billeisele

Huh? They knew about the server and did nothing...well until after it was bleached and then did nothing. Your blinders are on tight and stating "Partianship" is the joke of the day...so far.

His mistake was not digitizing what he had and storing it on a server. Apparently, it's OK to have a server with restricted government documents in your home. Getting past the poke above.....the server issue occurred under a less aggressive DOJ. Certainly Garland isn't naive enough to think that when the power structure shifts these type investigations will be aimed at others. I don't know, maybe a war with total destruction of the power brokers would be a good thing. I wonder if it's possible to get back to a government that acts in the best interest of the people.

Joe - I've clearly stated many actions that IMO should be taken. You've continually inferred that I support unfettered proliferation of assault weapons. That's not correct. Some comments made on July 23 were: The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths. I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less. Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

Some of the biggest regrets in life are the call that wasn't made, the lunch date that was canceled, the unplanned visit that was passed by, and the heartfelt words that were never shared. As one gets older and time gets shorter those things are more valuable.

Jerry - I don't understand how your comment is accurate. I've consistently said that to focus solely on AR type guns, when less than 10% of deaths are with that type gun, and expect a meaningful reduction in gun deaths is folly. I've never said that nothing should be done about the AR type gun. If your only goal is to reduce mass shootings of children then, yes, focusing solely on the AR would reduce children being shot with an AR. For me that just seems short sighted. IMO Gun legislation needs to include pistols.

Both of these replies are just childish. Lippy - you may believe Obama caused it and you are entitled to your opinion. I'm glad I didn't say that. Joe - great to see that you are predictable. Jumping to a conclusion not supported by facts and erroneously implying that your conclusion was that of the author.

Ignoring that fact would be immensely irresponsible. No rational person would suggest that. It would be good to focus on the cause of gun deaths and devise reasonable, legal and effective solutions to address it. Of the annual gun deaths: ~2/3rds are suicide. Of the remaining amount 500 are self-defense, 500 are accidental discharge. Of the remaining 10,000, 90% are with a handgun, and 1,000 are with rifles. I've asked the question about gun control a couple times and you have consistently failed to provide any reasonable reply.

No doubt that on a percentage basis that's correct. The actual number of hunters has remained fairly stable. They contribute approximately $38 billion to the economy including $12 billion in taxes and license fees toward. Those funds are used for conservation and they perform a critical service in wildlife management. Hunters are not the problem. The defund the police actions and the increase in crime are two reasons folks have been buying guns. The Obama years were record breaking for gun sales.

Facts are a good thing: - 90% of gun deaths are with handguns, eliminating assault weapons would have no effect on that - FBI stats show that for the 10 years that assault weapons were banned there was no reduction in rifle deaths - rifle deaths were 4.8% prior to the ban, 4.9% during the ban and 3.6% after the ban expired Congressional Research Service report https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43004.pdf CDC report https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Rand Corp study on gun policy https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2000/RR2088/RAND_RR2088.pdf

Good thing this store owner had a gun. One thug disabled and all arrested. https://www.dailywire.com/news/he-shot-my-arm-off-80-year-old-store-owner-unloads-when-armed-suspects-attempt-robbery?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Bill & Joe - I've never supported a law like the one in TX. Choice has always been my preference. To say, "You no longer support that..." or "Why are you suddenly, if embarrassingly after the fact, so vigorous in your dislike..." infers a change of position and that's simply incorrect. Joe - why do you continue to insist on labeling and assigning concepts where they don't exist? Your senseless attacks are childish. I don't fault you for your opinion, how about extending the same courtesy. I've always voted for the person not the party. Unfortunately, all of us are forced to choose, oftentimes, between evils. We vote for the one that we think is less worse. If your comments were accurate that would mean that you fully support everything that the candidates you support stand for.

