DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Waffle House shooting leaves 4 dead, several wounded in Tennessee

Ok.. so you aren't completely opposed to infringement on the 2nd amendment rights to own guns, you have just decided where that infringement should begin and end.. that's all I really wanted to know. We aren't talking about it as an absolute, we are talking about it in degrees. You are ok with infringement as long as it makes sense to you.

And yes, I know how the slippery slope works, most of the time it works as a mechanism of fear to prevent basic common sense things from getting past.

Like when somebody proposes that it might be a good idea if a 15 year old actually had to discuss it with parents/guardians prior to getting an abortion.. and the left storms in screaming how they are trying to overturn Roe v Wade... because it's on that slippery slope... I know exactly how it works from both sides.. Take something worth discussing that could help us as a society then take it to the absolute most extreme possible end, then scream about that becoming the new reality, then thwart whatever common sense thing was proposed in the first place.

My favorite slippery slope argument is taxes.. conservatives want to lower taxes a couple percent and the left screams about "Out of control capitalism" and a burning planet and child labor... the left talks about raising them a couple percent and the right starts screaming about us becoming "Socialist Venezuela"...

And yet in the past, I saw you talk about those slippery slopes. It seems to me you pick and choose as well.

Then explain something to me. If a law is passed that anyone with mental stability issues can not own a firearm, what happens with someone who lost a child in an auto accident that needed some therapy and medication afterwords for a short period of time? Would you not agree that this opens up a slippery slope?

What about someone who was convicted of possessing a joint in the 1970's in a state where it was a felony? You don't see that as a slippery slope rife for abuse?

Generalizations are fine. But we both know that depending on who it is enforcing certain laws, they can be abused and misused.

How about we keep it simple. If you've ever done jail time, you cannot own a gun. You cannot live in the same dwelling as someone who owns a gun.

If you want to own a gun, don't commit a crime, ever. And I don't care what the crime was. You lost the right to own a gun when you did whatever crime landed your butt in jail.

ludicrous and incomprehensible.

You can think it's ludicrous, but you can hardly say it's incomprehensible.

If you can't comprehend an idea so simple, you've got some problems.

Why do you think it's ludicrous? Why should someone who's done time be able to buy a gun? They've proven they cannot live life according to the law.

its ludicrous because 1. in no way could you possibly police that and know who and where people are 24/7 days week. You are now saying that ALL criminals must register where they live for the rest of the their life and report that to the government, ALONG with registering they live with - what crime have they committed? I believe there are laws against what you are proposing -which would be against civil rights.

Its incomprehensible because if you spent a day in jail for weed, you should not have your guns taken away. if you are FALSELY IMPRISIONED your guns would be taken away.

Simple idea? Im gonna let you in on a little secret, nothing is simple. Your simple idea has 1000's of loopholes and obstacles that would prevent it from EVER being rational.

Good effort though. . . .

So if you show zero violent tendencies you still have no right to own a gun? I'm not sure that makes sense.

It doesn't, he believes no one should be allowed to own a gun. He is for banning all firearms, and repealing the 2nd amendment.

Having done jail time would show up on a background check. So there ya go. Can't buy a gun. And once you have done jail time, if you already owned guns, you must forfeit them over to be destroyed. If you are proven to be falsely imprisoned, when you get out of jail, you will be reimbursed for the insurance value of the gun.

You're right though, keeping track of where law breakers live is difficult to do. They do it with sex offenders, but definitely still difficult.

He's not wrong. But I'm trying to compromise here. If you want to own a gun, don't do time. I'm trying to limit the access to guns out there.

If my plan was in place, this guy wouldn't have shot up the Waffle House. His guns would've been destroyed and his stupid father wouldn't have been able to give them back to him.

Let's try this again shall we?

So you're saying even if you have shown no history of violence, you should not be allowed to own a gun?

Yes. You've shown that you cannot follow the law. History of violence or not, there's a history of law breaking. I understand this is excessive, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. My main goal is to get as many guns destroyed as possible.

Thank you.

Jaywalking, littering, speeding, getting a ticket for having your stereo to loud etc.. No gun?

