justification along the lines of:
“Living in a household where there is access to ladders increases the risk of fall injuries and deaths.”
Oh, wait. They don’t ask that. Maybe like “ownership or access to motor vehicles is positively associated with increased morbidity and mortality from traumatic injury.” Hmm…don’t hear about that one either. 
My partner was asked about firearms in a routine “well-patient” exam. I have not. I don’t see mandating what a physician can or can’t ask a patient, but if I run into that one I intend to respond with a query about the relevance to my health care. If I get the “correlation” response, I will find out if they intend to ask about access to other dangerous items like motor vehicles, knives, ladders, lawn mowers, prescription medications, etc.
Maybe suggest they assess my mental stability for violence risk factors instead — or do I qualify just for asking?
Thank you, exactly the type of conversation I was hoping for.