The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

In the past a mass murder of innocent school children would result in a thread that same day sandy hook, columbine etc.  but now it is just business as usual in the United States of the NRA.

I think this one is alot closer to home for alot of us. 
Also i see a real anger here directed towards the NRA obstructionists and alot less tolerance for bullshit political talk about why we can't have common sense gun legislation.

I don't think it is a new normal as much as it is a topic we have covered already. Is there really much more we can say about gun control?

With that aside, I do want to express my condolences to the families.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this one is Any different,or will change anything....

We've had shootings in...
Elementary schools
Middle Schools
High schools
Colleges
Malls
Movie theaters
Churches
and attacks on members of congress...

Bupkis,a whole lotta hot air,and finger pointing...Add Donnie Dumbfuck,to a GOP controlled congress,claiming Mental health B.S.,while proposing cutting funding for mental health in their budget proposals..Is a perfect example of how nothing will change.

Living in a state with some of the most pro 2nd amendment,lack of gun laws. We've added a pro gun law into our state constitution,and within the past 10 years,were 1 measly vote away from an unconstitutional law,where any federal person trying enforce a federal gun law in the state ,would indeed themselves be arrested.(This obviously wouldn't have been enacted,Federal law supersedes state law.)

Over the weekend locally since we've had...
3 school shooting threats-
1 debunked
1 they are still investigating
1 middle school kid house searched,arrested Saturday night,after sending a video threatening to shoot up the school with an AK47 Friday night on social media.

Oh yeah and 3rd graders raffling off an Ar15 rifle to raise money for their (non school related) baseball team.One of the parents owns some gun business,donated it.The local officials state this morning on it, alot of groups around here raffle off guns, no one here has a problem with it...Just all the outsiders...

Through all the hypocritical screams of MASS SHOOTING, AR15, and COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS.  I have yet to actually hear any reasonable common sense gun laws from anyone. The unfortunate fact is that these things won't ever stop. We've been killing each other for 1000's of years and we will for the next 1000 years.

People just like blaming Trump. How soon they forget the Democrats used to control everything under Obama for a couple of years and they did nothing. Obama finally passed something that was so bad the ACLU was even against it.

I say all of this not to point fingers but to say that no one has made it a priority. see how fast Trump got the tax law passed? See how Obama got his insurance mandate through? Neither party has made this a priority.

Times are changing and we have too many people who disregard human life and just want to kill innocent people. As such I don't think any one thing will stop them.  In Colorado, Texas and other places they have public school staff that is trained and armed. Israel has been that way for 30 plus years. I heard Sheriff Judd (the Polk County guy who is famous for going after sexual predators) and Sheriff Chitwood of Volusia County on tv saying they were going to do the same thing. seems like the conservative counties are pushing this. I just think the free living school life is going the same way as our plane flights and we will have to adapt.

Obama used his political capital towards Healthcare, which he ultimately got.  After that, he didn't have power in the House or Senate anymore.  He tried on guns, but there was no capital left.

Sandy Hook was the tipping point, where I realized that there would be no bipartisan support.

Maybe this time is different -- here's hoping.

 I still haven't heard any common sense gun laws from anyone...

Bullshit.

Thanks for proving my point.

All things being equal, the US and Australia share alot of qualities, nation of immigrants, quality of life, general prosperity level, cultural similarities, access to the same entertainment (violent games and movies) s shared language, similar levels of religiosity and the same type of historical frontier-like expansion.

How about we look at the level of access to guns in australia before and after they passed some wide ranged gun control laws and compare it to the level of gun violence and see if there's something there we can emulate. There's a start.

(http://www.betootaadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png)

I still haven't heard any common sense gun laws from anyone...

1) Ban automatic weapons entirely
2) Increase restrictions on who can own a gun (in areas of age, mental health issues, history of violence)
3) Every time a child is shot in a school, take one politician who is accepting NRA money and shoot them in the head.

OK, #3 is semi-facetious, but the other two would be a damned good start.

No way in hell it would happen,but...

1.) Require every gun sold,bought,to have a serial number*
*1a.) Outlaw make your own gun,selling parts online to assemble your home made gun with no serial numbers,etc.
2.) Close the gun show loop hole,no one under 18 years old may enter,same rules should apply at a store as these gun shows...

There's more,but the gun nuts will scream and bitch these aren't fair...blah,Blah,blah...

My 2 cents worth is that if no meaningful gun law changes were put in place after Sandy Hook in which freaking ELEMENTARY school kids were killed, then there is never going to be a school shooting that brings about meaningful gun law changes.  Our Kardashian worshipping society is too easily distracted.  Everyone gets all worked up for a couple weeks after a mass shooting and then Jennifer Anniston divorce story hits the news and society drops their gun law cause to go look at the shiny new thing in the "news". 

And politicians will always talk about change but until their voting constituents create a big enough demand, they won't vote to change anything.  Politicians representing overwhelmingly liberal districts will vote for stricter gun laws, politicians representing overwhelmingly conservative districts will not vote for stricter gun laws, and politicians representing moderate districts will vote whichever way the wind happens to be blowing on a particular day in the media.  All politicians regardless of affiliation put getting re-elected WAY ahead of anything else.  Tell your biggest voting demographic what they want to hear and move on.   

I've already said it before:  Sandy Hook proved that the people of this country simply do not care how many people are killed in gun violence.  Anything after that is business as usual.

