Some folks don't mind pouring rights and freedom down the crapper...if only we could appeal to peoples emotions we could get something done.

Not very progressive, and that's sad. We're supposed to be the "thinking" side.

making demeaning comments about the appearance of the pair across from them, the bartender interjected, "That's a mirror"

That ultimately makes it very self-centered in nature.

been historical in nature.

I value those contributions so much that I'd really like to hear yours, for once.

I've posted a fair bit on the subject of gun control, as I'm sure you know. I'm not one of the "confiscate all guns!" types, but I do think limits are in order. There is a line, we are just debating where it should be drawn.

Perhaps you would enlighten me.

I know you'll jump on anything I propose as a slippery slope, and it's just meaningless posts on the internet, and I'm just some anonymous guy with one opinion... but thanks for caring

no ideas you can articulate? Or is that something you will only do in the "safe haven" where "never is heard a dissenting word"?

Such a proposal, while constitutional, would be virtually unenforceable amongst the criminal class and would have no effect on the 2/3 of firearms deaths that are suicides.

UBC's are not a bad idea if the Feds would open the NICS system up to non-FFL holders; but without a national registry would have little impact on transfer of firearms to prohibited persons. I have some seldom used firearms in my possession; should I choose to sell I would either sell to someone I know personally is not prohibited or to a dealer.

Either SC forgot to tell the feds about Roof's drug arrest and pending trial or SLED has its head up its ass.
OR
The old man needs to be prosecuted for illegal transfer under the Gun Control Act.

and I have seen nothing to indicated Roof had been indicted. Either of which would prohibit the purchase. An arrest alone will not prevent purchase.

Cho, at VA Tech, should have been in the database but was not. Like most components of the Criminal Justice system, funding is normally kept at a level just short of catastrophe until something falls in the pot. Then money flows like water and most is wasted on "dog and pony" shows.

The fact is, there is virtually no way to prevent another mass killing without hardening all targets so that the world becomes a virtual prison. There are simply too many ways to conduct a large-scale killing with items commonly available.

I don't really believe that. While nothing is 100%, I think there's progress to be made.

I also believe that there is no way to stop the person who is willing to die in the attempt to cause mass carnage. YMMV.

at VA Tech and Charleston, where the shooter reloaded 5 times with no interruption? Not being snarky, but magazine limits only affect those inclined to obey the law to begin with. Anyone willing to murder 9 people is not going to be deterred by a law restricting magazine capacity. YMMV.

When you bounce them off of reality, magazine capacity restrictions are gun control for the sake of gun control.

They fail and fail and fail again to do what those who promote them say they're promoting them to do, so what else can they possibly be?

You mentioned UBC, I like that. I don't like public availability. I'd prefer that both parties stop at the local FFL or LE office.
Sound okay to you?

that you never make a comment on or discuss per the group SOP? You may have a high post count and this is your favorite group but you do very rarely make a comment about the subject. More often then not you make unrelated comments.

Most of my posts are fully on topic as I enjoy discussion.

I keep seeing these OP's making such comparisons with the "reasoned" pro gun side.
The gun lobby props you up but you never admit to it.
If by some strange turn of events the funding by the gun manufacturers and the NRA were to disappear you would be seeing a different picture.

matter how many people owned guns. Control can't be heard in legislatures because money drowns it out.
I am the first to admit that many proposed gun laws would not slow down gun violence but some could without stepping on gun rights.

...truth is only true when it's been paid for? Or do you not read/remember much of what I, in particular, have to say?