Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: beachbumbabs

2 pages unread, so probably posted already. Jumping off your post, 1MTM.

It bears repeating.

There was an armed Sheriff's Deputy on duty outside Parkland. HE DIDN'T GO IN AND ENGAGE THE SHOOTER. 4 MINUTES OR SO PASSED WITH HIM OUTSIDE.

Reportedly he has resigned.

A trained, licensed, armed LEO did not even TRY to stop the shooter. He CHOSE that occupation with every expectation that he would someday be called on to discharge his weapon. He couldn't do it.

And some of you expect teachers and janitors to do it? And not just pull a trigger, but ONLY pull it in an appropriate and necessary situation, a righteous shooting, and meanwhile, guard it every second while trying to do their jobs?

Puh-leeze.

Yup
Having armed guards at schools wont solve jack
17 died at a school with an with armed guard
We need laws to prevent immature youngsters from getting an AR-15

Quote: AZDuffman

Because liberals won't say that! They hide what they really want, hoping to peel off just enough support to get an inch.

Let;s take a recent example. The idea of gay marriage came up in the early 1990s. But they didn't say they wanted "marriage." Not initially, except a few radicals. They said they respected marriage and just wanted a "civil union." Let the word "marriage" be for marriage. Some of us said that they will not be satisfied with "civil unions."

Well, we can see what happened. A few people agreed in a few places, the inch was take up arms to take the next foot, then the next yard, then the whole mile. It happens every time.



And others of us point out, which liberals ignore, that lots of places with strict regulations have MORE violence. Mexico virtually forbids guns for citizens outside their home, and yet loads of gun violence. Strict gun laws in Chicago, and lots of gun violence. Or DC in the 80s, same thing.



Liberals never do, because the correlation is really not there!

The reality is that your chances of dying of gun violence is very, very low. Check out the stats that were posted at DT. I pointed out that any school student is 197 times more likely to commit suicide than die of a school shooting. Really, we have to stop screaming "THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!" when something random happens.

It is against the law to kill people, that does not stop killers. The cops and FBI were called on this guy, they ignored the problem. It looks like the school had an armed guard, didn't help. Quit saying a law to ban guns will magically stop things. The problem is a sickly and declining society, not guns.

The argument about incremental gay marriage is a really, really poor example for your side. Ultimately, your argument is with the US Constitution, which provides equal protection to all under the law, and was the cornerstone for legalization of gay marriage nationwide.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you follow when you're hiding behind the 2nd Amendment to push your gun agenda.

Various movements to amend the constitution to prevent/exclude/except gays from that protection failed. So it is still the law of the land. And the Liberals you blame for their tactics, you should celebrate instead, for upholding the Constitutional rights of gays to have full rights to everything from filing taxes jointly to hospital visitation of their spouse. After all, you're asking for blanket protections under any circumstances, no matter how extreme, from gun restrictions under the 2nd, right?

Quote: beachbumbabs

The argument about incremental gay marriage is a really, really poor example for your side. Ultimately, your argument is with the US Constitution, which provides equal protection to all under the law, and was the cornerstone for legalization of gay marriage nationwide.

No, it is the perfect example. Marriage was never thought to be about anything more than one man and one woman until the argument started and the "found" the right! Gays had the right to marry all along, just had to marry someone of the opposite sex. Inches were given and the whole concept changed.

Quote: boymimbo

A vast number of other places don't have that correlation: New York for one. Perhaps poverty with the gun law is a key factor. Mexico has a gun and murder problem because the gangs get at least 70% of their high powered weaponry from easy arms sales in the United States. They have money to buy these arms from the drug trade while Mexican citizens do not. Canada doesn't have the same problem because it's difficult to grow cocaine in the snow. Canada also does not have a widespread poverty problem like Mexico or inner cities in the US have.

New York used to be way more violent than it is today, a total sewer to live in pre-Rudy. It is an example of better policing fixing a city. Mexico has a gun and murder problem because the country is what New York used to be, an uncontrollable sewer with corrupt cops and politicians.

Quote:

Like when an idiot decides to light his shoe on fire? Like when an airplane loses an engine? Like when someone decides to poison some tylenol? Like when there's a food poisoning outbreak that kills a person?

All random noise. All resolved. You're solution: do nothing. Not for this!

No, not do nothing. Do something that actually works. Tylenol caused regs for package sealing. That works, and I was amazed by the 1980s it was not being done already. Taking off shoes not so much, better to profile passengers and select who you screen.

Quote:

Why does the drug trade exist? Poverty.

No, because there is demand, across the entire socioeconomic spectrum.

Quote:

Still waiting for a good argument as to why AR-15s should be readily available to anyone besides "it's random" argument.

Because we do not nee another useless law. Lets see, gun-free school zone, check. Against the law to kill people, check. Armed guard at the school, check. DID ANY OF IT WORK?

Quote: terapined

He made 75k a year
At that pay level, I expect him to go in and take out the shooter
I don't feel sorry for him

Oh gee I didn't know that. For 75K he definitely should have gotten in there.