In the past, I might see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, in what I call the Mulford Act exception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act): in the 1960s when visibly-armed Black Panthers were patrolling the streets of Oakland and marching outside the state capitol with loaded weapons, Governor Ronald Reagan said there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will."  A law banning the public carrying of loaded firearms was swiftly enacted.

But that time is long gone.  Armed Nazis march hundreds deep in the streets of Trump's America and are praised by the President as "good people," and if some undesirable group (Antifa, BLM, or whomever) were to start seriously exercising their Second Amendment rights, 21st-century America wouldn't even bother with the spectacle of passing a law that affects "everyone."  Law enforcement would just find some reason to harass the undesirables and then use the excuse of weapons to crack down on them with brutal force.

But if you're a (mostly?) white militia group, feel free to walk into a federal building waving your guns around and literally take over the place.  Your sovereign rights are protected.

Spider I think you are on to something.  We need more African Americans (preferably male, with neck tatooes and afros exercising any their rights in any open carry states....that might get is meaningful gun reform.

Not sure what the point of this would be. When was the last time that a  Class III weapon was involved in a murder? I'll wait.

I would agree with a nationwide 21 age limit on all firearm purchases. I would agree with mental health issues. However, many people will still slip through the cracks. Also, history of violence is a very broad category. How are you going to define it more than it's already defined by the laws already on the books?

So Trump and his supporters are Nazis. AND you want him to take our guns away. Ummm, OK. That makes sense. Maybe next week you can propose legalizing group gas chambers for our Nazi leaders to use on us, LMFAO....

I didn't say that "Trump and his supporters are Nazis."  I said that armed Nazis were marching through the streets, and that Trump praised them as "good people."  Which part do you disagree with?

I think the most curious delusion of the Second Amendment crowd is the idea that whether or not you are personally armed will stop government tyranny.  The Branch Davidians in Waco had plenty of guns, and it didn't make any difference.  And that was back in the '90s, before the feds started shipping surplus military equipment to local police departments.

Whether or not the government fears the people has nothing to do with whether or not those people are armed, and everything to do with whether those people are politically powerful.  A group of Tea Party protesters - armed or unarmed - has no need to fear a violent government crackdown.  A heavily armed group of American Muslim protesters would be taking their own lives in their hands.

As far as automatic weapons go...unless you're planning on overthrowing Madagascar or some other small country this weekend, you really don't need a machine gun.

As far as the "what constitutes a violent past" goes, I would leave that up to experts in psychology with way more knowledge than I have in that area.

Either you missed my point or purposefully avoided it. Are you saying that Class III weapons are a problem or epidemic in this country? They are already very heavily regulated. As I asked before, when is the last time that a murder was committed with a Class III firearm? Hell, when is the last time that any crime was committed with a Class III firearm?

There are all sorts of violence. Violence against people, violence against property, violence against animals, etc. And then there are degrees of violence within each type. There has to be a cut off point. But then again, they already have a cut off point. It's called a felony.

So the most heavily armed citizens in the world don't have a chance against the mighty US Government. But yet we can't win in the middle east against a couple thousand Taliban fighters that can't even figure out how to wipe their own ass. And couldn't win in Vietnam. I think you severely underestimate how something like that would actually play out.

The difference is that at least half (and that's a wild underestimate) of the remaining citizens will be opposing the Second Amendment crazies that are trying to violently overthrow the government.  So in a situation where a) the U.S. government and b) more than half the population are opposing an armed uprising by the violent few, I think you're the one underestimating how things play out.

Now you're changing the goal posts. Who said anything about anyone trying to overthrow the government? What if the government turns "Nazi" and wants to put you in the oven? Whatcha gonna do? Go willingly?

Then please clarify what you are proposing.

If, as you put it, "the government turns 'Nazi' and wants to put you in the oven," what are your options short of overthrowing the government?  It seems to me that once a single shot is fired at law enforcement, the only possible resolutions are:

a) you overthrow the government
b) you are taken into custody
c) you are killed

I can't think of many governments that are the business of simply letting citizens pick, at the end of a gun, which laws they want to ignore.   Of course, there are notable exceptions like the Sicilian Mafia, Mexican drug cartels, or any number of Somali warlords.  Perhaps that's the scenario you envision?

So in your opinion it makes no difference how it starts? In your eyes are there no legitimate reasons to fight the government? Does Spider-Dan go willingly to the oven?

Call me crazy but I would have thought Chicago and Detroit have already proved that. The death numbers there are ridiculous and I swear it bothers me that no one seems to care and yes I believe it is because it is black on black crime. Jesse and Al should have offices there and we see them on tv everyday fighting for justice if you ask me.

I keep seeing great ways to keep guns away from law abiding citizens but nothing that will stop lawbreakers from breaking the law. No law would have stopped this or anyone else. BTW ... shotguns would cause much more damage in close range like he was. Just like drugs ... the people who want to have it will have it. The only difference is it will create a whole new group of criminals because most people won't just give them up.

Blame the NRA when it isn't NRA members doing the mass shootings. We have background checks now because of the NRA. I realize it's cool to have people to "blame" to feel better about yourself when things go wrong but it doesn't make it true. Short of outlawing Democrats from having guns

The other argument I see is that people like saying the 1st amendment didn't mean for citizens to have the same weapons as the military yet that is exactly the case when it was written.

