Jump to content
IGNORED

School shooting


Bud

Recommended Posts

Following not direct reply.

 

The images of violence, destruction, gore, mayhem, death, disfigurement, etc have changed greatly via media presentations.

 

First the Vietnam War had parts televised. Body counts on tv.

 

In 1969 many movie theaters refused to show Bonnie and Clyde because of the "graphic violence" in a couple of scenes.

Go back and look at these scenes.

Laughable calling them graphic compared to today.

 

This gloirfication, presentation, and replication in real life, of violence and death has created desensitivation.

 

Many decades ago a lawyer in Miami used "tv intoxication" as a defense for a boy killing gramndmother then taking friends to Disney World using her credit cards.

Didn't work, but over 40 years ago the fact that what we see in media can/may/might/does have an effect on behavior, especially adolescent/teen males was touted.

 

Years of working with violent, at risk students has shown me there are bad kids. Sadly.

No simple answers.

Personally I don't think we'll go back to where we were and we'll deal with more violence/mayhem and death in public spaces regardless

of any changes in laws no matter how well intentioned.

 

Edited by tallman
Link to comment

 

The "madmen" label seems nebulous. One could say that any murderer (by any means) is a "madman." I'm not seeing an analogy between 9-11 political/religious mass murder by suicidal airplane hijackers and a twisted mass murder by a coward punk kid armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle with high-capacity clips engraved with swastikas -- except that in both instances masses of people were murdered. Apples and oranges. 9-11 M/O is now much tougher to pull off due to revised laws and government policies. Parkland/Columbine/LV/FLA/CT/etc mass murder M/O remains pretty much unimpeded due to inaction.

Really, you don't see the camparison? The only difference is the weapon of choice. School shooters use rifles and pistols, the 9/11 folks used airplanes. Both instances are equally, in my eyes, comparable, bad actors using the avenues of least resistance to inflict the most damage in the shortest amount of time. You can label them terrorist or coward punk kids all you want, but their intentions are the same,.....to kill.

 

Any "lawful" owner of a semi-auto 30-clip assault rifle can acquire "unlawful intent" in an instant and commit mass murder in a few seconds.

 

Yes, and that lawful driver can plow down a multitude of people in a street party,.....should automobiles be restricted since their use in inflicting casualties is on the rise and their ease of acquisition? Barcelona, 13 dead in an instant.

 

 

Add a bump stock for even greater lethality. A gun with lower-velocity round and a smaller clip simply can't do that.

 

 

You don't need a bump stock to bump fire. And it's not a clip it's a magazine. You can "bump fire" a 9mm and .45 pistol (any semi-auto will "bump fire" and you don't need a special "stock" to do it), both lower velocity rounds, both having pistols capable of 30 round magazines.

 

So tell me this, out of the multitudes of magazines on the planet, how do you specifically propose that the bad actor NOT get one. You can stop production right now and I want to know how the bad guy will NEVER be able to get a 15, 30, 100 round magazine..........Prohibition worked, didn't it?; alcohol was effectively stopped in the United States just because the government said so and manufacturing ceased. Also, what is your arbitrary magazine limit? 1, 2, 5, 7 (my first .22 had a seven round tubular magazine)?

 

Over the past few decades there's been a political power roller coaster between the guns-on-demand/stand-your-ground/cold-dead-hands folks who insist that an AR is a legitimate home-protection and deer-hunting tool and those who don't view those weapons that way. In the USA, the lawful right to "keep and bear arms" is neither infinite nor God-given; its limits are a societal decision that will always be "under construction" -- a fluid rebalancing -- just like other rights like equal justice under law, free speech, freedom of/from religion, etc. Nothing is permanent, especially laws enacted by congress.

 

The AR and its variants ARE a legitimate home protection weapon(I don't hunt so can't answer to that). It provides for a more stable platform from which to fire, much more stable than pistol shooting.

 

When I was an instructor, it was much more difficult to get inexperienced pistol shooters to center mass than inexperienced rifle shooters. When "shooting while moving", the the M4 provides for extreme stability. You will not be standing still if an attacker is coming at you and you will want the most controllable weapon you can find.

 

Link to comment

Folks, I apologize up front if I offend, but that is not the intention nor is this post intended to bring a resolution, just my thoughts.

 

First, pointing fingers and accusing others of differing opinions will do nothing other than firmly entrench the opposition.

 

Second, I grew up with guns. My father and brother took me out target practicing at the age of 7. The first lesson from my father was, "Never point a gun at a person unless it is in defense." He also instilled in me the Christian morals so killing a person is wrong. Fast forward to today - my wife and I both have our licenses to carry but do not. We did so just so as not to loose that right should politics take control of our constitutional rights. Nonetheless, we would rather go to our gun club (range) and shoot at targets or clay birds (skeet) than bat a little white ball around a field. We go to the range often and since this is one of three (two counties) in my area that all top out at 750 members, I do not think the over 2200 people that do not kill other people would appreciate their rights being stepped on as well.