Quote: GWAE

Oh gee I didn't know that. For 75K he definitely should have gotten in there.

They certainly expect marines out of basic training to fire on people for quite a bit less than 75k.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it is the perfect example. Marriage was never thought to be about anything more than one man and one woman until the argument started and the "found" the right! Gays had the right to marry all along, just had to marry someone of the opposite sex. Inches were given and the whole concept changed.

The Constitution is silent on the sex of the person you marry. Had it been explicit in that, there would have been no Constitutional case. The point of most proposed amendments to it was to insert that definition in some form. They all failed.

Quote: terapined

Yup
Having armed guards at schools wont solve jack
17 died at a school with an with armed guard
We need laws to prevent immature youngsters from getting an AR-15

Good summary. But I assume you mean "we need laws to prevent ANYONE from getting an AR-15", correct? Is a 19 year old a youngster? 24 year old? 31 year old? How do I tell if someone is "immature"?

Quote: beachbumbabs

The Constitution is silent on the sex of the person you marry. Had it been explicit in that, there would have been no Constitutional case. The point of most proposed amendments to it was to insert that definition in some form. They all failed.

Because it was an assumed thing. The Constitution does not even mention marriage. In any case, it was just an example of liebral incrementalism. The USA lost that battle, on to something else.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because it was an assumed thing. The Constitution does not even mention marriage. In any case, it was just an example of liebral incrementalism. The USA lost that battle, on to something else.

Right!
And anything assumable from the us constitution makes it liable to interpretation. Supreme court is the body that makes that ultimate determination. So as you said battle lost on your side

BTW - i am rather certain the founding fathers knew about homosexuality back in 1776.

Furthermore the founding fathers were well aware of changing mores and progress which is why they set up a system that is both rigid and bendable. To acount for things they did not foresee while holding the country to well established doctrine

Gates is pleading guilty to something that happened in 2013.

The arm of the special prosecutor is long.

Quote: rxwine

The arm of the special prosecutor is long.

Long arm vs. small hands. Who will win?!

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it is the perfect example. Marriage was never thought to be about anything more than one man and one woman until the argument started and the "found" the right! .

Nope
It has evolved
It was never just one man and one woman
We have racists in this country that were totally against the one woman one man marriage due to race and passed laws to prevent these one woman one man marriage.
My parents got married and their marriage was deemed illegal in some states do the biracial relationship

Quote: SOOPOO

Good summary. But I assume you mean "we need laws to prevent ANYONE from getting an AR-15", correct? Is a 19 year old a youngster? 24 year old? 31 year old? How do I tell if someone is "immature"?

Never assume.
Let me say it again differently
We need an age limit to buy the AR -15
I think 21 is a good number

If you don't ban all semi-automatic long guns in the US, banning those that are defined as an "assault weapon" won't make a difference.

Problem is that there isn't broad support for the banning of "all semi-automatic" rifles in the US (unless you think CNN's Town Hall audience represents American...they don't). Why is that? Because even with passage of a ban on semi-automatic rifles, you'll have those that want to inflict mass shooting terror turning to semi-automatic pistols (some come standard with 17 or more bullet magazines and you can swap those magazines out just as fast as an "AR-15" type weapon) or semi-automatic shotguns (7 shots in the magazine and 6+ on a side saddle and manual reloads can be pretty fast) or lever action rifles (Google videos on how fast people can throw bullets on target with a lever action rifle and you can get fast loading devices for these rifles as well). If you are educated on firearms you know that an "AR-15/Assault Weapons" ban (whatever that is) doesn't really accomplish much towards reducing the carnage a mass shooting can inflict. And that is the goal, right :-P?

Semi-automatic weapons are not going away in the US so just set that objective aside. Limits on ammunition purchases or number of guns owned by an individual is not going to get broad based support either...so set that aside as well.

What could get broad based support is the following:

1) Changes to background system that allow for more inputs from various sources that alert Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL's) in real time to a complete listing of individuals not eligible for gun purchases. Mandatory state compliance with updating the system from all 50 states.
2) Allowing family members, social services & LE more latitude in placing someone on the do not sell list. An efficient quality system that provides for an individual to refute/respond to be placed on the do not sell listing would be part of this "upgrade" to the background system. Financial and criminal penalties for individuals or authorities abusing the addition of someone to the listing similar to what is in place if you abuse the 911 or other significant government reporting systems.
2) Elimination of private sales...all firearm transfers must be made through an FFL and with proper ID and a background check.
3) Increasing the age for all firearms to 21.
4) Elimination of bump stocks & other devices that convert semi-automatics into full automatics.
5) A national limit on magazine capacity on all firearms of 10 rounds.
6) A national registration of all semi-automatic weapons...along with felony convictions for possession of unregistered semis. If you are a felon, you lose your rights to own any firearm, so my guess is law abiding gun owners are not going to take a chance being found in possession of an unregistered semi auto weapon.