Our world today sucks today. We now have to "protect" bottles so people can't tamper with them, empty our pockets and shoes at the courthouse and get to the airport hours earlier just to get patted down. Unfortunately we can gripe all we want but unless we do away with gun free zones and take away a few more of our children's freedoms we are vulnerable to psychos.

I posted something similar to this the other day on Facebook. Amazing that no one says shit until there is a mass shooting. Are those 17 people more important than the 50 every month in Chicago, Baltimore, or other assorted liberal shit holes? Dead people are dead people. Hypocrisy at its finest.

An armed uprising against the government only makes sense if your intention is to overthrow said government.  There is no other condition.

So this idea that the Second Amendment exists for idiots like Cliven Bundy to forcibly annex land he doesn't want to pay taxes to graze his cattle on... it's nonsense.  The Constitution does not have a clause to facilitate its violent expulsion; that question was fully resolved in the 1860s.  Overthrowing the government by force is not your constitutional right.

In Chicago, laws (including: gun control laws) ARE passed to try to stop said violence, and law enforcement aggressively enforces the law.  However, since the people of Chicago cannot pass laws in the state of Indiana that is a mere 10 minutes away, the people of Indiana are completely against gun control, and there are no border inspections between states, many of the gun control laws in Chicago meet with limited success.

This is why any gun control law must be enforced nationally to be effective.  As pondwater repeatedly pointed out, how often do you see these crimes being committed with Class III (NFA) firearms?  Clearly, some gun control laws are VERY effective.

The logical conclusion of this position is that the Second Amendment says I can put anti-personnel mines in my front lawn, and set up mortars in my backyard.

Surely you do not believe that every private citizen has the right to any armament used by the United States Armed Forces?

Spider ... do you not think "dealers" will be available if all the law abiding citizens give up every single gun? Seriously ... what cocaine addict can't find coke? It just doesn't happen. I swear I'd give up every single gun i own if I thought it would help but there is no way i can believe that

Are you saying that whatever atrocities the government could put upon it's citizens is OK with you? Are you saying that there is no possible scenario that you would fight against the government? Are you saying that you would willfully go to the oven? Just answer the question...

If they ban AR15s the bad guys will use shotguns. Then they will want to ban shotguns. When they ban shotguns the bad guys will use Glocks. Then they will want to ban Glocks. When they ban Glocks the bad guy will use the next firearm in the list. Round and round we go.

You know its funny that the same people calling Trump "Hitler" are upset he won't take guns away from the citizens.

 

Also, please inform me the main differences between acquiring a Class III firearm vs acquiring any other firearm. This should be fun, haha.

Again, I'll outsource my response to pondwater:


Clearly, whatever we are doing with NFA weapons worked wonders.  So it seems to me that expanding that to all guns, nationally, is a great start.

No.  For instance I oppose slavery, I oppose the internment of lawful citizens based solely on their race, and I oppose a ban on immigrants based on their religion.  But the only time it makes sense to use guns as a solution for my opposition is if I intend to violently overthrow the government.

If you have a point to make about acquiring a class III firearm, then make it.  I have no interest in gun enthusiast Trivial Pursuit.  So if you're looking for someone to debate the difference between a "bullet" and a "cartridge," or a "clip" and a "magazine," you'll have to look elsewhere.

What if you don't PLAN to overthrow anything. What if you're just protecting yourself and fighting back. Hypothetically, what if the government starts throwing people in the oven and then they show up at your house for you. How many regimes in history have disarmed their citizens and then committed mass genocide? So if someone pick up arms to resist being thrown in an oven, then according to you, they are PLANNING to overthrow the government? That's an odd perspective.

SEE BELOW...

We're not doing anything with NFA weapons. If you can pass a background check to buy a regular firearm then you can pass a background check to get a Class III NFA weapon. The main hurdle is the cost. Since you can't buy any fully automatic firearms made post 1986 there is a very limited supply. Therefore cost is very high. Also you have to pay for the tax stamp. Since there are an estimated 350 million firearms in private hands in the US, probably many more than that. It would be virtually impossible to expand that to regular firearms. You know, the whole supply and demand thing. So other than extra paperwork, anyone can own a Class III fully automatic evil death machine from hell. As long as you have deep enough pockets.

It is a total myth to claim what allowed the Nazis to rise to power was gun control. The Nazi's enacted a law that banned Jews from owning fire arms and that is about all, no restrictions were enacted on Aryans.   That law was not about guns it was racism.  So the only comparison would be our current system that pretty much has zero restricts on white male nationalist from owning guns but excuses cops from shooting Castile.

Even better idea......

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/17/nra-membership-muslim-florida-shooting/

I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I like to think about the consequences of my actions.

It's interesting that you talk about "being picked up for the oven" as if Jews in Nazi territory were fully aware that they were being rounded up to be exterminated.  No one (outside of the concentration camps) knew the Jews were being systematically exterminated until the Allies liberated the camps.  As far as European Jews knew, the Nazi concentration camps were no different than the Japanese concentration camps going on in America.

So let's follow through on your scenario:  Suppose I am a legal permanent resident and future-fascist ICE shows up at my door.   They say they need to bring me down to the HQ and "verify my paperwork," which I believe may be a ruse to deprive me of my lawful freedom (and property).  Do I grab my sidearm and defend my liberty?  What's my plan for tomorrow?  For next week?  For next year?