How will you get the guns from the criminals?

This is a non starter, because this doesn't follow the principle of proportionality. The reason your proposal is not proportionate is because the punishment likely would not deter law breakers.

Let's take the example of a street racer. They are pulled over on I-71 for street racing. They spend a weekend in jail, and get a huge fine, and may even get their car impounded. Those penalties work together in an effort to discourage street racing in general. If instead, the penalty for street racing was taking your guns away, any potential street racers who didn't care about 2A rights would be out street racing. It doesn't matter if your penalty is placed on top of existing penalties either: Each individual penalty must be demonstrated to be a direct deterrent to the action.

He was fairly specific about crimes that land you in jail.. so I'm guessing those would not apply... I think his proposal is a bit extreme too but let's not exaggerate it.

I'm well aware of the fact that I have made slippery slope arguments in the past.. I don't think they are always unreasonable.. I don't even think in this case they are totally unreasonable but they need to be applied to specific examples and they need to be applied some semblance of believability..

As I see it, those on the gun owners side have 3 answers no matter what is proposed...

1. But the Constitution says....

2. Oh, that's a slippery slope to total gun confiscation....

3. Criminals break laws anyway...

That's it, that's the arsenal (pun intended) of the responses... We literally don't treat a single other problem in this country that way, not a single one.

So yes, I wholeheartedly understand the lefts frustration with the rights stance that, "Oh well, people get shot, they should have been prepared to shoot back... nothing much we can do here."

I've said it multiple times... the tide is shifting, the right (and the NRA) have an opportunity to come to the table and be a part of the solution and come up with laws and policies that help everybody and allows them to keep their guns... or they can continue to respond to everything with bumper sticker cliches while folks continue to get shot... at some point, the tide will turn enough that they will have the legislation forced down their throat and they aren't going to like it... it's going to be far more extreme than they could negotiate now if they were to come to the table in good faith... the last thing I, or anybody else wants to see, is the testing of the "from my cold dead hands" mentality.

So if you commit a crime such as being drunk and assaulting a person but do not end up in jail ...gun or no gun?

Could we could start a "Sensible gun owners caucus" ?

I still didn't see you actually address any of the examples I posed to you. I believe they were valid points that stood on their merit.

But let me address the main point you made. I've given you my personal beliefs when it comes to gun rights and feel I backed them up with situations I feel to be quite valid. However, you are correct that the tide is turning.

While I do have my beliefs, I feel gun owners are going to have to come to the reality that unless they find a compromise, a compromise will be made for them. That won't be pretty for anyone.

Many on this board seem to hate the art of compromise. However, in my case I have never been loyal to a party. Even though in the 70's I was pretty loyal about going to parties. So every time I cast a vote there is compromise involved. The very way our government was set up demands compromise or it fails to work at all.

So actually what my firm beliefs are doesn't line up with what I feel gun owners are going to have to do. I've seen people who stand on the "all or nothing" line. Most often they end up with nothing.

I don't know, it was 442's proposal, I was just offering clarification...

It's funny how y'all want folks on this board, when they make a suggestion, to actually write the bill.. like right here and now.. well what about this circumstance, what about that special condition... So my question is, what difference would it make? Y'all are just going to say no anyway... it's not like any of you are going to have this Damascus Road moment and go "OH YEA, that makes some sense."

it doesnt matter. common sense, constitution none of it matters to him. The only thing that matters to him is taking away everyones right to own a firearm and protect themselves.

Thats an asinine statement to make. 1. the laws in place should have stopped this shooting from happening int eh first place. To say "your plan" would have prevented it cannot be quantified to be true nor false. HOWEVER, we can say that the shooter does not care about laws, and thus would not care about your laws.

Also, to see where you stand - i know you are against the 2A and do not want civilians to have firearms, what about police? Military? Security?

Well the battle cry was saving kids lives now, how does any of the suggestions do that?

I made suggestions as doing like airports and courthouse security for schools which would actually do something now not three four years down the road that probably won't work anyway and I was ripped for it.

The problem with percentages is they are skewed.



Index the white population down the the black population and the percentages change drastically.