Are 1) - 6) going to eliminated mass school shooting events...no, but it is going to have an impact on access by a majority of recent perpetrators and the damage they can do in a short period of time. Further, they are measures that could actually be put in place if put to a Congressional or Popular Vote. Law abiding gun owners get to keep their firearms and have a tough time justifying opposition to the above that a majority of Americans will join them in opposing. I guess that is up for debate, but the majority of Americans aren't going to get behind "the government is going to take my guns away and mandatory background checks/mandatory registration are the first step" or "the threat of a zombie apocalypse requires my 30 round magazines" reasons for opposing the restrictions above.

That being said, if you want more bloodshed in this country that will pale in comparison to Sandy Hook/Las Vegas/Parkland...try sending out the police or military to "round up" the "now illegal" 5 million AR-15's in this country...Ruby Ridge and Waco will have nothing on what is to come if you think that strategy is going to work. Or you can go for that gun buy back strategy and see if you get 20% of them turned in...I am setting 1 million as the over/under line on voluntary compliance.

Those that want "something done" as a result of Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Parkland, etc...should look to get changes made that are possible and desired by a majority of the country....banning "assault weapons" or all semi-auto long guns isn't going to happen so if that is what "common gun laws" means, you're gonna be out of luck on getting anything changed...focus efforts and energy on what is possible.

1-5 should be no brainers for anyone. We've already decided 18 is too young for kids to drink.
As with the drinking age, I'd make an exception for people who join the military.
#6 ,I think a lot of people will have a problem with.

I'm a firm believer the Federal Government should fund a buy back program. Even if it gets 5% of the guns off the street, it will save lives in the long run.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346

Article explains the damage that an AR-15 bullet does as opposed to handguns or other rifles. While semi-automatic weapons are part of the discussion, the bottom line is the AR-15 is a weapon of war and no regular citizen should have one. They WANT one so they can go to the range. Sure, it's a lot of fun to shoot one. But screw your hobby. Enough is enough.

Nobody is going to round them up. If we're going to get rid of the AR-15's, we'll have to implement a conceivable buyback program to make it worth it for gun owners to sell it back to the government so that it can be destroyed.

It's pretty sad that all the rage is banning bump stocks. Umm, bump stock was not used in this attack. Bump stocks were used in Vegas. Why didn't we ban them then? NOW we want to ban bump stocks after an attack where they weren't used? We couldn't get behind a ban after Vegas? Now we have an attack where they weren't used and we say, "lets ban bump stocks". Stupid.

And I disagree that banning assault weapons is out of the mainstream. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

That poll shows what most of us already know on other issues totally unrelated to gun control. We live in a country where the majority of us want something but it doesn't get done while the minority of us want something (tax reform) and it gets done. That should piss us all off. We elect legislators to represent us!, not big money interests.

EDIT: By the way, the list above is a great start. But it's not enough.

Quote: Paradigm

That being said, if you want more bloodshed in this country that will pale in comparison to Sandy Hook/Las Vegas/Parkland...try sending out the police or military to "round up" the "now illegal" 5 million AR-15's in this country...Ruby Ridge and Waco will have nothing on what is to come if you think that strategy is going to work. Or you can go for that gun buy back strategy and see if you get 20% of them turned in...I am setting 1 million as the over/under line on voluntary compliance.

I like a challenge.

I would never go that route. I would offer total immunity from prosecution. If someone in the family or neighbor, or neighbor's kid had a chance to steal the entire locked gun box they could receive a reward for turning in someone else's guns. Why bother with the hired jackboots when you can bribe the neighbors or family members to turn on each other for money?

I mean, in a perfect but unlikely illegal gun confiscation scheme, that's what I would do.

Quote: AZDuffman

In any case, it was just an example of liebral incrementalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are arguing that if we implement some common sense gun control measures today, that eventually, the 2A will be repealed and all guns will be outlawed.

So it's somewhat obvious that you don't understand what it would take to do that:

2/3 of the House and Senate would need to approve of the repeal. Unlikely, but let's assume there's a blue wave of historic proportions, enough democrats are elected, and the political capitol and will is there.

The proposed amendment then goes to each of the 50 state legislatures for an up-or-down vote. 3/4 of those states, 38, would need to approve of the repeal.

Considering that republicans control both the state House and state Senate in 32 states, your prediction is so highly unlikely it's not even worth discussing.

And therein lies the problem with this discussion. Every time we start to talk about using some common sense on this, you guys take it to the extreme and say we want to get rid of all guns. It's just not true and even if it was true, it would take an historic set of circumstances to make it a reality. And I ask you, if those very unlikely set of circumstances were to come true, what does that tell you about the will of the people? It means enough people, a HISTORIC amount of people, would have voted for legislators who were for gun control.

That's the way it SHOULD work.

Quote: billryan

I'm a firm believer the Federal Government should fund a buy back program. Even if it gets 5% of the guns off the street, it will save lives in the long run.

Buy Back programs are kind of a joke. I remember one program got caught re-selling the good guns they got. Guns that do come in are often such junk that no criminal would use them.

Feel good, accomplish next to nothing.

If you want to sell your guns to the cops though, feel free.

Quote: AZDuffman

Feel good, accomplish next to nothing.

Ask Australia what it accomplished.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Do kids in Australia also play video games and watch movies?