This is why these ridiculous gun fantasies are so absurd.  The idea that stormtroopers are going to show up at your house and verbally ask you to peaceably report to your death camp is laughable, but that's the kind of situation you guys require to make your position seem plausible.  You know what happens in countries where a first-world government wants to kill you?  They don't send stormtroopers to your house, they send rockets.  Have fun shooting at them.

Please explain why you "can't buy any fully automatic firearms made after 1986."  Why don't people just buy them on the black market, as is suggested every time we talk about new gun control laws?

Why?  I mean, it seems that "deep enough pockets" are enough of an obstacle to block all (?) NFA firearms from being used for murder, right?  So why can't we put tax stamps on every gun, that raises them to (net) NFA prices?

And I don't think getting rid of existing guns is as difficult as you imply.  If the Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment applies only to "well-regulated militias," Congress could subsequently pass an Australia-style gun control law that declared you have 2 years to buy a (very expensive) tax stamp for your well-regulated guns, and turn in everything you don't buy a stamp for.  After the 2 year grace period, if you are found to be in possession of a gun without a tax stamp, mandatory 10-year federal sentence.  That would sort out the militiamen from the cosplayers in short order.

It's not a total myth. It banned "weapons not belonging to supporters of the Nazis, rendered the Jews and other disfavored groups like the Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, and their potential allies defenseless and set the stage for the slaughter of the Holocaust that followed." That would be equal to banning guns for everyone who isn't a member of the NRA ... which actually might help seeing as how the NRA members aren't the ones committing most of the gun felonies. Maybe you are on to something Hoodie.  ;) :D

Yeah, they're fantasies. That kind of thing has never happened, ever.

After Germany established gun control. About 13 million Jews were rounded up and exterminated.

After Uganda established gun control. About 300,000 people were rounded up and exterminated.

After Guatemala established gun control. About 100,000 people were rounded up and exterminated.

After Cambodia established gun control. About one million people were rounded up and exterminated.

After Turkey established gun control. About 1.5 million people were rounded up and exterminated.

After the Soviet Union established gun control. About 20 million people were rounded up and exterminated.

After China established gun control. About 20 million people were rounded up and exterminated.

You can't buy them because they are regulated Class III weapons. People don't buy them on the black market because they do the same thing as the cheaper alternative. I think you miss understand the tax stamp. On NFA weapons the tax stamp is $200. The reason that Class III weapons are so expensive is that they are rare and in limited supply. With 350 million+ regular firearms in the wild. Supply and demand would not dictate high prices.

I don't know WTF a cosplayer is. But anyhow, what you just posted isn't even in the realm of reality. Even if all that happened. All existing firearms would be grandfathered in. And even if they weren't, do you think that everyone is just going to buy a stamp? Every time gun grabbers talk about COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS they come up with some silly shit that doesn't even have a chance in hell. That's why nothing will ever be accomplished. You have a better chance of going to McDonald's, applying for a cashier job, and tell them you want $100 an hour.

I stopped reading here.  Not going to continue reading if you can't even handle basic historical facts.  Nazis killed 6 million after a mentally unhinged leader came to power on a platform of nationalism and scapegoating "others".

Well bye!!!

No law will end gun violence in America.  But that is hardly a reason not to enact laws that reduce gun violence.  

No law will make automobile travel perfectly safe.  Yet we have passed laws that have made it safer.

Requiring smoke detectors, and fire exits hasn't eliminated fatalities due to fires.  But it has reduced them.

Requiring bicycle helmets hasn't made it perfectly safe for children who ride their bikes to school, but it has made it safer.  

Banning people from false shouting fire in a movie theater hasn't eliminated all risks of harm in a movie theater but it does make it safer, a trade off we accept despite the 1st amendment.

Banning guns on airplanes and installing metal detectors didn't stop hijacking but it significantly reduced it. Despite some folks being offended that doing so infringes on the second and fourth amendment.

There can be common sense changes to our gun laws.

 If a court adjudicates that someone is not competent enough to manage their own social security because of advanced demenshia then they shouldn't have access to firearms.  Would such a law solve all gun violence? No.  would it reduce the number of accidental shootings and suicides?  Yes

If there is sufficient evidence that party A is threat to party B for party A for a judge to grant a restraining order against party A than if that threat includes the use of guns than party A should be required to surrender the guns.  Due process needs to occur with the burden on the state/party B to prove that party A is in fact a danger.  But if you threaten to kill someone one you forfeit your second amendment rights much like if you actually murder someone you forfeit your 13th amendment rights.

If you are suicidal the state can place you in protective custody for you own well being.  The same logic that allows that should result in you losing access to firearms.

Background checks should occur for all gun sales, including those at gun shows.  Close the effing loophole.

Ban bumpstocks.

Ban all weapons,clips, magazines etc with a capacity higher than 8.  Won't reduce the number of incidents but will reduce the number of fatalities per incident.

Require that any gun not in someone's actual control be stored in a locked safe.  Would greatly reduce guns getting in the hand of thieves.

As for the argument that banning the sale of high capacity magazines won't get rid of existing ones.  That is true.  But it will mean will stop making the problem worse.  New car have a third brake light that has greatly reduced rear ending.  But there are still cars out there without that light.  Just because we couldn't solve the problem overnight isn't a reason to move in the right direction.