 

Third, I wholeheartedly agree as would any "right" thinking person the tragedy in Florida was nothing less than horrible. I am very saddened by the loss of life no matter where it happens. But there is a small part of me that believes the reaction to this tragedy is largely media inspired. Again, just my thoughts and I am still questioning this, but this point is not meant to piss someone off. The reason I say this is, there are many other things in this country that need addressing that kill more people than guns. If you attribute the action to the tool, then attribute to the cell phone the fact that 9 people die daily and around 1000 are injured daily by distracted drivers. So do we ban cell phones? (fact: go to the CDC web site for verification)

 

Forth, I do not know about cultures in other countries nor do I think those in other countries know about America. Cultures are different around the globe so one should not judge another.

 

All I am saying is, there are millions of Americans with guns that do not kill others nor do they have any intention thereof. Please be respectful of us as we continue to discuss the issue.

Link to comment

Second Nature

 

A memo to a higher office

Open letter to the powers-that-be

To a God, a king, a head of state

A captain of industry

To the movers and the shakers —

Can't everybody see?

 

It ought to be second nature —

I mean, the places where we live!

Let's talk about this sensibly —

We're not insensitive

I know progress has no patience —

But something's got to give

 

I know you're different —

You know I'm the same

We're both too busy

To be taking the blame

I'd like some changes

But you don't have the time

We can't go on thinking

It's a victimless crime

No one is blameless,

But we're all without shame

We fight the fire

While we're

Feeding the flames

 

Folks have got to make choices —

And choices got to have voices

Folks are basically decent

Conventional wisdom would say

Well, we read about

The exceptions

In the papers every day

 

It ought to be second nature —

At least, that's what I feel

“Now I lay me down in Dreamland” —

I know perfect's not for real

I thought we might get closer —

But I'm ready to make a deal

 

Today is different,

And tomorrow the same

It's hard to take the world

The way that it came

Too many rapids

Keep us sweeping along

Too many captains

Keep on steering us wrong

It's hard to take the heat —

It's hard to lay blame

To fight the fire —

While we're

Feeding the flames

 

 

Rush

(Lyrics Neil Peart)

 

Edited by workin' them angels
Link to comment
Actually an airplane can inflict the most damage! My point is that the problem is much larger than a gun control issue. The mitigating circumstances which led up to this horrific act were ignored, the gun was the instrument, the person behind the gun had the issues. How he was raised, what were the signs of mental illness along the way, what were his parents like, we know his father died and then 2 months before the shooting his mother died, and that he was a problem child in school, but little if anything was done with these facts. Blame the someone, not the something, if indeed we need to place blame on only one dimension of the issue. I believe that there are multiple dimensions to this issue.

 

I agree with you.

 

The problem is tribal. The pro gun tribe refuses to admit that guns have any part in the problem. The anti gun tribe refuses to acknowledge that there are other issues involved other than guns.

 

The majority of Americans belong to one tribe or the other.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

I don't demonize anybody's opinions, which are by nature changeable. Lordy indeed mine are changeable. We all interpret facts and cause/effects/results differently, and sometimes those interpretations can meld into "right and wrong" orthodoxy -- on every side (there can always be more than two "sides"). I'm an old(ish) man and although some moral precepts of right and wrong have stayed with me over a lifetime, others have changed over time. Some precepts that I long considered as "moral" have become less so, some more so. Regardless, I'm not very good at armchair philosophy... I'm in this forum because I ride an RT!

 

We can all agree to disagree about the role of high-powered tactical arms in our civil society of laws, not of men (or "culture"). The 2nd amendment only says "arms" with no definition; that definition under law has been variably determined over time by contemporary society and altered by advancing technical development. Can I walk into my local Dick's and buy a tommy gun or a RPG? No, not even with a 3-day waiting period! -- although some may honestly believe the 2nd amendment grants their right to an RPG to thwart criminals (or "jack-booted" government authorities) from kicking down their door. Someday if there are handheld Star Trek "phasers" that can slice 50 people in half in an instant, they will join other weapons defined under law as "arms" under the 2nd amendment and will (hopefully) be regulated by society and law. The legal status quo is a snapshot in time, determined by the ever-changing ballot box and the courts (which themselves are determined by the ballot box).

 

That said, after their announcement today I'm heading over to Dick's and give them my business.