Quote: Steverinos

Ask Australia what it accomplished.

Accomplished taking away people's rights.

At the least, the government of OZ has a better history of how it treats disarmed people than the USA does.

Ask an American Indian how well turning in their guns turned out.

Quote: AZDuffman

Accomplished taking away people's rights.

At the least, the government of OZ has a better history of how it treats disarmed people than the USA does.

Ask an American Indian how well turning in their guns turned out.

What?
Ask the Australian Aborigines how they turned out first

Quote: Paradigm

If you don't ban all semi-automatic long guns in the US, banning those that are defined as an "assault weapon" won't make a difference.

Problem is that there isn't broad support for the banning of "all semi-automatic" rifles in the US (unless you think CNN's Town Hall audience represents American...they don't). Why is that? Because even with passage of a ban on semi-automatic rifles, you'll have those that want to inflict mass shooting terror turning to semi-automatic pistols (some come standard with 17 or more bullet magazines and you can swap those magazines out just as fast as an "AR-15" type weapon) or semi-automatic shotguns (7 shots in the magazine and 6+ on a side saddle and manual reloads can be pretty fast) or lever action rifles (Google videos on how fast people can throw bullets on target with a lever action rifle and you can get fast loading devices for these rifles as well). If you are educated on firearms you know that an "AR-15/Assault Weapons" ban (whatever that is) doesn't really accomplish much towards reducing the carnage a mass shooting can inflict. And that is the goal, right :-P?

Semi-automatic weapons are not going away in the US so just set that objective aside. Limits on ammunition purchases or number of guns owned by an individual is not going to get broad based support either...so set that aside as well.

I'm not trying to make a statement on what should and shouldn't be banned, but I hear the argument "handguns are semiautomatic too, so same thing as an AR!" all the time and I really don't think it's accurate.

AR type rifles are the weapon of choice for most rampage shooters because 1) the increased magazine capacity, but more importantly 2) it is FAR easier to accurately rapid fire with an AR rather than a handgun.

Here's a video that shows what I am talking about. It's shocking but not really NSFW. This guy wasn't able to kill a single person with his handgun at close range:



Obviously this is less the case with practice/training ... but bottom line is that if you are trying to shoot as many people in a crowded area as fast as possible, an AR-type gun is the best tool for the job.

Quote: Paradigm

If you don't ban all semi-automatic long guns in the US, banning those that are defined as an "assault weapon" won't make a difference.

Problem is that there isn't broad support for the banning of "all semi-automatic" rifles in the US (unless you think CNN's Town Hall audience represents American...they don't). Why is that? Because even with passage of a ban on semi-automatic rifles, you'll have those that want to inflict mass shooting terror turning to semi-automatic pistols (some come standard with 17 or more bullet magazines and you can swap those magazines out just as fast as an "AR-15" type weapon) or semi-automatic shotguns (7 shots in the magazine and 6+ on a side saddle and manual reloads can be pretty fast) or lever action rifles (Google videos on how fast people can throw bullets on target with a lever action rifle and you can get fast loading devices for these rifles as well). If you are educated on firearms you know that an "AR-15/Assault Weapons" ban (whatever that is) doesn't really accomplish much towards reducing the carnage a mass shooting can inflict. And that is the goal, right :-P?

Semi-automatic weapons are not going away in the US so just set that objective aside. Limits on ammunition purchases or number of guns owned by an individual is not going to get broad based support either...so set that aside as well.

What could get broad based support is the following:

1) Changes to background system that allow for more inputs from various sources that alert Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL's) in real time to a complete listing of individuals not eligible for gun purchases. Mandatory state compliance with updating the system from all 50 states.
2) Allowing family members, social services & LE more latitude in placing someone on the do not sell list. An efficient quality system that provides for an individual to refute/respond to be placed on the do not sell listing would be part of this "upgrade" to the background system. Financial and criminal penalties for individuals or authorities abusing the addition of someone to the listing similar to what is in place if you abuse the 911 or other significant government reporting systems.
2) Elimination of private sales...all firearm transfers must be made through an FFL and with proper ID and a background check.
3) Increasing the age for all firearms to 21.
4) Elimination of bump stocks & other devices that convert semi-automatics into full automatics.
5) A national limit on magazine capacity on all firearms of 10 rounds.
6) A national registration of all semi-automatic weapons...along with felony convictions for possession of unregistered semis. If you are a felon, you lose your rights to own any firearm, so my guess is law abiding gun owners are not going to take a chance being found in possession of an unregistered semi auto weapon.

Are 1) - 6) going to eliminated mass school shooting events...no, but it is going to have an impact on access by a majority of recent perpetrators and the damage they can do in a short period of time. Further, they are measures that could actually be put in place if put to a Congressional or Popular Vote. Law abiding gun owners get to keep their firearms and have a tough time justifying opposition to the above that a majority of Americans will join them in opposing. I guess that is up for debate, but the majority of Americans aren't going to get behind "the government is going to take my guns away and mandatory background checks/mandatory registration are the first step" or "the threat of a zombie apocalypse requires my 30 round magazines" reasons for opposing the restrictions above.