No law will solve the gun problem, even multiple laws won't. But that is not a reason not to partially improve the problem be it fire safety, air travel, bike travel, or even guns

On a positive note.  The Miami Dolphins is tied for first place (with Office Depot) for largest donation to the victims gofundme page at $50,000. 

Do you really think that the Palestinians would be safe and secure today if only they had more handguns?

The battle you are fighting in your imagination is one of a bygone era.  Again: when a 21st-century first-world government wants to indiscriminately kill you, they just send a rocket to your house.  It doesn't matter how well-armed the people in Yemen are when a predator drone shows up in their backyard.

And to re-emphasize a point from earlier: the 2nd Amendment has existed for as long as the U.S. has, and yet it didn't stop lawful Japanese citizens from being hauled off to camps by the government.  So what practical use is it, exactly?  What is this mythical trigger point where The People are going to uniformly Rise Up against the government without being brutally smashed down?  It didn't happen with Japanese internment, it didn't happen when black activists were having their row house LITERALLY BOMBED BY THE GOV'T in the middle of Philadelphia, it didn't happen in Waco.  What is the threshold?

It sounds like you are saying that designating firearm as a regulated class III weapon has been very effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals, and that a complete ban on private sales of post-1986 automatic weapons has had ~100% success in removing them from the market (both white and black market).  Perhaps you would like to rephrase.

You didn't say people "don't" buy fully automatic firearms made after 1986; you said they "can't."  If gun control laws don't work, what difference does 1986 make in whether or not you can buy an NFA gun?  Why can't you just buy a post-1986 fully-auto firearm on the all-powerful black market?

The answer is that sufficiently strong gun laws DO work, and the NFA is a prime example.

Lets make this simple. IF the US government started committing atrocities against the majority of American citizens, then said citizens have a way to somewhat protect themselves and fight back. The government can't send drones, bombs, and missiles to the majority of Americans homes. The US military would be highly incapacitated without the US citizens. Throughout history governments around the world have exterminated millions upon millions of lives. That fact is not in dispute.


Why in the hell would ANYONE go through the trouble and cost of buying a Class III weapon when you can go to Bass Pro Shop and buy an AR15 that does the same fucking thing? I didn't go through the trouble of buying a professional router because the Dremel tool attachment I got at Harbor Freight served the same function. Class III firearms are novelties, they don't do anything special. You're ignorance of firearms and corresponding laws is apparent.

In other news. Recreational semi auto rifle sales are spiking. Democrats are the best firearm salesmen ever. The more you cry, the more firearms in the wild. How ironic, LMFAO...

You have just neatly pointed out why the 2nd Amendment is both useless and redundant.

The government isn't going to commit atrocities against the majority (specifically: those with political power), because that's not how politics works!  Any atrocities that are being committed are going to be against a vulnerable minority (e.g. German Jews or Japanese-Americans in the 1940s), and the people who are shouting loudest about defending yourself from government tyranny with your sidearm will be the same people giving thunderous applause when the government starts rounding up Muslims.

The 2nd Amendment is useless when it comes to protecting yourself from the government, precisely because anyone who needs a gun to protect themselves from the government is not politically powerful enough to deter the government from responding with crushing brutality when they try to offer armed resistance.  You appear to be under the delusion that if all the German Jews in the '30s had handguns, everything would have been fine (or even appreciably better), when in reality any Jew in Germany that tried to stand up to the SS would have been brutally slaughtered with the entire force of the Nazi state.  The same goes for any of the other populations you cited.

Do you honestly believe that Japanese-Americans in the '40s could have drawn pistols on the federal officials come to take them from their homes, and accomplished anything but getting their family massacred?  I mean, that's EXACTLY the kind of government tyranny you're ranting about, and the 2nd Amendment was completely worthless.

You're the one who was just crowing that no murders have been committed with Class III weapons, so I'm not sure why you brought that up in the first place.  And the law enforcement and military organizations that continue to purchase Class III weapons seem to believe that they are, in fact, different than non-NFA firearms, so I guess you'd have to ask them why they continue to buy those more expensive weapons if they indeed do "the same fucking thing."

But I would like an answer on why post-1986 NFA weapons are any harder to get than pre-1986 NFA weapons.  If gun control laws don't make a difference, and you can just buy them on the black market anyway, why would anyone buy a 30-year-old fully-auto weapon when they can just buy a brand new one?

You don't like it? Get a constitutional convention together and change the constitution. Otherwise good luck in your silly quest.

 I brought it up because your buddy Sunstroke said, "Ban automatic weapons entirely." There is no need to ban something that's not a problem.

I don't have to ask them, I know from experience. Do you even know how firearms work? Have you ever shot an AR15? Have you ever shot a fully automatic firearm? You sound like you watch too many shoot 'em up and war movies.


Post 1986 Class III weapons are only sold to military and law enforcement. Who said anything about buying Class III weapons on the black market? Yes, why would someone buy a 30 year old Class III weapon when they can go to the local gun shop and get the legal and just as effective equivalent much cheaper. 

Are you a military or law enforcement officer in charge of procuring weapons?
If not, I humbly suggest that you have absolutely no idea why they continue to purchase these useless Class III weapons instead of cheaper weapons that are "just as effective."