Link to comment

The authors of the second amendment in 1791 were not thinking of hunting or home invasion defense or deterring a foreign power from attacking when they decided to make firearm ownership a common right. If I have my history correct, the 2nd amendment was all about preventing the tyranny of a future US government gone bad. The right to own firearms was all about the citizenry being a valid threat to a corrupt government. If you take that to it's logical end point, it's likely the authors meant for the common citizen to have the same or nearly the same type of firepower that a corrupt government could put together. With the current government restrictions on weapon ownership, I think 'government' has already buggered the intent of the amendment and we are all arguing about a right of equivalency that will never occur. I guess my point is we are probably arguing over losing a right which I believe the authors would say we've already lost.

Edited by Red
Link to comment

The sad things are that most people don't realize, once you loose a right, it will not come back without a fight and once the door is open to loosing rights, others are soon to follow.

Link to comment

Red:

 

I agree with you that we have given up the equality that the second amendment afforded, as when it was written everyone had black powder and maybe a cannon. Today, just watch any situation where there is an armed confrontation with the police or government and you can clearly see that they arrive in fully armored vehicles, full body protections, the latest in firepower, flash bangs, drones, etc. and vast numbers of people to quell the situation. Why we persist in thinking that the second amendment is an equalizer , in my opinion, is delusional. While I will argue the right to bear arms, I find the logic of the why to be questionable, other than for self protection or hunting or target entertainment. Call it what it is but wrapping the logic of the second amendment for equality of fire power is not logical. That would then beg the question of how much and what types of weapons we own, that is the slippery slope. It is only slippery if the argument is, "How much government do we want in our lives." That is where it begins, then it is the who should own and the rest of the societal issues that were previously discussed. So to your point, but modified, the argument shouldn't be based on the restrictions, as I believe they are academic, but on the overwhelming difference in the firepower. To that position I suggest there is no equality or solution. "The right to bear arms" is it, the logic is self protection, hunting or target. We are no longer an armed militia against government tyranny. We fight now with pens, keyboards and protests. To that end, we are equalized.

Link to comment
Beemer Dood
Restrict any gun to 3 shots, I don't care what it looks like but if you want an "assault" rifle, join the military or volunteer at your local police department.

 

Restricting all guns to three shots does not provide for self-defense except in the best and most limited circumstances. Restricting guns based on a name " 'assault' rifle" is absurd.

 

Just heard Wayne LaPierre avoided service during Vietnam because he had a "nervous condition". Maybe that's why he wants mental health issues to not be an automatic disqualification for gun ownership.

 

Wrong on at least two points. Character assignation is not a viable debate technique. Snopes says this is "undetermined." It's far more likely that he had a student deferment during Vietnam. And your second statement is simply untrue. The NRA has been trying to get all mental evaluations to be put into the NCIC, where it would be part of background checks for over 25 years. There is video of him shaking hands with Chuck Schumer after getting Mr. Schumer to agree to do this. Mr. Schumer did nothing.

 

Fascinating video from 1993

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/schumer-lapierre-schieffer-face-march-1993/

 

The action regarding putting the mental health information into the NCIC computer comes at 5:50. Fast forward if you don't want to hear the back and forth.

 

But if you want to see the duplicity of this politician watch the whole thing. It starts out with Mr. Schumer talking about how we have to do something about our porous borders! He sings quite a different tune today. Along the way he uses David Koresh and the incident in Waco as an example of why people shouldn't have guns. Conveniently ignoring the fact that between the AFT and the FBI they killed 51 innocent people over a publicity stunt. Mr. Koresh could have easily been arrested during his daily run or when he went into town. Instead they turned it into a widely publicized siege to boost their public status.

 

Mr. Schumer demonstrates his blatant ignorance when he holds up a .50 BMG round and says, "This is a 50 mm bullet." In fact the diameter of the bullet is ½". 5mm, his term would be a bullet nearly 2" in diameter!

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood
But never do I recall as a child even a thought about the possibility that someone would walk into my school's open front doors and literally blow my head off with an high-capacity assault weapon for kicks. Today that is what all children should be prepared for.

 

Would it make a difference if it was a low capacity revolver? Quite the hyperbole there.

 

Then again, it may be comforting to a child today that if someday an attacker packing a semiautomatic weapon and large magazines visits their school, the president of the United States might be there to "rush in" unarmed and save the day.

 

More hyperbole and some absurdity thrown in for good measure. How about if there were a few teachers who had volunteered to be armed and trained who did the " 'rush[ing] in?' "

 

By the way, today there are many erroneous references to the term "a well-regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment as meaning that the militia was subject to "regulation." The word "regulated" had a different meaning back then. If you read any writings by the founders and others of the day, the term "well-regulated" meant well-equipped. George Washington often wrote to congress for funds so that his troops could be "well-regulated."

