10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Gauthier]

When thee gun-grabbers quit calling their one-sided exchange "compromise", quit misrepresenting and/or exaggerating facts, recognize the benefits of gun ownership and educate them selves with some basic firearms knowledge, then I will listen to them.

I own guns and have for a decade. Will you listen to me or have you got another excuse?

You're just a sleeper agent for the gun-grabbers. *nod*

[Big Jim P]

How about nation-wide CCW reciprocity for one?

So convince them. The problem isn't going to be solved overnight. People aren't going wake up saying
"Oh you know what, this position that I've invested a lot of time and energy into really has no ground. I'm going to completely change my mind".
No you keep at it and wear them down by attrition. Offer to compromise if they do the same. Don't give up a bargainng tool and then get annoyed that they didn't reciprocate without prioir agreement to do so.

That is the point: gun-owners have "compromised" repeatedly by the gun-grabbers false, one-sided game repeatedly in the past only to be met with more demands. Why should we continue to do so? Only an idiot continues to play a rigged game.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Didn't I just say registration?

I think further restricting the ownership of guns will work because it has worked in many other countries. This can be evidenced by the much higher firearm homicide rate in the US. This doesn't mean DC style restrictions where you can drive for a few miles and bring a gun back in with ease.

Please elaborate on how your ideas will effectively prevent mass shootings. I don't consider anger or mental illness to be any more prevalent in the US than any other country in the world and seeing as many shooters have been from a middle class upbringing, I hesitate to say they haven't been offered quality mental healthcare for their conditions. If somebody gets angry at school and decides to return the next day with a gun, how do you stop them? Do you think you can spot the problem in time? How much privacy will have to be invaded to ensure we treat the problem starting with the person?

Other countries are not our country. Every nation has developed differently, faces problems with different dynamics, and does not have the same infrastructure as others you may be comparing to. That's a lot of the problem, right there - you can't generalize that way and say 'this country did it, so we can as well'. Different border problems, different black market problems, different populations, and it just goes on.

As far as the mental health angle, I don't feel we do enough there to help those in serious need. Preventing a rational person from offhandedly going off the rails for a moment, without having had issues piling up behind it to prevent? Ya got me there. Drunken rage? Again, not sure. Kid getting mad and coming back the next day with one? Well, if they're kept locked up, that shouldn't be a problem. If minors aren't allowed conceal carry permits, that might help too. College age? Most rational people do not just 'get angry and come back with a gun'. You'll have to look to the 'see a problem, report it' and 'people with issues building up need help' bits for more, but yeah. No solution is foolproof - we've far too many fools out there just waiting, figuratively, to be the exception. But a proper registration system with a proper flagging system for any legal purchases, be it private, online, in-store, would certainly help, I think. Especially given how many of these shootings have been caused by someone with mental or emotional problems who was able to purchase or get hold of legally-purchased guns because 'lawd no, we can't take that into account! That's invasion of privacy!' ridiculousness.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So convince them. The problem isn't going to be solved overnight. People aren't going wake up saying
"Oh you know what, this position that I've invested a lot of time and energy into really has no ground. I'm going to completely change my mind".
No you keep at it and wear them down by attrition. Offer to compromise if they do the same. Don't give up a bargainng tool and then get annoyed that they didn't reciprocate without prioir agreement to do so.

That is the point: gun-owners have "compromised" repeatedly by the gun-grabbers false, one-sided game repeatedly in the past only to be met with more demands. Why should we continue to do so? Only an idiot continues to play a rigged game.

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

[Big Jim P]

When thee gun-grabbers quit calling their one-sided exchange "compromise", quit misrepresenting and/or exaggerating facts, recognize the benefits of gun ownership and educate them selves with some basic firearms knowledge, then I will listen to them.

I own guns and have for a decade. Will you listen to me or have you got another excuse?

I have listened to you. You have said nothing I have not addressed.

Since when is refusing to play the grabbers bullshit game an "excuse"?

[Jamzmania]

That is the point: gun-owners have "compromised" repeatedly by the gun-grabbers false, one-sided game repeatedly in the past only to be met with more demands. Why should we continue to do so? Only an idiot continues to play a rigged game.

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

Because we have a right?

[Big Jim P]

That is the point: gun-owners have "compromised" repeatedly by the gun-grabbers false, one-sided game repeatedly in the past only to be met with more demands. Why should we continue to do so? Only an idiot continues to play a rigged game.