The casual reader may not understand what you are actually trying to say here.  Let me spell it out more clearly:

Any fully automatic weapon made after 1986 is illegal to sell to the public.

And this gun ban is SO EFFECTIVE that you don't think it's even worth trying to buy a post-1986 Class III weapon!  (What happened to the people having access to the same weapons as the government?)  The almighty black market, which normally lets you buy whatever weapon you want because criminals don't obey the law, was effectively rendered impotent for new class III weapons by the additional gun control laws signed by Reagan during his second term.

Gun.
Bans.
Work.

All you have to do is choose to enforce them.

Well here is one thing we absolutely know does no fucking good....having an armed uniformed officer at the school.  A lazy piece of shit with a gun won't stop a bad guy with a gun.  Mother fucker should be shot for dereliction of duty.

I interact with them on a regular basis. Not only that, I have actual hands on experience with the weapons we're discussing. DO YOU? It's amazing that you presume to know what I know. You are ignorant on the topic and just spouting political talking points. You must think that every round that comes out the barrel when dumping a mag in 2-3 seconds automatically hits a different moving target. Go out to the range and fire each type of weapon and then tell me which is more effective at hitting multiple moving targets while under pressure and reloading every 3-4 seconds. Until then, you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

There is no black market for Class III weapons because there is no functional use for Class III weapons when you can get the legal equivalent easily. I don't see much of a black market for R12 refrigerant because it's phased out and R134a is readily available and effectively serves the same purpose. Go google the effectiveness of fully auto hand held rifles. You might learn something. https://www.military.com/kitup/2011/12/full-auto-battlefield-necessity.html (https://www.military.com/kitup/2011/12/full-auto-battlefield-necessity.html)

Instead of telling this to me, you should be telling this to the military and law enforcement officials who are still buying these "useless" class III weapons.
Tell THEM that they don't know how to do their jobs, and that you - a civilian with no actual military or law enforcement experience? - are much more knowledgeable on the tactical needs of their organizations than they are.

I am forced to wonder why you, personally, believe these weapons continue to be manufactured.  I mean, according to you semi-automatic weapons are LITERALLY superior.  Is this all some sort of chemtrail conspiracy to scam taxpayers out of money for weapons that don't do anything?  I guess it must be a global conspiracy, since the militaries of other countries also seem to be using fully-automatic weapons.

And just to clear this up and spare everyone more stories about your previous life as a munitions specialist: I'm not the one making an appeal (over the internet) to his own authority as a weapons expert.  You have no more reason to believe such an unsubstantiated claim than I have to believe yours.  I am making an appeal to the authority of law enforcement and military organizations who appear to believe that fully-automatic weapons are indeed useful, and have continued to purchase them since 1986.

You're evading the question.

If gun control laws don't work, why is it any easier to buy a class III weapon made before 1986 than it is to buy one made after 1986?
"You don't need to buy one anyway" is not an answer.

I never claimed to be an expert on anything. I simply stated the obvious. Why don't you answer the question. DO YOU HAVE ANY HANDS ON EXPERIENCE WITH A FULLY and/or SEMI AUTO FIREARM? Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked or use the resource of Google to enlighten yourself about the topic. Fully automatic fire is used for SPECIFIC purposes and only effective when you are highly trained. Most mass shootings aren't carried out by people who have been trained at all, much less highly trained. Please list some recent mass shooters that were "highly trained" with an fully auto weapon.

You don't even make sense. Post 1986 Class III weapons are not sold to the public. In life, most people take the path of least resistance. There is no black market because there is no market due to the LEGAL availability of an equivalent alternative. Regardless, unless you plan on banning ALL semi auto weapons then you're wasting you time. And since that isn't going to happen anytime during our lifetime, you lose this debate.

First, I dislike Spidey almost as much as I dislike you, just for completely different annoying reasons. It would be like me saying to you "Your buddy Charles Manson...," just because I equate both you and Manson with "fucked up in the head."

Second, automatic weapons, in the hands of anyone other than the military, are nothing but a problem. Please feel free to cite any positive activities/hunting/sports that involve a fucking machine gun.

P.S. No, robbing banks doesn't count as a positive activity...

pondwater, you have just supported the idea that banning items work. You really should re-think your stance.

If you aren't claiming to be an expert, why do you keep trying to compare your (meaningless layman) "expertise" to my equally meaningless "expertise"?  Neither one of us are qualified to speak on why military and law enforcement continue to purchase Class III weapons, yet you keep pretending to be an authority on the subject.

They are "not sold to the public" because of the 1986 gun control law banning sales of them to the public, which is the entire point!

You and CF are claiming that gun bans don't work because of the all-powerful black market, yet there IS no black market for post-1986 NFA weapons, and even pre-1986 NFA weapons are also effectively unavailable.

The 1986 Class III gun control law PROVES that gun bans work!

Just ban all semi-automatics as well.

Best part of the town hall (I am paraphrasing)

Rubio: (thinking he is explaining an intractable problem) The problem with trying to ban assault rifles is all the exceptions and loopholes and it would be litterally impossible to close them all without a ban of all semi automatic rifles.

Wild applause and cheering

Rubio: Fair enough.

just saying and not to make you not sleep at night but there are plenty of people who own fully auto weapons. Some legally and many not.  We have a lot of ex-military dealing on the black market. Money is all it takes to get a hold of something like that. Other than that we have numerous shooting ranges that rent them out so they could be stolen if someone wanted to.