 

I suggest that you REALLY read the words of the founders and when you do, apply the definition of the terms they used AT THAT TIME, not by today's standards. The "militia" then referred to all able bodied men, not the army and not todays militia, the National Guard. " 'Well regulated' " meant 'well trained' NOT well controlled.

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood
The "madmen" label seems nebulous. One could say that any murderer (by any means) is a "madman."

 

Not to quibble but there's a vast difference between someone who is legally insane and someone driven by religions zealotry.

 

I'm not seeing an analogy between 9-11 political/religious mass murder by suicidal airplane hijackers and a twisted mass murder by a coward punk kid armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle with high-capacity clips engraved with swastikas -- except that in both instances masses of people were murdered. Apples and oranges.

 

Easy comparison. Both want a high body count.

 

9-11 M/O is now much tougher to pull off due to revised laws and government policies. Parkland/Columbine/LV/FLA/CT/etc mass murder M/O remains pretty much unimpeded due to inaction.

 

Ther isn't a constitutional right to fly on an airplane. There is a constitutional right to own guns.

 

Any "lawful" owner of a semi-auto 30-clip assault rifle can acquire "unlawful intent" in an instant and commit mass murder in a few seconds.

 

It's obvious that you know little of firearms.

 

Add a bump stock for even greater lethality.

 

The truth is that except for the rare case of firing into a crowd, (and BTW, there has ONE instance of a bump stock being used in a crime), they REDUCE lethality because they reduce accuracy. For the first couple of moments of the Las Vegas shooting they were helpful to the shooter. But after the crowd scattered, and that happened very quickly, the use of it, probably saved lives.

 

A gun with lower-velocity round and a smaller clip simply can't do that.

 

The round used in most of these shootings is appropriately labeled "intermediate" in classification and power. A smaller magazine simply means that the shooter has to reload more often. It doesn't reduce lethality.

 

Over the past few decades there's been a political power roller coaster between the guns-on-demand/stand-your-ground/cold-dead-hands folks who insist that an AR is a legitimate home-protection and deer-hunting tool and those who don't view those weapons that way.

 

So much wrong here. There is no such things as "guns on demand." People who purchase guns from dealers must go through a background check that looks at their criminal history and mental stability. In some states virtually ALL gun purchases must go through these same background checks, even those between private gun owners.

 

"Stand your ground" is a law that give people the right to NOT have to retreat or flee when attacked.

 

"Cold dead hands" is a reference to people who will not give up their God–given, government guaranteed right to defend themselves with a gun if the need arises.

 

An AR IS an EXCELLENT home protection tool. Oddly it's not much of a deer hunting tool, since, despite your claim that it's so powerful, it's not. It's so UNDER powered that in many states it's against the law to hunt deer with one. It is an EXCELLENT tool for hunting such things as varmints and pigs.

 

In the USA, the lawful right to "keep and bear arms" is neither infinite nor God-given;

 

The right given by God is to self-defense. The gun just happens to be the best tool for that purpose. It's the ONLY tool that will make the elderly, the weak and the infirm the equal of any attacker.

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood

Fast forward to today - my wife and I both have our licenses to carry but do not.

 

Might I suggest that you start? You never know when it will be called on to save your life. If the need never arises, you've had a slight amount of discomfort (physically carrying a gun) in your life. If a situation arises, you may be able to preserve your life, your wife's (or she yours) or that of others. You don't HAVE to do anything, but at least you have an option.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood

We can all agree to disagree about the role of high-powered tactical arms in our civil society of laws, not of men (or "culture"). The 2nd amendment only says "arms" with no definition; that definition under law has been variably determined over time by contemporary society and altered by advancing technical development. Can I walk into my local Dick's and buy a tommy gun or a RPG? No, not even with a 3-day waiting period! -- although some may honestly believe the 2nd amendment grants their right to an RPG to thwart criminals (or "jack-booted" government authorities) from kicking down their door. Someday if there are handheld Star Trek "phasers" that can slice 50 people in half in an instant, they will join other weapons defined under law as "arms" under the 2nd amendment and will (hopefully) be regulated by society and law. The legal status quo is a snapshot in time, determined by the ever-changing ballot box and the courts (which themselves are determined by the ballot box).

 

When the 2nd Amendment was written the founders wanted people to have the weapons that were "state of the art" at that time. They couldn't possibly envision where we are today, but since the idea was to be able to take action against a tyrannical government, it stands to reason that they'd want us to have things like AR-15's, semi auto handguns and magazines that fed them both effectively. I think that civilians (meaning non-police) should have the same weaponry as their police. During Revolutionary War times private citizens had cannon and armed sailing ships. They loaned them to the government to fight the war.

 

That said, after their announcement today I'm heading over to Dick's and give them my business.

 

Bad news, Dick's just announced that they're going to stop selling AR-15's across the board, and that many stores will stop selling guns completely.