That being said, if you want more bloodshed in this country that will pale in comparison to Sandy Hook/Las Vegas/Parkland...try sending out the police or military to "round up" the "now illegal" 5 million AR-15's in this country...Ruby Ridge and Waco will have nothing on what is to come if you think that strategy is going to work. Or you can go for that gun buy back strategy and see if you get 20% of them turned in...I am setting 1 million as the over/under line on voluntary compliance.

Those that want "something done" as a result of Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Parkland, etc...should look to get changes made that are possible and desired by a majority of the country....banning "assault weapons" or all semi-auto long guns isn't going to happen so if that is what "common gun laws" means, you're gonna be out of luck on getting anything changed...focus efforts and energy on what is possible.

You (and Marco Rubio) would be wrong about broad-based support for banning all semi-automatic weapons; it's not a fringe position.

Excerpt from WaPo yesterday :

Quote:

But in 2016, Morning Consult and the New York Times asked registered voters whether they supported “banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic firearms.”

Nearly two-thirds — 63 percent — said they'd support such a ban to reduce gun homicides, and 62 percent said they would support it to reduce mass shootings.

Sounds pretty mainstream to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/marco-rubio-says-banning-all-semiautomatic-weapons-is-a-position-well-outside-the-mainstream-polls-show-otherwise/

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it is the perfect example. Marriage was never thought to be about anything more than one man and one woman until the argument started and the "found" the right!

?????
Look at your avatar
You do have it there for pride in a southern culture
That southern culture was totally against a marraige between one man and one woman.
If a man was black and a woman was white, your southern culture used to fight that marraige tooth and nail.
Marraige has evolved as it should

Quote: Steverinos

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346

Article explains the damage that an AR-15 bullet does as opposed to handguns or other rifles. While semi-automatic weapons are part of the discussion, the bottom line is the AR-15 is a weapon of war and no regular citizen should have one. They WANT one so they can go to the range. Sure, it's a lot of fun to shoot one. But screw your hobby. Enough is enough.

Nobody is going to round them up. If we're going to get rid of the AR-15's, we'll have to implement a conceivable buyback program to make it worth it for gun owners to sell it back to the government so that it can be destroyed.

It's pretty sad that all the rage is banning bump stocks. Umm, bump stock was not used in this attack. Bump stocks were used in Vegas. Why didn't we ban them then? NOW we want to ban bump stocks after an attack where they weren't used? We couldn't get behind a ban after Vegas? Now we have an attack where they weren't used and we say, "lets ban bump stocks". Stupid.

And I disagree that banning assault weapons is out of the mainstream. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

That poll shows what most of us already know on other issues totally unrelated to gun control. We live in a country where the majority of us want something but it doesn't get done while the minority of us want something (tax reform) and it gets done. That should piss us all off. We elect legislators to represent us!, not big money interests.

EDIT: By the way, the list above is a great start. But it's not enough.

They're proposing banning bump stocks now because they want to do SOMETHING, and bump stocks are a specialty item made by a couple small, independent manufacturers. The NRA isnt worried about a couple small guys. They're worried about the major manufacturers. And they need the appearance of doing SOMETHING.

It's still about politics, appearances, and money, when it needs to be about protecting the innocents.

Quote: boymimbo

Ah, the liberals destroying society because of gay people argument!

You clearly didn't read what AZD wrote or else you twisted his words around.

Quote: boymimbo

A vast number of other places don't have that correlation: New York for one. Perhaps poverty with the gun law is a key factor. Mexico has a gun and murder problem because the gangs get at least 70% of their high powered weaponry from easy arms sales in the United States. They have money to buy these arms from the drug trade while Mexican citizens do not. Canada doesn't have the same problem because it's difficult to grow cocaine in the snow. Canada also does not have a widespread poverty problem like Mexico or inner cities in the US have.

So do you think it's a "gun problem" or a people problem? If you're talking about poverty, gangs, and it difficult go grow cocaine in the snow -- it's a people problem.

Quote: boymimbo

So yeah, I agree that an immediate gun ban would be deleterious for the nation and you can argue that Chicago, DC etc (but not New York and a number of other cities) with tough gun laws have gun problems. Why is that? Easy. Gangs and the lack of police to take them and keep them off the streets. Why do gangs exist? Mainly the drug trade. Why does the drug trade exist? Poverty. There's a cycle there. You add gun control to that mix and allow the illegal guns to stay and don't bother policing and enforcing it and yeah, you'll have a problem.

There we go, finally someone that gets it. It's a people problem.

Put 50 bloods and 50 crips (those are two gangs, for those who may not know) in a room and they all have 1 baseball bat each, see what happens. Put 50 seventy+ year olds and 50 twenty-thirty year olds in a room and they all have 1 gun (your pick) in a room, see what happens. Suddenly we'll have a "THERE'S A BAT PROBLEM!!!!!!" marches and parades and other crazy s*** theories.

---

Idk what the liberals are talking about not wanting to ban all guns.

