Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
I'm going to have whatever gun I need to protect myself. At home it's my shotgun. Away from home it's my sidearm. I don't personally see the point of having an automatic rifle other than to go to the range and let off steam. I have no need for one but I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one if they have never demonstrated ill intent.
I agree something needs to be done to prevent crazy [BLEEP] like this event and the shootings in Buffalo and California but it's not telling the general population they're not allowed to own XYZ type gun, it's holding the long list of people and agencies responsible for allowing the people who commit these crimes to fall through the cracks of the system currently in place when it comes to how weapons are purchased.
(05-29-2022, 12:21 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to have whatever gun I need to protect myself. At home it's my shotgun. Away from home it's my sidearm. I don't personally see the point of having an automatic rifle other than to go to the range and let off steam. I have no need for one but I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one if they have never demonstrated ill intent.
I agree something needs to be done to prevent crazy [BLEEP] like this event and the shootings in Buffalo and California but it's not telling the general population they're not allowed to own XYZ type gun, it's holding the long list of people and agencies responsible for allowing the people who commit these crimes to fall through the cracks of the system currently in place when it comes to how weapons are purchased.
I fully understand your gun ownership needs. Makes perfect sense, and is reasonable in today's US. I'm all for tightening things to prevent these crazy bleeps. Felons can't, but maybe this needs to be extended to misdemeanors too. Once you have proven to be no longer law abiding, then you lose access to certain types of guns. Have a clean sheet, you can have whatever you want.
(05-29-2022, 12:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2022, 10:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]There's no specific restrictions on government related to regulating cars in the Constitution. I oppose government regulating cars since it's just another form of stealing money from the People, but no prohibition exists. You don't get to say that about guns since the plain reading cleary tells you to butt out.
So basically create more laws that do nothing, take some people's right entirely, and take more money from the rest of the people so they can buy their rights back from the government. No thanks.
It's as if you have no idea what a red flag law is.
Florida has one.
I know what they are, and what they are is a direct 4th Amendment violation. Which makes them in the second and third categories on my list.
(05-29-2022, 02:40 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 12:21 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to have whatever gun I need to protect myself. At home it's my shotgun. Away from home it's my sidearm. I don't personally see the point of having an automatic rifle other than to go to the range and let off steam. I have no need for one but I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one if they have never demonstrated ill intent.
I agree something needs to be done to prevent crazy [BLEEP] like this event and the shootings in Buffalo and California but it's not telling the general population they're not allowed to own XYZ type gun, it's holding the long list of people and agencies responsible for allowing the people who commit these crimes to fall through the cracks of the system currently in place when it comes to how weapons are purchased.
I fully understand your gun ownership needs. Makes perfect sense, and is reasonable in today's US. I'm all for tightening things to prevent these crazy bleeps. Felons can't, but maybe this needs to be extended to misdemeanors too. Once you have proven to be no longer law abiding, then you lose access to certain types of guns. Have a clean sheet, you can have whatever you want.
I guess you don't recognize a police state when you advocate for one. That's all I can think when I read your posts.
(05-29-2022, 08:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 12:00 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's as if you have no idea what a red flag law is.
Florida has one.
I know what they are, and what they are is a direct 4th Amendment violation. Which makes them in the second and third categories on my list.
(05-29-2022, 02:40 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]I fully understand your gun ownership needs. Makes perfect sense, and is reasonable in today's US. I'm all for tightening things to prevent these crazy bleeps. Felons can't, but maybe this needs to be extended to misdemeanors too. Once you have proven to be no longer law abiding, then you lose access to certain types of guns. Have a clean sheet, you can have whatever you want.
I guess you don't recognize a police state when you advocate for one. That's all I can think when I read your posts.
I am just shocked when some who who works in the medical field values guns rights over lives saved.
(05-29-2022, 08:15 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 08:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I know what they are, and what they are is a direct 4th Amendment violation. Which makes them in the second and third categories on my list.
I guess you don't recognize a police state when you advocate for one. That's all I can think when I read your posts.
I am just shocked when some who who works in the medical field values guns rights over lives saved.
Because gun rights save lives including my own. I'd love it if everyone were nice and law abiding, but life is real not fantasy land. Disarming the law-abiding only helps the criminal and the government to take control of their lives.