 

Link to comment

I've always felt these words often reflected the guiding principals of this site.

 

I find no absolution

In my rational point of view

Maybe some things are instinctive

But there's one thing you could do

You could try to understand me-

I could try to understand you...

 

Rush (again)

 

"Open Secrets"

 

Edited by workin' them angels
Link to comment
Bad news, Dick's just announced that they're going to stop selling AR-15's across the board, and that many stores will stop selling guns completely.

 

Good news: Dick's permanently stops all AR-15 sales; stock price rises. Walmart follows Dick's to raise gun-selling age to 21. Tiny drop in the bucket but a small step forward until ballot box day.

Link to comment
Bad news, Dick's just announced that they're going to stop selling AR-15's across the board, and that many stores will stop selling guns completely.

 

Good news: Dick's permanently stops all AR-15 sales; stock price rises. Walmart follows Dick's to raise gun-selling age to 21. Tiny drop in the bucket but a small step forward until ballot box day.

 

More. Meaningless. Grandstanding.

Exploit the lives of children to make yourself look good on a policy that's pretty much 5 years old.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
Bad news, Dick's just announced that they're going to stop selling AR-15's across the board, and that many stores will stop selling guns completely.

 

Good news: Dick's permanently stops all AR-15 sales; stock price rises. Walmart follows Dick's to raise gun-selling age to 21. Tiny drop in the bucket but a small step forward until ballot box day.

 

More. Meaningless. Grandstanding.

Exploit the lives of children to make yourself look good on a policy that's pretty much 5 years old.

 

Dick's ceased selling AR-type weapons after Sandy Hook but started up again. What changed?

 

Link to comment
Ridgerunner

Dick's did in fact stop selling AR-15's after Sandy Hook and had not resumed. If the media would actually read the press release they would find that Dick's also owns Field and Stream (about 35 stores) and has decided to stop selling Ar-15s at those stores as well. Seems kinda like a publicity stunt to boost stock prices.

Link to comment

Dick's ceased selling AR-type weapons after Sandy Hook but started up again. What changed?

 

Parkland. Dick's sold a (non-AR) rifle to the Parkland shooter. Dick's stopped selling ARs at their main stores after Sandy Hook but not at their Field & Stream shops. Yesterday they stopped all AR sales permanently. My wife and I shopped there yesterday and happened to chat with a manager who said it was an unusually busy day.

 

No doubt we in the large shopping crowd were there only for meaningless grandstanding to exploit the lives of children.

 

I'm a gun owner, fwiw. And a voter like the Parkland seniors are sure to be this year.

Link to comment
Beemer Dood

Good news: Dick's permanently stops all AR-15 sales; stock price rises. Walmart follows Dick's to raise gun-selling age to 21. Tiny drop in the bucket but a small step forward until ballot box day.

 

Quite the cogent comeback from someone whose just been shown to be factually wrong several times. But not unexpected. But didn't you write just a few posts back that "nothing is permanent?"

 

Edited by Beemer Dood
Link to comment
Beemer Dood

Good news: Dick's permanently stops all AR-15 sales; stock price rises. Walmart follows Dick's to raise gun-selling age to 21. Tiny drop in the bucket but a small step forward until ballot box day.

 

More. Meaningless. Grandstanding.

Exploit the lives of children to make yourself look good on a policy that's pretty much 5 years old.

 

Beat me to it.

 

Link to comment

Good news: Dick's permanently stops all AR-15 sales; stock price rises. Walmart follows Dick's to raise gun-selling age to 21. Tiny drop in the bucket but a small step forward until ballot box day.

 

Quite the cogent comeback from someone whose just been shown to be factually wrong several times. But not unexpected.

 

Every one of your retorts twisted my words into your own misinterpretations which were factually inaccurate. You and I have very different viewpoints and "alternative facts." Suffice to say again let's agree to disagree on what the Constitution says and means, then and/or now. That's very American.

 

Perhaps someday we can ride Beemers together and just enjoy the ride! That's American, too!

Link to comment

I'll lob another idea out there. Many would agree that any person who takes any weapon and in a premeditated fashion kills one or more people does not have a 'reasonable' amount of control over their thoughts and actions. To some degree health care professionals can diagnose which individuals have these mental states and can recommend if they constitute a danger to themselves and others. Given this individual's mental state/capacity which may/may not threaten society, would it be reasonable to modify the HIPPA laws to allow or require medical professionals to enter data into NICS data base? The individuals affected would be informed at the time of diagnosis so there is no surprise at point of sale. To ensure an individual doesn't get a medical professional who has a strong bias on the weapon issue, the individual could have the right to have some multiple of other medical professional diagnoses. The data could be kept confidential at the point of sale by simply reporting that the individual is not lawfully permitted to buy a firearm while not stating if the reason is for criminal or medical reason. The individual would need to given some sort of right of appeal to 'prove' the diagnosis is not accurate and to be excluded from the Do Not Purchase list.