I remember years ago after some other shootings, people were proposing for stiffer laws and more regulations. People said that's a starting step to taking away all of our guns. The hippies said no, we just want more regulations or some such thing. Now it's turned into banning of AR-15's and other "assault" rifles (AR-15 isn't an assault rifle/weapon, BTW).

If/when these "assault" rifles are banned, the hippies are going to look at the data (or more likely, skew it in their favor, as usual, but that's another point). Let's assume the data they look at is accurate. It's either going to be, "Wow, this works! Too bad there are still shootings. Well, since banning these big bad scary AR-15's worked, maybe if we ban these other guns, it'll decrease the number of shootings!" OR it'll be, "Wow, this isn't really working. Well, people are just using other guns. Well the solution is simple -- just ban these other guns, too!"

It seems like many people are just scared of guns. I don't mean of a gun being pointed at them, but just being in the vicinity of a gun, they are scared of it. I've met some people that are actually scared of a gun, as if it would randomly jump up and start attacking.

Why don't we actually look at the damn problem? Even if we banned all guns, God forbid, the problem of people wanting to go to schools, churches, concerts, etc. and shoot people up would still be there. Don't pawn it off as a "gun problem". If you really believe that, then logic would suggest there'd be WAY MORE mass shootings than currently exist. I don't know how many people own how many or what kind of guns, but I'm pretty sure Paddock, Cruz, etc. aren't the only guys who own these guns....not by a long shot. #PunNotIntended

Quote: terapined

You do have it there for pride in a southern culture

Based on my time attending school and living in the south, the term "southern culture" is a bit of an oxymoron, as most of the whites I knew talked glowingly about and seemed to yearn for days gone by.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it is the perfect example. Marriage was never thought to be about anything more than one man and one woman until the argument started and the "found" the right!

Quote: terapined

?????
Look at your avatar
You do have it there for pride in a southern culture
That southern culture was totally against a marraige between one man and one woman.
If a man was black and a woman was white, your southern culture used to fight that marraige tooth and nail.
Marraige has evolved as it should

Quote: MrV

Based on my time attending school and living in the south, the term "southern culture" is a bit of an oxymoron, as most of the whites I knew talked glowingly about and seemed to yearn for days gone by.

Have you seen Southern Culture on the skids
That band rocks
pretty funny
They threw out pieces of fried chicken to the audience when I saw them

Quote: beachbumbabs

They're proposing banning bump stocks now because they want to do SOMETHING, and bump stocks are a specialty item made by a couple small, independent manufacturers. The NRA isnt worried about a couple small guys. They're worried about the major manufacturers. And they need the appearance of doing SOMETHING.

It's still about politics, appearances, and money, when it needs to be about protecting the innocents.

I know it's an image. Banning bump stocks is a no-brainer. It's easy. But...to hell with the easy stuff. It's time for leaders to make difficult decisions.

And up until this morning, I actually held out hope that Trump would step up. He wants wins. He's not driven by any ideology. But then he gets up in front of CPAC and talks a bunch of nonsense.

Of course, you can never take what he says as indicative of anything that he actually believes in. He'll say something completely different tomorrow.

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22


Just for the record- American Rifleman is the NRA magazine, included in your membership fees.

Quote: billryan

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22


Just for the record- American Rifleman is the NRA magazine, included in your membership fees.

A moderate Republican in 1968 who did not change their views since would be considered a far left socialist by most conservatives today.

This might go without saying.... but Republicans as a whole have gotten more and more extreme in recent years. And...there’s a really good chance I would be a registered republican if that was the case. Not that I would consider myself a democrat either, but I am certainly not a Republican. Not in it’s current f’d up incarnation.

Quote: gamerfreak

This might go without saying.... but Republicans as a whole have gotten more and more extreme in recent years. And...there’s a really good chance I would be a registered republican if that was the case. Not that I would consider myself a democrat either, but I am certainly not a Republican. Not in it’s current f’d up incarnation.

You have it backwards, the Democrats have moved and pulled everything left. The GOP is pretty much where it was in the 1960s. Save us the "I'd be a Republican but......................" Those of us not on the left never believe these claims.

Quote: RS

Why don't we actually look at the damn problem? Even if we banned all guns, God forbid, the problem of people wanting to go to schools, churches, concerts, etc. and shoot people up would still be there. Don't pawn it off as a "gun problem". If you really believe that, then logic would suggest there'd be WAY MORE mass shootings than currently exist. I don't know how many people own how many or what kind of guns, but I'm pretty sure Paddock, Cruz, etc. aren't the only guys who own these guns....not by a long shot. #PunNotIntended

So if proper working explosives were more easily available to homegrown terrorists, you would just call it a "people" problem as successful bombings increased?

Quote: AZDuffman

You have it backwards, the Democrats have moved and pulled everything left. The GOP is pretty much where it was in the 1960s. Save us the "I'd be a Republican but......................" Those of us not on the left never believe these claims.

Admitting that the GOP is stuck in the past, in a time when people were NOT considered equal, is pretty telling, isn't it?

THAT'S the problem.

#MAGA

Quote: AZDuffman

Those of us not on the left never believe these claims.

And none of us in the center believe that Conservative Republicans give a good god damn about small government.