In my opinion is we outlaw gun "A" it only shifts the burden to a new gun. If that kid had used a shotgun with buckshot he'd have killed many more as each shot has the capacity to hit several people.

I realize this is extreme but I swear some people seem to pretend life will work this way.

Law Abiding Criminals

https://youtu.be/BYVqmBaqgPU

^^^^ To quote the survivors "I say BS"

The question is not will such an action stop every fucking shooting in the country the question is will it reduce it.  Your stance is the equivalent of we should make drunk driving legal, because making it illegal hasn't completely eliminated all automobile fatalities.

And your stance is we should take cars from everyone to reduce drunk driving .... which is a far greater problem in our country.

Apparently they are all too scared of getting caught to use them in the commission of crimes, which is yet another benefit of banning them.

No it is not. I want us to treat guns exactly like we treat cars.  You must pass a test showing that you competently and safely operate a gun.  You must register  and insure any gun you own.  If you use the gun irresponsible you lose the right to access one.  And we get rid of and hold the manufacturer responsible for any product that is unreasonably dangerous (Ford Pinto).

hahaha ... you just spoke right from the NRA montra. Most NRA members are law abiding citizen Zeus and shouldn’t be restricted because other nutcases are mentally ill.

BS.  Let's go with he has a double barrel shot gun with 00 buckshot.  In theory each of the nine pellets could have hit a unique student for a total of 18.  But as I am sure you are aware in order for that amount of spread the shooter would have needed to be so far away from the targets that the shots would be unlikely to kill but rather injure. 

More likely outcome of the attack would be 1-4 people killed or seriously injured before the assailant being overtaken as he tried to reload.

Let me clarify my position, CF:

Banning sales to the public of all class III weapons made after 1986 has effectively eliminated those weapons from public distribution, and seems to have completely eliminated them from use in the commission of crimes.

Given the resounding success of this extremely strict gun law, what evidence is there that "gun bans don't work because criminals don't obey the law"?  It seems to me that criminals are much more likely to travel to nearby jurisdictions where it is easy to legally* acquire a gun, then sneak it into an area where guns are banned.  But that strategy doesn't work with federal gun bans, like the post-1986 class III gun control law.

I would happily welcome a world where the only illegal guns that get into the hands of criminals are those that are smuggled over the border.


*In this case, "legally" also includes "technically illegal, but with no lawful enforcement mechanism," such as gun show sales to convicted felons

From where?  They aren't going to be coming from Canada, they already have strict gun control. And the wall with Mexico will prevent them from coming in from the south.

Please cite some of the crimes committed with the currently LEGAL NON-BANNED Class III full auto weapons. If you can't cite any crimes committed with those weapons, then any problems you perceive with those weapons by you points to you being "FUCKED IN THE HEAD".

Class III weapons aren't banned. I can go buy one tomorrow. It's sad that some of you guys don't even know what the word BANNED means.

Because people with extensive experience are more knowledgeable than people like you with absolutely NO experience. I have encouraged you to google the topic and learn something. Also, because you're lazy and like to spin things, I posted a link to an article from Military.com that refutes exactly what you are saying. I guess facts don't fit your liberal agenda. 

For the 100th time. Full auto Class III weapons ARE NOT BANNED!!! That is a fact...

So much for COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS. If you Libs were serious and realistic you might get somewhere. But your emotions prevent you from making rational and realistic suggestions. What you're proposing isn't going to happen and you know it. Keep it up and you're going to keep Trump and the Republicans in office for a long long time, LMAO...

WTF non sense are you talking about. Yes it's illegal to drive drunk, just like it's already illegal to shoot and kill people. Creating a law to ban guns to reduce mass shootings would be the equivalent of banning alcohol to reduce automobile fatalities. Oh wait, we already tried that. Didn't think that through too well did you?

If someone is willing to face the death penalty for mass shooting of others. Do you think that a fine or jail term for possessing a banned gun is going to deter them. Your whole train of thought is "BS"


Driving is a privilege. The right to bear arms is a RIGHT. Do you take a test to exercise your first amendment rights?

^^^ There are limits on the first amendment. 

There should be limits on the second.  And yes making murder illegal is not enough to prevent mass shootings.  Nor is making drunk driving illegal enough to prevent mass shootings.  But what has been very effective at reducing drunk driving is expanding the dram shop laws.  Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and replace it with the same liabilities in the dram shop acts.

Please explain why specifically Class III fully-automatic weapons that are manufactured after 1986 are, in your words,  "not sold to the public."

Class III NFA weapons manufactured after 1986 are, in fact, BANNED from sale to the public.  Every fully-automatic weapon that is legal for sale to the public already exists, and no more may be manufactured.  That is a ban.

Yes, we have the firearm equivalent of Dram shop laws. They are called NICS background checks. NICS is used by FFL dealers to determine whether a buyer is eligible to buy firearms. A dealer cannot legally sell a firearm to a person that can't legally buy a firearm. Just like a bar can't sell liquor to someone who appears legally drunk. A gun dealer who illegally sells a firearm to a prohibited person can be held liable.

Next...

Stop talking in circles and trying to spin things. Can a US citizen legally buy and own a Class III fully-automatic weapon? YES or NO? Just answer the question.