I applaud the members engaged on this topic for keeping the dialog civil. Can't think of another venue where this happens. We need to bottle it and sell it.

Edited by Red
Link to comment
I'm surprised no ones talking about the elementary school that got blown up. 45 people killed, 38 of them children. 58 others injured. Crazy guy even put explosives in his truck surrounded by shrapnel. Absolutely horrific.

 

... Huh?

 

Imagine if Mr. Kehoe (crazy guy) didn't have access to dynamite.

 

Link to comment
I'm surprised no ones talking about the elementary school that got blown up. 45 people killed, 38 of them children. 58 others injured. Crazy guy even put explosives in his truck surrounded by shrapnel. Absolutely horrific.

 

... Huh?

 

Imagine if Mr. Kehoe (crazy guy) didn't have access to dynamite.

 

He would have access to a completely legal of the time Thompson Submachine gun (or other weapon variant), hmmmmmm...... or fertilizer or a myriad of mass destruction devices that could be made.

Link to comment
The sad things are that most people don't realize, once you loose a right, it will not come back without a fight and once the door is open to loosing rights, others are soon to follow.

 

Seat belt laws haven't resulted in taking 'our' cars away.

 

Helmet laws haven't resulted in taking 'our' bikes away.

 

 

But stopping the public sale of 'assault' style weapons to the public will lead to 'our' guns being taken away and simultaneously abolish the 2nd amendment?

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood

Every one of your retorts twisted my words into your own misinterpretations which were factually inaccurate.

 

NONE of my replies "twisted [your] words." Such an accusation, without supporting evidence is worthless, and in this case, is untrue. Please show us what those "twists" you claim I committed are.

 

There was also nothing "inaccurate" about anything I wrote. OTOH, you made several factual errors that I pointed out. But since you think that I was inaccurate, please show us where those "inaccuracy[ies]" lie.

 

In fact, I let you slide on several absurd comments that you made. Since you've taken this tack, let's take a look at some of them. You said that an AR-15 could "literally " blow someone's head off. It can't. For some reason you took a cheap shot at the President, pretending that he might " 'rush in' unarmed and save the day," at a school shooting. The AR-15 is an "intermediate" cartridge, not a "high powered" one as you claimed. You mention a "3–day waiting period" and ignore the fact that there's no evidence that it would have stopped any of the school shooters. California has a 10 day waiting period and we have a fairly high crime rate involving guns. You failed to answer several of my very simple and direct questions. I think, because you know that they put the lie to your argument.

 

You and I have very different viewpoints and "alternative facts."

 

There are no such things as " 'alternative facts.' " As Chuck Todd said, "Alternative facts are not facts, they're falsehoods." You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

Suffice to say again let's agree to disagree on what the Constitution says and means, then and/or now. That's very American.

 

You can hold whatever opinion you like, as I said. But applying modern definitions to words that were written hundreds of years ago, is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

Perhaps someday we can ride Beemers together and just enjoy the ride! That's American, too!

 

I'll pass, thanks. It's not about your opinions, it's the way that you put them forth and the way that you've conducted yourself in this conversation. Cheap shots, being disingenuous, pretending that questions were never asked, grandstanding, saying that I twisted your words –not conducive to a friendly relationship.

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood
I'll lob another idea out there. Many would agree that any person who takes any weapon and in a premeditated fashion kills one or more people does not have a 'reasonable' amount of control over their thoughts and actions. To some degree health care professionals can diagnose which individuals have these mental states and can recommend if they constitute a danger to themselves and others. Given this individual's mental state/capacity which may/may not threaten society, would it be reasonable to modify the HIPPA laws to allow or require medical professionals to enter data into NICS data base?

 

I have strong feelings against denying someone a constitutional right without due process. If the "health care professional ... diagnoses" someone as being "a danger to themselves and others" then they should do an involuntary hold on them so they can be thoroughly evaluated. If it's THEN found that they are a danger, they should be institutionalized and then that fact can be put into the national database. Problem is, only a couple of states now put that information into the database. I think that should change.

 

The individuals affected would be informed at the time of diagnosis so there is no surprise at point of sale. [/Quote]

 

There needs to be an appeal BEFORE the right to purchase a firearm is denied. We are entitled to due process, not just someone's opinion.

 

To ensure an individual doesn't get a medical professional who has a strong bias on the weapon issue, the individual could have the right to have some multiple of other medical professional diagnoses. [/Quote]

 

Who do you think should pay for these appeals?