5 items. The M1 is a rapid fire weapon that comes with an 8-round bloc clip but will accept a 30-round magazine that is detachable. It was offered as one example of the many rifles publicly available that function quite similar to an AR. For the law to be effective there will need to be a list, a long list, of weapons that aren't allowed. Simply saying "assault weapons" isn't sufficient. Magazine capacity is an issue. A max capacity will have to be determined. The recreational shooting crowd will fight this and get louder the lower the capacity goes. We're in complete agreement on big game hunting firearms. But that is our choice. The semi auto is a common firearm in white tail hunting (at least in the south) and the predominant firearm in pig hunting. There are plenty of firearms that would be legal to own that use the same ammo as assault weapons. A perfect example is the .308 and some of the most popular handgun calibers like 9mm. The point is that, IMO, placing a tax on ammo is unreasonable because it would punish the 99+% of good people following the law. On this item, we differ. Lastly, I'll assume you're talking about legally operated pharmaceutical companies. It is good for society when their products are used for the intent they were produced. If those companies are directly involved in illegal distribution that's a different story. These laws won't be passed without compromises on both sides. IMO, if the far right and far left won't come to the middle nothing will get done.

That's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Bought plenty of stuff from him. Always easy to deal with.

Woo Hoo - some common ground. We both agree that something needs to be done, we just disagree on what. Unfortunately, more baseless and incorrect accusations. Those have been deleted for this post. We've settled on a description for "assault weapon." Great. Do we expand that to the M-1 Garand and other similar "older" military rifles? Is the FN P90 included? It looks kinda military but nothing like an AR-15, the standard mag is 50 rounds. Then there's the concern with pistols with forearm grips that technically are a pistol but perform like a rifle. There is a large family of 9mm and 45 ACP semi auto pistols that are problematic. The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths. I agree that the military-like guns have been glorified as some kinds - I'm the savior - complex. Hollywood, the media and video game makers have certainly promoted that to their profit. The 5 Rambo movies are perfect examples of that. I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less. You and I both prefer bolt action. But there are legitimate reasons for the semi auto rifles. I'm not sure that banning high cap mags (the sole reason for saying it that way is to minimize typing) would be legal or effective. Let's presume that the mag limit is set at 10-rounds. It's just too easy to take two 10-round mags and attach them together. Anyone with minimal proficiency can swap them in a couple seconds. Yes, that's less effective than a single high cap mag. My question is, is that an issue worth fighting. I'd say let's go for it but realize that the argument may not be winnable. Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc. IMO raising the price of ammo would put a burden on the 99% that don't deserve it and it wouldn't deter the criminals. The manufacturers have been acting legally. It doesn't seem fair to punish them with crazy high taxes. Maybe some kinda 3%? tax per gun paid by the manufacturer based on the wholesale price, and funds from the fines generated in legal actions with lawbreakers could fund buybacks. My comment "other legitimate issues" includes economic loss. That stuff can't be ignored. It includes the investment corporations have made in manufacturing and the employees involved. The supply chain, I'm guessing, is fairly deep and the manufacturing investment probably exceeds $billions with a few hundred thousand employees. Those folks are voters as are their stockholders, they have access to decision makers, and lobbyists are much more effective than protesters. That has to be part of the discussion. We agree on the basic premise that something that needs to be done. The difficulty is always in the execution. We'll see what happens.

The TX law is BS and I sure hope it gets quickly challenged and eliminated.

Bill - all interesting ideas. It would be interesting to hear a lawyer discuss the feasibility of these actions.

OK, fine. Continue on with your beliefs and nothing will get done. You offer no credible evidence for your statements. Stating "Baloney" to facts is idiotic. You make baseless personal accusations and "feel good" statements. You ignore the fact that the 2nd will not allow much of what you want. Clearly critical thinking and intelligent conversation are not your thing. You like the terms AR-15's and assault style weapon (and argue that no other terms suffice as if you are the king of terminology), are either incapable or unwilling to define the attributes of an assault style weapon, and think that there is some method to legally ban them along with high-capacity mags, and by doing so the gun deaths will magically go away. You are willing to ignore the guns used in well over 90% of gun deaths and think that criminals will bow down to your desires. What fantasy world are you living in? Reality is how things work. After multiple opportunities you've not made any intelligent statement on the basic questions of legally enforceable and effective gun control. People like you with nonsensical unbending views are why nothing constructive gets done. Roll on with your ranting.