(05-29-2022, 09:05 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 08:15 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]I am just shocked when some who who works in the medical field values guns rights over lives saved.
Because gun rights save lives including my own. I'd love it if everyone were nice and law abiding, but life is real not fantasy land. Disarming the law-abiding only helps the criminal and the government to take control of their lives.
States with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
(05-29-2022, 10:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 09:05 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Because gun rights save lives including my own. I'd love it if everyone were nice and law abiding, but life is real not fantasy land. Disarming the law-abiding only helps the criminal and the government to take control of their lives.
States with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
When you remove self harm/suicide what happens to that stat? What about Finland and Norway that have similar levels of ownership but drastically less crime? No, the gun is not the issue, the people are, and you won't fix that by passing laws any more than drunk driving laws and driver's license laws stop auto fatalities.
(05-29-2022, 10:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 10:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]States with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
When you remove self harm/suicide what happens to that stat? What about Finland and Norway that have similar levels of ownership but drastically less crime? No, the gun is not the issue, the people are, and you won't fix that by passing laws any more than drunk driving laws and driver's license laws stop auto fatalities.
He has no idea, nor does he care to. He just looked for a "statistic" on the internet that supports his argument.
This is why we have so many mass shootings.
A witches’ brew in the cauldron:
— an anti-God philosophy being preached in kindergarten through 12th grade, and in college
— teaching generations that humans are just intelligent animals
— pop culture promoting nihilism (nothing matters)
— self-worship
— overly sexualized young men who become frustrated and blame the world for their celibacy
— violence in all media, music, video games, TV and movies
— unwillingness to institutionalize the mentally ill
— delusions of fame and grandeur
— removal of shame as a form of personal constraint
— and, from a previous gun owner, the ubiquity of firearms in the hands of unstable volatile psychopaths
The result: armed nihilistic psychopaths spurred on by self-loathing, hatred for society, and vengeance in their cold, dead, Godless hearts who willingly kill the most innocent for revenge and fame.
If you want to find the root cause of all of these shootings, look no further than the "parents" raising these kids. This whole progressive parenting and being your kids friend and not their authority figure is the problem. Anything else, and you're doing nothing but making excuses for your evil child and your [BLEEP] parenting style.
(05-28-2022, 09:16 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2022, 08:18 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Like FSG said, my business is none of yours. You can't punish people for crimes they haven't committed. Saying they shouldn't have a gun because they might go nuts is asinine. That's like saying people shouldn't own cars because they might cause an accident. Or light a match because they might burn their neighborhood down.
The people responsible for those kids deaths (other than the guy who shot them)are everyone from his deadbeat parents and grandparents to the deadbeat cops and right on up to the people who sold him the guns, ignoring the warning signs.
People should have guns. The question is what sort of guns do they need, not what sort of gun do they want. Just like we have restrictions on the types of cars you can drive on the road. I can't say my business is none of yours and then go cruising down the highway in a NASCAR or an Indy Car.
Who gets to decide what and how man guns I need? Are my needs different, therefor I get more firearms than someone else? What if my neighbor was determined to need 3 types of guns, but my other neighbor is determined to need 6? Could a hunter say ok I need a rifle that will shoot a half a mile because I live in a mountainous area where my closest shot will be 1/4 mile. But then when Im not hunting big game, I need a 30-30 for varmit/small game animals. Oh yeah I also need a smaller caliber rifle for white tail deer than I use for mule deer because they are much smaller. Oh yeah I need a 12 gauge shotgun that can shoot a 3" mag for geese because they fly so high. and I need a 12 gauge for duck and pheasant. I need a 20 gauge because sometimes when Im hunting in a small area such as a corn field I dont want to shoot past the cornfield. Oh and for quail I need a 410 shotgun for because they are so small Ill ruin the meat with anything bigger. I need a 9mm as basic personal protection inside my home or small enclosed place, but I need a larger caliber for longer range outdoors. Kind of a long winded post, but the point Im trying to make is different people have different needs, so who gets to decide MY needs from some elses?
The second amendment mentions nothing about the need to bear arms other than to overthrow a tyrannical government. In order to overthrow a tyrannical government we need a fair fight. Limiting us to single shot rifles, revolvers, and such wont be enough to do so.