 

The data could be kept confidential at the point of sale by simply reporting that the individual is not lawfully permitted to buy a firearm while not stating if the reason is for criminal or medical reason. The individual would need to given some sort of right of appeal to 'prove' the diagnosis is not accurate and to be excluded from the Do Not Purchase list.

 

I think that this appeal should be done long before the person attempts to buy a gun.

 

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood

I find it fascinating that when someone sets off a bomb, people talk about "the bomber." When someone commits a murder with a knife, people talk about "the murderer." But when someone shoots up a school, it's "the gun." Lots of hoplophobes and politicians with not–so–hidden agendas around these days.

Link to comment
Beemer Dood
Seat belt laws haven't resulted in taking 'our' cars away.

 

Helmet laws haven't resulted in taking 'our' bikes away.

 

 

But stopping the public sale of 'assault' style weapons to the public will lead to 'our' guns being taken away and simultaneously abolish the 2nd amendment?

 

It sounds as if you're conflating the 'privilege' of driving and riding with the 'CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT' to possess guns. AND we already tried "stopping the public sale of 'assault style weapons' " for ten years. The DOJ says that there's no evidence that it significantly affected criminal activity. California bans such guns but nearly identical weapons are still being sold.

 

No society has ever been successful in banning an object or a substance. Witness the failures of the war on drugs and prohibition. If people want something they'll find a way to get it or make it.

 

It's beyond comprehension that some folks think that we can remove an object from society by passing a law against its possession and manufacture. How well did it work for drugs? Aren't schools already gun free zones? Don't they read the signs?

 

Edited by Beemer Dood
Link to comment

To be sure, when seat belt laws and helmet laws are being enacted, those against speak of their rights being taken away. Much the same is said when there is any talk of 'gun control' or specific types of weapons bans.

 

Semantics in one sense, but the parallels are obvious. There is quite a difference between various proposals aimed at reducing the availability of 'assault type' weapons and losing one's 2nd amendments rights. Yet that great, great divide is often bridged and the oft standard retort of the loss of second amendment rights is fallacious.

 

My Great Uncle was largely acknowledged as the founder of (what was then) Conservatism. His feelings about assault weapons: a lifetime NRA member who had appeared in the NRA's pro-gun ads, told the Washington Post that assault guns “have no place in anybody's arsenal. If any SOB can't hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting.” He certainly was not and never would be accused of 'taking away anyone's second amendment rights for making such a statement.

 

Link to comment
Beemer Dood
To be sure, when seat belt laws and helmet laws are being enacted, those against speak of their rights being taken away. Much the same is said when there is any talk of 'gun control' or specific types of weapons bans.

 

Passing laws that force people to wear seat belts does not take away a constitutional right.

Passing laws that force people to wear a helmet does not take away a constitutional right.

OTOH taking away guns DOES TAKE AWAY a constitutional right, at least incrementally.

AND there's no reason for it except that "assault weapons" look scary. They operate identically to MANY other firearms that are not in line to be banned. AND we've already tried that, and it didn't have any measurable effect on crime.

 

If you REALLY want to reduce the damage done by guns, the problem is handguns, not rifles and certainly not "assault weapons." Rifles result in about 3% of the deaths by guns, and assault weapons less than 1%. This is nothing but gesture politics. They don't have to actually do anything; they just have to LOOK AS IF THEY ARE.

 

Semantics in one sense, but the parallels are obvious.

 

I disagree. It's ALL semantics and they aren't "parallel" at all.

 

There is quite a difference between various proposals aimed at reducing the availability of 'assault type' weapons and losing one's 2nd amendments rights. Yet that great, great divide is often bridged and the oft standard retort of the loss of second amendment rights is fallacious.

 

If you can't see that this is nothing but a show, and another step in the incremental removal of all guns, you're not paying attention.

 

My Great Uncle was largely acknowledged as the founder of (what was then) Conservatism. His feelings about assault weapons: a lifetime NRA member who had appeared in the NRA's pro-gun ads, told the Washington Post that assault guns “have no place in anybody's arsenal. If any SOB can't hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting.”

 

ROFL. The 2nd amendment isn't about deer hunting. As I've already pointed out, in many states the AR-15 is so low powered it's not even allowed for hunting deer. By banning it you take away one of the best tools for defensive use that exists. Do you think that because he appeared in an NRA ad that he speaks for them? I assure you, that's NOT their position. And the facts show him to be wrong. Based on the numbers sold, they are the most popular rifle in the US today. Looks like LOTS of people disagree with your great uncle and think it belongs in their "arsenal."

 

He certainly was not and never would be accused of 'taking away anyone's second amendment rights for making such a statement.

 

If his statement was made as a justification for banning ANY GUN in common use today, making such an accusation would be appropriate.