His list seems pretty vague to me.

Instead he'd stab people or run them over with a car. Problem with people like you is that you don't understand that bad people that want to do bad things will find a way. Guns or no guns.

If you actually care about saving lives, the focus should be on preventing any kind of violence, not just gun violence.

I would prefer we pass a "sensible poster caucus" around here first

None of those offenses would land you with jail time.

Good question. I say gun. If you do not go to jail, then technically there's no crime. Apparently that person who was assaulted did not press charges.

I see a few people who hate my plan here because it's too general. And I know it's too general, and excessive. But it's a start. So lets work with it, tweak it, refine it, and make it so it does work. Don't just shoot it down. Pun intended.

Why did they spend the weekend in jail? Were they awaiting arraignment?

Again, this goes towards tweaking and refining my very broad and general plan. In order to make it work.

If the street racer does do jail time, how about more than a weekend's worth, then yes he loses the right to own a gun. Will he care about losing that right if he doesn't own a gun to begin with? No he probably won't. So losing his gun privileges is not a deterrent for him to not street race. It doesn't have to be. The other penalties and fines for street racing are still in place and should be the deterrent.

However, if he has guns, they're now destroyed. And that is guns off our streets. Which is my main goal.

Do you believe the police should have weapons if civilians are banned from them?

It's very difficult to stab dozens of innocent concert goers from a hotel room hundreds of feet away. Or run them over with a car from a hotel room.

It's very difficult to kill a bunch of kids inside a school with a van, or go on a knifing rampage in that school.

Your arguments are invalid.

Very vague for a reason. I'm trying to start an idea. Ideas aren't formed completely perfect. They begin vague and are built upon.

Its also easier to commit rape and sexual assault when there is no fear of the victim being armed. Its also easier to beat and rob the elderly.

Let me ask you if you will answer that is....

You sitting in the living room with your wife and beautiful baby.

Two guys kick in the door with a gun obtained illegally.

They look at you, say we are going to rape your wife, beat your child, and shoot you after they make you watch.

What do you do? Do you ask them to wait while you call the police for assistance? Do you ask them that since you don't believe in firearms, that they kindly go to the next house? Im curious.

What do I do? Well since I don't have a gun on me we're probably all going to die.

A. I don't own a gun anyway, so this would play out the same no matter what in your scenario, with or without my plan.

B. You probably wouldn't have your gun sitting right there in the living room with you either, so you'd most likely be dead too. Are you going to politely ask them if you can run upstairs and grab your gun?

C. These sound like pretty violent people. I'd bet they've done jail time before. They probably had all their guns destroyed. So in the grand scheme of my plan, obtaining that illegal gun to commit this crime wouldn't be so easy with millions of guns being destroyed over time.

D. Like I said, in any scenario ever, I'm not going to have a gun on me and I'm doomed. With 3 kids in my house, if there was a gun, it'd be locked in a safe upstairs by my bed. So it'd be useless to me anyway.

E. I do have a security system. So I don't need to politely ask these violent people to politely wait while I call police. They're already on their way. And my neighbors can hear the alarm as well. And probably our screams.

F. So we all probably die, but how would having a gun in my house have helped anything? And having owned two guns in the past, I can say that I was never trained with it. So who's to say that I'd be any good with it in a highly chaotic moment like that?

You think you're Rambo. That's cool. You're not.


And to answer your initial comment about it being easier to commit rape and sexual assault when you don't have to worry about the victim being armed? What about the millions of women who already carry pepper spray? Or stun guns? Let them carry mace if pepper spray isn't strong enough.

There's always non-lethal forms of weapons. Tasers, stun guns, pepper spray / mace.

And before you ask me if I would trust my wife's life to pepper spray over a gun, I do. She carries pepper spray and has it in her hand while walking to her car after work each night. She is a victim of sexual assault. And yet she still is anti-gun. I think that's a telling statement.

Hell no. Most police officers confuse a cell phone with a gun, so there's no way they should be armed.

And furthermore, I'd like to do some research on the statistics of families dying in home invasions vs. families dying from having guns in the home due to accidental shootings.

Interesting topic for discussion I think.