(05-29-2022, 12:18 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2022, 09:16 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]People should have guns. The question is what sort of guns do they need, not what sort of gun do they want. Just like we have restrictions on the types of cars you can drive on the road. I can't say my business is none of yours and then go cruising down the highway in a NASCAR or an Indy Car.
Who gets to decide what and how man guns I need? Are my needs different, therefor I get more firearms than someone else? What if my neighbor was determined to need 3 types of guns, but my other neighbor is determined to need 6? Could a hunter say ok I need a rifle that will shoot a half a mile because I live in a mountainous area where my closest shot will be 1/4 mile. But then when Im not hunting big game, I need a 30-30 for varmit/small game animals. Oh yeah I also need a smaller caliber rifle for white tail deer than I use for mule deer because they are much smaller. Oh yeah I need a 12 gauge shotgun that can shoot a 3" mag for geese because they fly so high. and I need a 12 gauge for duck and pheasant. I need a 20 gauge because sometimes when Im hunting in a small area such as a corn field I dont want to shoot past the cornfield. Oh and for quail I need a 410 shotgun for because they are so small Ill ruin the meat with anything bigger. I need a 9mm as basic personal protection inside my home or small enclosed place, but I need a larger caliber for longer range outdoors. Kind of a long winded post, but the point Im trying to make is different people have different needs, so who gets to decide MY needs from some elses?
The second amendment mentions nothing about the need to bear arms other than to overthrow a tyrannical government. In order to overthrow a tyrannical government we need a fair fight. Limiting us to single shot rifles, revolvers, and such wont be enough to do so.
The 2A isn't part of the Bill of Needs.
So on reflection, I thought of two items that I 100% endorse for us to require related to "gun control."
#1 - Any felon caught in possession of a firearms gets a mandatory 20 year sentence without parole. This charge is stand alone and doesn't require any other charges in order to prosecute.
#2 - Any charge related to crime using a firearm results in a mandatory 20 year sentence upon conviction and cannot be dropped by the prosecution at any point.
These two acts will end the leftist's destruction of our criminal justice system and insure that criminals are taken off the street. Apply these two principles in American cities and watch the crime rate plummet as the gang bangers all get shipped off to where they can no longer damage society.
(05-29-2022, 12:18 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (05-28-2022, 09:16 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]People should have guns. The question is what sort of guns do they need, not what sort of gun do they want. Just like we have restrictions on the types of cars you can drive on the road. I can't say my business is none of yours and then go cruising down the highway in a NASCAR or an Indy Car.
Who gets to decide what and how man guns I need? Are my needs different, therefor I get more firearms than someone else? What if my neighbor was determined to need 3 types of guns, but my other neighbor is determined to need 6? Could a hunter say ok I need a rifle that will shoot a half a mile because I live in a mountainous area where my closest shot will be 1/4 mile. But then when Im not hunting big game, I need a 30-30 for varmit/small game animals. Oh yeah I also need a smaller caliber rifle for white tail deer than I use for mule deer because they are much smaller. Oh yeah I need a 12 gauge shotgun that can shoot a 3" mag for geese because they fly so high. and I need a 12 gauge for duck and pheasant. I need a 20 gauge because sometimes when Im hunting in a small area such as a corn field I dont want to shoot past the cornfield. Oh and for quail I need a 410 shotgun for because they are so small Ill ruin the meat with anything bigger. I need a 9mm as basic personal protection inside my home or small enclosed place, but I need a larger caliber for longer range outdoors. Kind of a long winded post, but the point Im trying to make is different people have different needs, so who gets to decide MY needs from some elses?
The second amendment mentions nothing about the need to bear arms other than to overthrow a tyrannical government. In order to overthrow a tyrannical government we need a fair fight. Limiting us to single shot rifles, revolvers, and such wont be enough to do so.
Why can’t any gun advocates just say, “hey, I like guns and i don’t want them taken away”.
Instead we get, guns save lives, they are for protection, they’ll protect from a tyrannical government, a witches brew blaming everything except the thing that caused death.
(05-29-2022, 10:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 10:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]States with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
When you remove self harm/suicide what happens to that stat? What about Finland and Norway that have similar levels of ownership but drastically less crime? No, the gun is not the issue, the people are, and you won't fix that by passing laws any more than drunk driving laws and driver's license laws stop auto fatalities.