Tell me, how on god’s green earth is telling any 2 adults they are legally prohibited from getting married even close to small government? Telling people how they can or cannot live there’s private lives is about as big and scary as government gets.

And marriage barley scrapes the surface of this issue, there are countless examples of the Conservative Right cherry picking their ideals to support either hate, bigotry, or greed.

This is why I'm so bleeding pedantic all the time. I should just listen to that voice telling me to go for a walk...

This is for those ramping up opposition, especially those who repeatedly clamor "AR-15" and "Not trying to ban all guns".

You "just" want the AR-15 gone. I've no reason to not believe you, and I've no reason to assume you don't believe yourself. But I have no faith you know what an AR-15 is. You can't, or else you wouldn't make this statement. What an AR-15 is is a semi automatic, small caliber rifle with a removable magazine. The thing is, MOST rifles are semi automatic, small caliber with removable magazines.

So, you have a choice. You can ban the AR-15 specifically, and leave hundreds of thousands of rifles on the shelves that look, smell, taste, feel, and do the exact same thing as Armalite's brand, or you can ban ALL rifles that share an AR's features. Rifles that share AR's feature, in US private collections, number in the millions.

Help me, here. You CANNOT ban "just" the AR-15 and expect any single change whatsoever (unless you're trying to buy Armalite stock on the cheap), and you CANNOT ban all guns like it without banning "all guns", since a large majority, and I do mean majority, are all semi automatic with detachable mags.

If you can't help me here, can you at least see why your opposition is always charging you with wanting to ban all guns? I mean, most of you anti's here are pretty reasonable. When you say you're "not trying to" take or ban or restrict ALL guns, I totally believe you. But... I dunno if it's just the lack of familiarity or what, but what you're asking for can only be done by doing what you're saying you're not asking for.

As an aside, if any gun, from a .22sr to a .50BMG was ever tested and found NOT to be lethal, fatal, dangerous, it wouldn't exist. No one would sell it, as that's kind of the point. And an aside to the aside, my "machine gun" / "assault rifle" / "AR" is, I think, the ONE firearm I bought WITHOUT the intention of using it to take life.

This last I included just for the giggles. I dunno, it strikes me as humorous =)

Face,

You seem to know your stuff. I, admittedly, do not inherently know anything about guns. I grew up in Alaska, but I went fishing, I didn't go hunting. So I'm ignorant on the subject which is why I'm trying to absorb as much info as I can.

Please, do me a favor, read this article from a trauma surgeon, start to finish, and tell me if you think anything in here is inaccurate and we can go from there.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/parkland-shooter-s-ar-15-was-designed-kill-efficiently-possible-ncna848346

Quote: gamerfreak

Tell me, how on god’s green earth is telling any 2 adults they are legally prohibited from getting married even close to small government?

Been thru this 100 times. But does this mean you agree the government should not tell me how many and what kind of guns I can own?

Quote: AZDuffman

Been thru this 100 times. But does this mean you agree the government should not tell me how many and what kind of guns I can own?

That depends. Are you part of a militia?

Quote: Steverinos

That depends. Are you part of a militia?

What is the difference one way or the other? I thought you wanted the government out of your bedroom, and I assume everyone else's as well?

Quote: Steverinos

Admitting that the GOP is stuck in the past, in a time when people were NOT considered equal, is pretty telling, isn't it?

THAT'S the problem.

#MAGA

When did the GOP not consider equal? You are confusing them with your Democrat Party.

What's the difference? Umm, it's kind of important.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, are you part of a militia? Let's see your credentials.

Quote: AZDuffman

When did the GOP not consider equal? You are confusing them with your Democrat Party.

Resistance to civil rights had EVERYTHING to do with geography (i.e., the South) and almost NOTHING to do with political affiliation.

Quote: gamerfreak

A moderate Republican in 1968 who did not change their views since would be considered a far left socialist by most conservatives today.

This might go without saying.... but Republicans as a whole have gotten more and more extreme in recent years. And...there’s a really good chance I would be a registered republican if that was the case. Not that I would consider myself a democrat either, but I am certainly not a Republican. Not in it’s current f’d up incarnation.

I wasn't alive back in the 60's and whatnot, but I'd say both sides have moved "more extreme" in recent years. Then again, I'd say both sides have also gotten less extreme in other ways. Guns, drugs, racial/gay stuff, immigration.

Quote: rxwine

So if proper working explosives were more easily available to homegrown terrorists, you would just call it a "people" problem as successful bombings increased?

You can probably buy all or most ingredients/parts to make a bomb from WalMart (or something as easy as buying from WalMart). Someone builds a bomb and blows up part of a building, do you think, "That guy's pretty f***ed up in the head?" or do you think, "Wow, I can't believe a bomb would do that! What a naughty boy that bomb was!"

Quote: Steverinos

Admitting that the GOP is stuck in the past, in a time when people were NOT considered equal, is pretty telling, isn't it?

THAT'S the problem.

#MAGA

Pretty sure most people can see he isn't talking about equality (if you read it in context) in that post. "Words: To be cherry picked, twisted n turned" should be the liberal motto. Or at least yours.