 

Edited by Beemer Dood
Link to comment

His full quote " "I'm completely opposed to selling automatic rifles. I don't see any reason why they ever made semiautomatics. I've been a [lifetime] member of the NRA, I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or semiautomatic for hunting. There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal. If any SOB can't hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting."

 

This after just appearing in a full page ad for the NRA in Time Magazine. He sure sounds like someone who's coming for everyone's guns! :ohboy:

 

A five term US senator and presidential nominee, a lot of people supported him, including the NRA.

 

I like to listen to music. Not as much as riding, but still quite a bit. A favorite band of mine is Rush. Among many others, so is DADA.

 

One of theirs I like to listen to when riding:

Edited by workin' them angels
Link to comment
Beemer Dood
His full quote " "I'm completely opposed to selling automatic rifles.

 

This is TYPICAL POLITICIAN BS, preying on the ignorance of the average American on this topic! Your uncle should be ashamed of himself for saying this. "Automatic rifles" haven't been available for sale to the general public since the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934. They are available only after an exhaustive background check, done in much more detail than the standard, a special tax and a long wait. They're frightfully expensive with some going for more than $100,000. Many people have been lied to, or fooled, and believe that the AR-15 is such a weapon. It's not.

 

I don't see any reason why they ever made semiautomatics.

 

I guess he never heard of the law of supply and demand? Semi auto handguns have all but completely replaced revolvers in the holster of US police officers. They provide quick reloads and a high degree of accuracy when it's needed. It only makes sense that in the LE (law enforcement) model they would be accompanied by semi auto rifles and carbines. Since they're so effective in that role, it's only natural that civilians would want them for self-defense. It was estimated in 2012 that there were TWENTY TO THIRTY MILLION of them in the hands of the public. Looks like quite a few people don't agree with him.

 

I've been a [lifetime] member of the NRA, I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or semiautomatic for hunting.

 

OK. MANY people do, and at the risk of being redundant. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

 

There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal.

 

He's welcome to his opinion, but since millions of people own many millions them, that's all it is, an opinion. It's too bad that he's so narrow minded that he can't see beyond his own back yard.

 

If any SOB can't hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting."

 

Not sure why this keeps coming up. It completely ignores the reason that MANY if not most people have guns, self-defense. If one shot was all that was needed, why do the police have guns that carry 17 rounds in the magazine and then carry spare magazines with yet more ammo? Why do they also have 30 round (and larger) magazines for their AR-15's? Could it be that there's more to life than deer hunting? Nah, couldn't be.

 

This after just appearing in a full page ad for the NRA in Time Magazine. He sure sounds like someone who's coming for everyone's guns!

No, not "everyone's guns" just those of us who have semi-autos, and it seems, anyone who has a gun for any purpose other than hunting. And this is one of the problems with what he's done, compartmentalized gun ownership. He doesn't see the reason that semi-autos, that make up the single most popular rifle in the US, even exist. He completely discounts millions of gun owners because of his own narrow mindedness. The NRA even calls the AR-15 "America's Rifle." Yet your uncle can't even see "why they ever made semiautomatics!" Yeah, he's got his finger on the pulse of the people, LOL.

 

A five term US senator and presidential nominee,

 

For all of that time he's been protected by people who carry semi-automatic firearms, yet he can't understand why they were invented. Yet, it sounds as if he's willing to deny that same protection to every day civilians. The hypocrisy is massive.

 

a lot of people supported him, including the NRA.

 

Of course. The NRA supports anyone who supports even a small segment of the shooting sports. Having a legislator that has guns and supports hunting, even if he speaks against some of them, is a feather in their cap. That hardly makes him the ideal candidate. Often it's a matter of the lesser of two evils.

 

 

Link to comment
I'm surprised no ones talking about the elementary school that got blown up. 45 people killed, 38 of them children. 58 others injured. Crazy guy even put explosives in his truck surrounded by shrapnel. Absolutely horrific.

 

... Huh?

 

Imagine if Mr. Kehoe (crazy guy) didn't have access to dynamite.

 

He would have access to a completely legal of the time Thompson Submachine gun (or other weapon variant), hmmmmmm...... or fertilizer or a myriad of mass destruction devices that could be made.

 

True. But he did use, completely legal at the time, dynamite. Compact, safe to handle, and easily hidden. He used what would cause the most death and destruction, while being the most convenient. More convenient than a fertilizer bomb. A machine gun would certainly have caused less destruction, and arguably fewer deaths.

 

Had he access to something more lethal and yet safe to handle and easily hidden, it's not hard to imagime he would have used that. Fortunately, he didn't.

 

I have no doubt that the had Mr. Cruz had access to automatic weapons he would have used them, very likely resulting in even more death. As it was, he only had access to semi automatics. Legal weapons that would cause the most death and destruction. Imagine if he didn't have access to them.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...