TakeYouToTasker

The problem will be solved as soon as people stop treating this as a gun issue and start treating it as a mental health issue. The issue is that the gun grabbers don't care about the deaths of innocents, they care about taking away guns, which is why they stand on the stacked up bodies of the dead to propose non-solutions to the problem of mental illness. They don't care about the dead, they just want your guns, and the death of children is the tool they're choosing to use. It's very similar to the climate change crowd who insists the solution is the global redistribution of wealth. They don't care about climate change, real or imagined. They're communists who want to redistribute wealth, and climate change is the convenient car they've chosen to drive to their final destination. They don't want you to have freedom. They want you to live by their dictates, which they've determined to be better for you than freedom.

Do you believe it coincidental that the party of gun grabbers is also the party who attempted to fix a federal election and then initiated a coup against the justly elected government? As I said up-thread, Second Amendment protections against government tyranny are just as relevant today as they were 250 years ago.

If someone is mature enough to be conscripted into the military, and to give input about how society should organize itself, then they are mature enough to handle firearms. Stop infantilizing adults.

I don't think you've defined camp #1 well enough, because my personal view is much more nuanced. I've never said, anywhere, that nothing should be done, or that mass shootings should simply view viewed as the cost of doing business in a free society. This: "I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers." in my opinion forms the bulk of the issue. Of course mass shootings are a complicated problem. Most problems are. The thing is, the problem doesn't get solved unless we treat the actual problem, so while it may be difficult, if we want to solve it, treating symptoms doesn't help. As to your third paragraph, I don't think you have the right of it there.

This strikes me as an inquisitive post, setting out with an attempt at intellectual honesty, so I'll engage. I don't think there are any reasonable people out there who don't think mas shootings are problematic. The individual instances are incredibly problematic, because they represent tragic, often senseless, personal loss; and are heart breaking, especially when the victims are children. With that said, we are not facing an epidemic. As I mentioned earlier, an individual, over the course of their lives, are just as likely to be mauled to death by a dog as they are to die in a mass shooting, and there are roughly the same amount of bathtubs drownings in the US annually as there are these types of gun deaths. So while it is problematic, it is not problematic enough that we need to rethink the entire concept of human rights and our nation's Foundational values. (Our Foundational values, as much as you've handwaived them away, are an assertion that a free people have the right to bear arms in order to prevent their own government from becoming tyrannical. This is just as relevant today as it was 250 years ago.) Further, if we wish to address the issue, it seems wise to address the actual problem rather than the symptom; and the symptom is the mass shootings. You need to address the pathology. Guns are not the problem. The problem are the people going on rampages. Let's address that, and by address, I don't mean legislate: I mean talk about the problem.

Watching the left devour itself is always hilarious.

I've always been a bit curious as to why people have such a hard time believing the DNC, high ranking Democratic officials, and the Hillary Clinton Campaign tried to rig the federal election while it's an accepted self-evident truth that they rigged their own primary.

What are you going to do when he's right? He's not trying to win an argument with you, though he is. He's trying to prepare you.

He has at least 7 years left in office, possibly more. With the amount of political capital he is going to have to domestically and internationally after what's coming, it wouldn't surprise me. He's been working on this since day one, hasn't spent a drop of political capital, is winning the battle to the higher moral ground, and is expressing a view point that the overwhelming majority of the country supports. He'll get his wall, and I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts, through the wizardry of accounting, after reforms are made to various trade deals, Mexico does wind up paying for some portion of it.

He's pretty much delivered on all of his campaign promises, and more, with the only exception being the repeal of the ACA which he has roughly 7 more years to work on. And he'll be doing it with a super majority in both houses of Congress, and probably another 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices if the Democratic Party is as permanently decimated by what is rolling down the pipe as I expect them to be.

Technicalities? You're an idiot, and a liar. And the reason there is going to be a shooting war in America.

Bill Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself before Congress. And you don't know what fascism is.