Quote: Steverinos

That depends. Are you part of a militia?

If we want to "change with the times", then there's no reason to believe WE all aren't part of a militia. I'll copy this from another forum (that person isn't banned on this forum) post --

Quote: Daly

Let's take the word of one Supreme Court justice and take his word over scores of other justices who disagreed with him.... or you know let's see what the people who were involved with writing the damn thing and getting it passed had to say.


“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people" - George Mason

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Sam Adams

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” - Tench Coxe

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." Alexander Hamilton

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." - George Washington


I hear you though - these guys probably didn't all mean what they said.

And again - not to say it's not time for a change But let's not ignore what the second amendment is.

I know what he meant by saying the GOP is pretty much where they were in the 60s. That's my point. That the GOP IS stuck in the past and most of their beliefs and policies stem from 1950s mentality. It's hindering progress on so many other issues, but whatever. I wanted to point out that "being where you were in the 60s" in 2018 is not something to be particularly proud of.

Speaking of context, why did George Washington, during the Whiskey Rebellion, say that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws", and then personally lead a MILITIA to extinguish the rebellion? Don't you find it odd that THE Founding Father of our country would use the 2A in the exact opposite way in which you say it was intended?

Quote: Face

Help me, here. You CANNOT ban "just" the AR-15 and expect any single change whatsoever (unless you're trying to buy Armalite stock on the cheap), and you CANNOT ban all guns like it without banning "all guns", since a large majority, and I do mean majority, are all semi automatic with detachable mags.

If you can't help me here, can you at least see why your opposition is always charging you with wanting to ban all guns? I mean, most of you anti's here are pretty reasonable. When you say you're "not trying to" take or ban or restrict ALL guns, I totally believe you. But... I dunno if it's just the lack of familiarity or what, but what you're asking for can only be done by doing what you're saying you're not asking for.

As an aside, if any gun, from a .22sr to a .50BMG was ever tested and found NOT to be lethal, fatal, dangerous, it wouldn't exist. No one would sell it, as that's kind of the point. And an aside to the aside, my "machine gun" / "assault rifle" / "AR" is, I think, the ONE firearm I bought WITHOUT the intention of using it to take life.

This last I included just for the giggles. I dunno, it strikes me as humorous =)

In my experience, most hunters use either a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun. And, again only in my experience, handguns are the most popular firearm for self defense (also semi-automatic I know).

So where I am sure we disagree is that I don’t think that restricting long barreled semi-automatic weapons would be a severe restriction of 2A rights. So if you do disagree with that, help me as well because this is an honest question - what does a semiautomatic riffle allow you to do that a semiautomatic handgun or other break/bolt action weapon would not, advise from kill more people in a crowd faster? I’m not saying that is your intention if you buy one, I think most people buy they are fun to shoot. But hand grenadines would be fun too, and there’s a reason you can’t get those at Walmart.

What we do agree on though, I do not see how banning semi-automatic rifles specifically would result in less terrorism.

And of course, there would be no feasible way to ban them outright. It would have to be something like was done with fully automatic weapons. No new sales, NFA transfer, red tape, etc etc etc.....

Quote: Steverinos

I, admittedly, do not inherently know anything about guns. I grew up in Alaska, but I went fishing, I didn't go hunting. So I'm ignorant on the subject which is why I'm trying to absorb as much info as I can.

Steverinos isn't an isolated case and is in fact more closer to the norm of those fighting for "sensible gun laws"...how can someone be simultaneously ignorant on the subject matter yet have anything intelligent to add on a sensible solution? Do you see the problem here?

The same problem happens when you have gun control politicians interchanging the terms automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapons when discussing gun control. At least get a mastery of the subject matter before forming an intelligent decision...even though it is harder and requires work, it is the least you can do.

BBB, I clicked your and Steves links, I believe both polls didn't ask/frame the question in a manner that aligns with the question "are you for or against an outright ban on all semi-automatic firearms...here are examples of semi-automatic firearms, do you agree with banning all of these?" But forget it, let's just agree to disagree on the polls.

I believe that Face and many other Americans would consider a ban on all semi-automatic firearms to be unconstitutional. If that law were passed and the authorities tried to round up the hundreds of millions of semi-automatic firearms that are suddenly "illegal", it would get really ugly. And if you don't round them up, there will be hundreds of millions of these outlawed guns floating around and the "ban" wouldn't accomplish much. This isn't the path forward on this issue.

I admitted ignorance because it’s irrelevant. What I have done is analyzed the data from other countries and what they’ve done on guns. I’ve looked at what the AR-15 is capable of. I’ve absorbed enough info on the subject to engage in a discussion or I wouldn’t engage in the discussion.

The fundamental question is how much freedom to we want to sacrifice for our safety. I happen to side with “nobody needs a weapon of war for protection.” And this is a “freedom” we can afford to sacrifice. We’ve sacrificed all kinds of freedoms before in the name of our safety.

Other disagree. That’s fine. We’ll see what happens in upcoming elections.

Have a good weekend.