If I understand the suggestion....it is to allow an injured party to sue the user and owner of the item, and the person that provided the item. Providing that path for ammo is a problem since there are many firearms that won't be on the banned list that use the same ammo. Herein, IMO, is a part of the problem. It's not as simple as we would like it to be. I'd like to see legislation to force the gun owner to be more responsible with the gun. Here in SC the sheriff has said that one of the biggest problems he sees is car break ins, primarily unlocked cars, where a handgun is stolen. The owner should be held responsible for "careless handling", fined and be liable when that gun is used in a crime. Yep, plenty of problems with implementation but it would be a start and is legal,

I've never mentioned money as a roadblock. Your theory, unfortunately, ignores many other legitimate issues. I don't know of anyone, that's not far left, that understands this issue, that thinks banning these guns is feasible or would be effective. OK fine, we'll pretend that criminals follow the law, and wait and see how that goes. Yes, let's start somewhere. It needs to include rifles and handguns. As stated before, it must be legal and actionable. What term would you like for these guns and parts? What are the attributes of the guns that you think should be banned?

Mr. Jerry - My concerns aren't complicated. IMO It doesn't make sense to solely focus on AR type firearms when they only account for, at most, 10% of firearm deaths. Ignoring the other 90% from handguns doesn't make sense. I'm defecting, I'm saying address both of them. I'm concerned about your granddaughter being harmed by indiscriminate use of any type of firearm. If AR restrictions are successful, there's no reason the nut cases won't switch to other semi auto rifles and the huge variety of semi auto handguns. Many of those have mag capacities exceeding 12 rounds. Quite a few are in the 18+ range. Yes, less lethal but still a big problem.

And still no intelligent answer to the basic question. Fine, ban selling high cap mags. What about the xxx,xxx already out there and the fact that criminals don't obey the law? Require people to turn them in and buy them back?

Yep. Doing a lot of reading on this The most common homicide is one-on-one with a handgun. Alcohol and arguing is a bad combination. Throw in gang violence and it's a big problem.

Good info but I was talking about gun deaths. No question that mass shootings have increased. The same PEW article that has your graph provides similar stats to what I posted. Below is FBI stats over a 4-yr period for homicides. They don't included suicides. Weapons 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 13,847 15,355 15,206 14,446 13,927 Total firearms: 9,143 10,398 11,014 10,445 10,258 Handguns 6,194 6,778 7,052 6,683 6,368 Rifles 215 300 389 305 364 Shotguns 248 247 263 237 200 Other guns 152 172 178 164 45 Firearms, type not stated 2,334 2,901 3,132 3,056 3,281

Why is it no surprise that there isn't any intelligent answer to the primary questions, repeated below. Just more blathering, baseless accusations and you continue to bring up useless diversions from reality. What firearms are you concerned about and how do you propose we remove them from society? What do we do and how do we do it legally to make a material impact on firearm deaths?

Let me assist with the math so you'll have correct info. Ballpark 37,000 annual gun deaths, 66% are suicide, that leaves 11,000, 500 are accidental discharge and 500 are warranted self-defense. That leaves 10,000. 90% of those are with pistols so that leaves 10% or 1,000 with rifles. These are statistics from public FBI and CDC sources. If new laws and regulations on rifles were imposed that were 50% successful they would stop 5% or 500 deaths annually. Not 22,000. And yes, 500 would be good. The primary point or question being: Why is there so much focus on the AR class of weapon instead of handguns? Handguns are used 9X more often in gun deaths.