I'm not sure why alleged infidelity should persuade anyone to change their perspective on the President's job in office or his ability to govern. It is, unfortunately, something commonplace in our society (around a quarter of all married couples have one or both spouses admit to cheating), and seems the sort of thing that is between Donald Trump and his wife. I'm not sure why I should care.

Prove what? Prove to you that haven't read primary sources and are posting sound bites out of context? Well, that's an interesting thing for you to say. I suppose it's true that you have read the primary sources and are posting sound bites out of context on purpose because you're a liar. im giving you the benefit of the doubt however and am assuming you haven't read them, and are being duped rather than being complicit.

I'm not sure why you're getting defensive. You haven't looked at primary sources, and you have no idea what the context is. Further, you've taken an out of context sound bite , purposed for sowing outrage aligning with a specific narrative, and posted it as evidence to anchor an argument you've made in favor of those holding an agenda which that narrative serves. You don't see how that's problematic? Again, read primary sources and form your own opinions. Stop letting propagandists do your thinking for you.

No, I'm not doing that work for you, and I'm not trying to be an !@#$. What I'm doing is pointing out to you that you've outsourced your critical thinking, and are allowing propagandists to tell you what to think. Stop believing truncated sound bites and start examining context when people driving an agenda are trying to sell you something. Examine primary sources, then form your own opinions after educating yourself. Then ask yourself why you are being lied to.

Have you read that entire transcript, not just the sound bite, but the transcript? I'm guessing you have not, because you've lost all of the context.

I implore you to, with a completely open mind, and no preconceived notions, to read through all of the evidence Deranged Rhino has been presenting for over a year now. If you ask him, I'm sure he can provide for you a detailed and well sourced timeline, either by links to an existing one, or otherwise.

Do we really have someone making an argument against preparedness?

Against my better judgement, I'm going to address this: I am not, nor have I ever been a "Trump supporter". Nor have I been a supporter of anyone else for that matter. I am incredibly distrustful of power, and believe that rulers who manifest a cult of personality have the overwhelming potential to become incredibly dangerous. As such, I support policies and philosophies which actively work against the ability of system, or individual, to consolidate power or act arbitrarily. All processes of government, to these ends, must conform to the legal limits placed on them, at all times. IE. I believe the DREAMers should be permitted to stay in the country, and be provided a path to citizenship, through the legislative process. If this cannot be achieved, they should be deported. The sanctity of the process is far more important than individual outcomes. This is because we have no guarantees that bad actors will never be at the helm of the nation, and if we, as a people, are insistent that our government be bound by strict guidelines and legal processes even when it comes to the things we really want it to do, then we are culturally much less vulnerable to those bad actors in power when they seek to use the power of government to do things that are oppressive. To these ends, I am pleased with the actions President Trump has taken to reinstate the proper concept of checks and balances in regards to DACA and the reduction, across the board, of the unaccountable regulatory state. He is the first President of my lifetime who has worked actively to reduce the scope of the Executive. This should be regarded as a wonderful thing; especially to those who live in fear of a God Emperor Trump. Finally, to step on my last point, I would posit that if an individual is afraid of what God Emperor Trump is able to do with the power they have vested in the Executive, then they have vested far too much power in the Executive, which is exactly what people who subscribe to my governing philosophies have been insisting just about forever.

Defeats the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.

What does this even mean?

I've covered this already: but even if we're using the FBI's definition of "mass shooting" which includes any incident in which 4 or more people are killed by firearms (which vacates the idea of a mass shooting as something like Las Vegas and Sandy Hook, and doesn't distinguish them from gang violence or domestic incidents), only roughly 400 people on the high end die of them every year. That's roughly the same amount of people who die accidentally drowning in their bathtub annually. You are statistically just as likely to be mauled to death by a dog as you are to die in a mass shooting. As an aside, what does Donald Trump have to do with this?

Exactly. Not only was I never pro-Trump, I was vocally anti-Trump. And Deranged Rhino is a left leaning, anti-war, former Democrat, with a mild libertarian bent.

Liars should never be listened to, especially when directing their lies at public policy, especially when standing on the bodies of their own dead children to make political hay. I was speaking about those in the media pushing the "18 school shootings this year" idiocy.