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

Where do the grabbers get the idea that they are owed anyone giving up their rights? THAT is what we are doing: giving up our rights, so we damn sure are owed something in return.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Didn't I just say registration?

I think further restricting the ownership of guns will work because it has worked in many other countries. This can be evidenced by the much higher firearm homicide rate in the US. This doesn't mean DC style restrictions where you can drive for a few miles and bring a gun back in with ease.

Please elaborate on how your ideas will effectively prevent mass shootings. I don't consider anger or mental illness to be any more prevalent in the US than any other country in the world and seeing as many shooters have been from a middle class upbringing, I hesitate to say they haven't been offered quality mental healthcare for their conditions. If somebody gets angry at school and decides to return the next day with a gun, how do you stop them? Do you think you can spot the problem in time? How much privacy will have to be invaded to ensure we treat the problem starting with the person?

Other countries are not our country. Every nation has developed differently, faces problems with different dynamics, and does not have the same infrastructure as others you may be comparing to. That's a lot of the problem, right there - you can't generalize that way and say 'this country did it, so we can as well'. Different border problems, different black market problems, different populations, and it just goes on.

I think comparing developed nation to developed nation is more than fair. I'm going to assume Americans aren't more predisposed to violence than anybody else nor organized crime being a total non-factor in other parts of the world. Hell, America has tighter national borders than most other developed countries which reside in western europe.

As far as the mental health angle, I don't feel we do enough there to help those in serious need. Preventing a rational person from offhandedly going off the rails for a moment, without having had issues piling up behind it to prevent? Ya got me there. Drunken rage? Again, not sure. Kid getting mad and coming back the next day with one? Well, if they're kept locked up, that shouldn't be a problem. If minors aren't allowed conceal carry permits, that might help too. College age? Most rational people do not just 'get angry and come back with a gun'. You'll have to look to the 'see a problem, report it' and 'people with issues building up need help' bits for more, but yeah. No solution is foolproof - we've far too many fools out there just waiting, figuratively, to be the exception. But a proper registration system with a proper flagging system for any legal purchases, be it private, online, in-store, would certainly help, I think. Especially given how many of these shootings have been caused by someone with mental or emotional problems who was able to purchase or get hold of legally-purchased guns because 'lawd no, we can't take that into account! That's invasion of privacy!' ridiculousness.

Well, you're reasonable about these things I'll give you that.

[Allanea]

This comic is on point.

[Gauthier]

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

Because we have a right?

You have a right to run red lights now?

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

Where do the grabbers get the idea that they are owed anyone giving up their rights? THAT is what we are doing: giving up our rights, so we damn sure are owed something in return.

Rights aren't set in concrete. What did the southern states get post civil war for relinquishing the rights to own slaves? Or is this only for rights that you agree with?

And please stop being so melodramatic. Crying and pretending the nasty gun grabbers will eventually take away all your guns makes you extremely difficult to debate with.

[The Black Forrest]

It's not actually a game and there's no compromising. There's a problem and there's passing laws to fix it. When they lower speed limits, do you argue that you should be allowed to run a red light every now and then? Where do you get the idea that you're owed anything?

Because we have a right?

Well? I would follow my uncles explanation. His was much longer but I will reduce it.

Gun ownership isn't a right. It's a privilege with responsibility.

[Gauthier]

Where do the grabbers get the idea that they are owed anyone giving up their rights? THAT is what we are doing: giving up our rights, so we damn sure are owed something in return.

Rights aren't set in concrete. What did the southern states get post civil war for relinquishing the rights to own slaves? Or is this only for rights that you agree with?

And please stop being so melodramatic. Crying and pretending the nasty gun grabbers will eventually take away all your guns makes you extremely difficult to debate with.

Such aversion to gun-grabbing will only lead to PTSD from a handjob.

[Allanea]

Is Markley's Law in play now?

[Jamzmania]

Because we have a right?

Well? I would follow my uncles explanation. His was much longer but I will reduce it.

Gun ownership isn't a right. It's a privilege with responsibility.

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

[Big Jim P]

Where do the grabbers get the idea that they are owed anyone giving up their rights? THAT is what we are doing: giving up our rights, so we damn sure are owed something in return.

Rights aren't set in concrete. What did the southern states get post civil war for relinquishing the rights to own slaves? Or is this only for rights that you agree with?

And please stop being so melodramatic. Crying and pretending the nasty gun grabbers will eventually take away all your guns makes you extremely difficult to debate with.