Great analogy. The laws to stop the people drink driving don’t work, but laws brought in to make vehicles safer have saved lives. Similarly, laws to stop people shooting each other won’t work, but laws to stop guns from being as deadly will save lives.
We can do better. People need to be held accountable when lapses occur during the many checks and balances of these processes already put in place to prevent these scenarios from happening.
There was three school shootings between 1903 - 1966. The "breakout" era of mass gun shootings in schools happened in the 1990's and has continued it's rinse and repeat cycle, and, par for the course, seems to happen more frequently during midterm election years.
All I know is that the authorities, the FBI, the CIA and the Government have a tendency to just "fall asleep at the wheel" when it comes to scenarios they actually practice out just like this when the real thing happens.
This kid was arrested at 14 for having a written out plan allegedly to do exactly what he did at 18. That needed to be flagged somewhere in a system to say "Hey, son, you are not fit to own a gun at this time because you were arrested 4 years ago for wanting to shoot up a school at exactly 18 years of age, and, well, based on your ID and this exchange we're having at the moment it appears you're now 18".
He was also talking about it openly for DAYS before he commited the shooting. Where are the algorithims for this on social media flagging this kind of stuff and filtering it to a moderator, local authorities, etc?
So many failed check points here. Including the family.
The line in the sand is clear for most people. The sand, however, is getting deeper and deeper with countless victims that honestly get left behind in the grand scheme of things. "Can't see it from my backyard". "It wasn't my child or grandchild." I get that.
However, we can still do better. And it really starts by holding the authorities accountable that failed here 4 years ago. Personally? I don't think an 18 year old should be able to buy a gun.
For starters. You have to be 21 to drink legally. You have to be 25 to rent a car. Seems pretty [BLEEP] backwards in today's society. Today's 18 year old is not the same 18 year old that grew up in the 1940's - 1960's. A lot of them are barely capable of speaking to a real life human being to get an application filled out.
I think social media is a problem. I think television, video games and music are also partly to blame. This is coming from a 34 year old elder millenial. Not a baby boomer, not an old veteran from the silent generation. Just a millenial understanding that when people asked for more expressive freedoms in influential media platforms? They didn't factor in how much influence they would have.
There's something to be said about mental health, school shootings, suicide rates, anxiety and depression going up as more and more advanced and open our technology became to suit anybody's fancy. Whether willingly seeking it out or chancing upon it. For better or worse. Entertainment loves shock value. People eat it up like the Romans ate up the Gladiator games.
We idolize serial killers, we idolize school shooters, we put them on shirts, we add to their legend by watching countless documentaries to keep them alive. Things are getting uglier and uglier and we wonder why things like this happen.
It's obvious by now.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
'This is why we need the 2nd amendment!' West Virginia mystery woman is hailed as a hero for using legally-owned pistol to kill criminal armed with an AR-15-style rifle at a graduation party a day after Uvalde school shooting
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...TRPj4-o_bw
(05-29-2022, 05:01 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2022, 10:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]When you remove self harm/suicide what happens to that stat? What about Finland and Norway that have similar levels of ownership but drastically less crime? No, the gun is not the issue, the people are, and you won't fix that by passing laws any more than drunk driving laws and driver's license laws stop auto fatalities.
Great analogy. The laws to stop the people drink driving don’t work, but laws brought in to make vehicles safer have saved lives. Similarly, laws to stop people shooting each other won’t work, but laws to stop guns from being as deadly will save lives.
Guns are supposed to be deadly. Making them safer means making them more effective for the operator. Is that really what you thought you wanted with your suggestion?
Obviously not, so would you support my two suggestions that could actually make the difference you say you want?
(05-29-2022, 05:55 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]'This is why we need the 2nd amendment!' West Virginia mystery woman is hailed as a hero for using legally-owned pistol to kill criminal armed with an AR-15-style rifle at a graduation party a day after Uvalde school shooting
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...TRPj4-o_bw
And more evidence to support banning AR-15 style of rifles.
(05-28-2022, 08:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't hear anyone calling for an Australia style confiscation of all privately owned rifles. That would be a punishment. I don't think anyone's calling for punishment.
Australia has more guns in civilian hands today than ever before.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15