Considering they keep demanding more and more infringement and some have out-right stated they wish to ban guns outright, I wouldn't call it "Crying and pretending" The gun-grabbers KNOW they don't have the support to repeal thee Second Amendment or enact a total ban, so they go about it piecemeal. I am not being melodramatic. I am pointing out historical facts.

[Gauthier]

Well? I would follow my uncles explanation. His was much longer but I will reduce it.

Gun ownership isn't a right. It's a privilege with responsibility.

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Unless you're actually part of an active militia then you're the one doing the Jim Carrey impression.

[Big Jim P]

Rights aren't set in concrete. What did the southern states get post civil war for relinquishing the rights to own slaves? Or is this only for rights that you agree with?

And please stop being so melodramatic. Crying and pretending the nasty gun grabbers will eventually take away all your guns makes you extremely difficult to debate with.

Such aversion to gun-grabbing will only lead to PTSD from a handjob.

Nothing to add to thee debate as usual.

[Alvecia]

So convince them. The problem isn't going to be solved overnight. People aren't going wake up saying
"Oh you know what, this position that I've invested a lot of time and energy into really has no ground. I'm going to completely change my mind".
No you keep at it and wear them down by attrition. Offer to compromise if they do the same. Don't give up a bargainng tool and then get annoyed that they didn't reciprocate without prioir agreement to do so.

That is the point: gun-owners have "compromised" repeatedly by the gun-grabbers false, one-sided game repeatedly in the past only to be met with more demands. Why should we continue to do so? Only an idiot continues to play a rigged game.

Did you read this bit?
"Don't give up a bargaining tool and then get annoyed that they didn't reciprocate without prior agreement to do so."
It's not a compromise if only one side gives. So either you have surrendered you rights, not compromise, or the "gun-grabbers" have compromised.

You kind of are.
"If they won't compromise then why should I even try?"
That will solve all of our problems I'm sure.
Sarcasm aside, few things are peacfully resolved by two parties stubbornly clinging to each extreme end of the argument.

Fighting to keep the rights you already have is hardly an extreme position.

Except

Is not just fighting to keep existing rights but to remove restrictions altogether.
(I would love to confirm and quote the statement in referring too but I'm on my phone now and it can't go that far back without a lot of hassle)

You kind of are.
"If they won't compromise then why should I even try?"
That will solve all of our problems I'm sure.
Sarcasm aside, few things are peacfully resolved by two parties stubbornly clinging to each extreme end of the argument.

When thee gun-grabbers quit calling their one-sided exchange "compromise", quit misrepresenting and/or exaggerating facts, recognize the benefits of gun ownership and educate them selves with some basic firearms knowledge, then I will listen to them.

1. Again you're operating under the assumption, likely false, that all who want gun regulation and/or restriction are "gun-grabbers" who misrepresent and exaggerate facts and are uneducated about the position they have taken. This, quite frankly, is needlessly insulting.
2. Tho essentially boils down to the "lalalalala I can't hear you" argument.

[Gauthier]

Such aversion to gun-grabbing will only lead to PTSD from a handjob.

Nothing to add to thee debate as usual.

"Debate" implies there's an actual possibility the other side will concede and convert.

[Jamzmania]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Unless you're actually part of an active militia then you're the one doing the Jim Carrey impression.

Ignoring the part that goes, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," I see.

[Big Jim P]

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Unless you're actually part of an active militia then you're the one doing the Jim Carrey impression.

All able bodied citizens are the militia. Yep, I am one of those. The right is an individual one in any event. Jut like every other Constitutional right. Please feel free to play again.

[Conserative Morality]

Considering they keep demanding more and more infringement and some have out-right stated they wish to ban guns outright, I wouldn't call it "Crying and pretending" The gun-grabbers KNOW they don't have the support to repeal thee Second Amendment or enact a total ban, so they go about it piecemeal. I am not being melodramatic. I am pointing out historical facts.

You know what?

Fuck it.

I'm now in support of repealing the 2nd amendment at this point, for the sole reason of not having to hear this bullshit anymore.

[Conserative Morality]

Ignoring the part that goes, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," I see.

"Well-regulated militia" comes to mind, seeing as being part of the nation's militia is a privilege and 'well-regulated' implies responsibility in involved on some level.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? I would follow my uncles explanation. His was much longer but I will reduce it.

Gun ownership isn't a right. It's a privilege with responsibility.

Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed your uncle is talking out of his ass.

Thank you for proving what he said.

I am willing to bet he was a far more responsible gun owner then you.

Speaking of the second amendment. What about that well regulated part.