Can they buy some limited subset of Class III weapons?  Sure.
Can they buy any Class III weapon? No, because some of them are banned from sale to the public.

Since you're going to repeatedly insist that I "just answer the question," I'd really like for you to answer mine:

If gun control laws don't work, why is it any easier to buy a class III weapon made before 1986 than it is to buy one made after 1986?

Except with booze the liability includes anyone who provides alcohol including private hosts or parties not at a bar.  So let's include the background check to ALL gun transfers.  Also we need to close the gaps in reporting that exist.  

Your limited knowledge is showing again. You have it backwards. US citizens can buy any and all Class III weapons except for a single limited subset. Let's take a look:

1) Machineguns pre 1986
2) Short Barreled Rifles (SBRs),
3) Short Barreled Shotguns (SBSs),
4) Suppressors,
5) Any Other Weapon (AOWs) and
6) Destructive Devices:
Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines and similar devices (e.g. grenade launchers, rocket launchers). Parts intended for making such a device are also DDs. Small rockets, with less than 4 ounces (113 grams) of propellant, are exempt.
Large bore firearms
Any projectile weapon with a bore diameter greater than ​1⁄2 inch (50 caliber, 12.7 mm), except for shotguns "generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes".

Yes Spider, you are free to own missiles and mines.

I can buy and own anything on that Class III list except post 1986 fully automatic firearms, a small subset. You're focused on post '86 Class III full auto weapons like that is the reason that no crimes are committed with Class III weapons. Virtually anything on that list can be legally owned except for a small subset made after 1986. But yet NONE of them have been used in crimes. So please explain to me how Post '86 automatic weapons affects crime rates for anything else on that list.

Sure go ahead. I could care less about that. With 350 million firearms already in the country there would be no way to even enforce something like that among private citizens.

Couldn't* 

Dude we've been through this  >:D

Oh, is "limited subset" the word game of the day?  Let me take a swing.

I propose that of the following classes of weapons, we ban only a single limited subset:

1) semi-automatic firearms (<--- this one)
2) longswords
3) knives and daggers
4) katanas
5) nunchaku
6) throwing stars (shuriken)
7) staves
8) brass knuckles
9) morning stars/maces
10) spears
11) hand axes/hatchets
12) great axes
13) recurve bows
14) compound bows

Will you look at that?  My extremely fair and narrow ban only affects a limited subset of the listed weapons.  Kind of like describing a ban of the last 30 years and the indefinite future of fully-automatic weapons as a "limited subset."

Absolutely ther would be.  You buy a gun with serial number 123, you sell it without doing a background check, said gun is used to kill someone, you go to jail as an assessory to murder.  Also you lose your house and all assets in the wrongful death lawsuit.

You used the words "limited subset" first, only you got it backwards because you don't have knowledge of the topic your discussing. If you ban all new semi autos made tomorrow going forward but everything already manufactured and owned is grandfathered. Then by definition, they are NOT BANNED. You seem to have a problem grasping that fact.

Okay.  That is not perfect but a great start.  In much the same way requiring all new cars to have antilock brakes wasn't perfect because it left millions of cars on the road without the better brakes, but such a law would stop more guns from entering the system. Much like the 1807 law prohibiting the importation of slavery didn't end the injustice of slavery it was a step in the right direction.

I bought a gun from the classified ads with serial#123 from Joe Fuckface 3 years ago for $100. Nobody knows that I own gun with serial#123. I sell gun to Sally Cunthead for $300. Nobody knows that I ever owned the gun with serial#123. And nobody knows that Sally Cunthead owns gun with serial#123. And since nobody knows anything there is nothing to enforce. I would assume that the majority of firearms in the hands of private citizens fit this scenario. Records are only kept from the original sale when it was new.

The biggest issue in gun control ... like a lot of other things ... is enforcement. If we were enforcing policies already in place said gunman would have been stopped by local police and the FBI. We are like that with immigration too. Enforce the rules we already have and it would work. OK ... maybe not work but it would certainly help

OK, hypothetically say you do that. But then when you liberals realize that most of those 350-400 million firearms that are already in circulation can be repaired and refurbished indefinitely by replacing worn parts. Then you're going to want to ban replacement parts. It's a never ending rabbit hole with you people.

1.  If Joe has a record that he legally sold it to you, but you can't prove you complied with the law Sally's victims family now owns all your property in a wrongful death lawsuit.

2.  Sally is actually an undercover ATF agent, you don't run a background check so you know this.  Once you hand her the gun she puts handcuffs on you and you spend the next twenty years in jail for illegal gun transfer.  

There are plenty of laws that could reduce gun violence, the only question is will congress listen to the 97% of Americans who want background checks for all gun sales including gun shows and private sales.  

Not to mention that Mass Shooting are a very "limited subset" of gun deaths. Hell, suicide is two-thirds of ALL gun deaths alone. That's 66% before you factor in other categories. So most gun deaths are people killing themselves. Suicide isn't a good thing, but there's a big difference between killing yourself and killing multiple other people. 

After being involved in a few private sales, I can tell you that 95% of the time Joe can't and doesn't care enough to prove he sold it to you. I think you're a little naive about how this stuff actually works. They can sometimes, maybe, kind of sort of trace the 1st buyer of a new firearm going back a certain amount of time. Anything after that is a needle in the haystack kind of thing.   

Included would be a ban on the sale of parts that are unique to semi automatics less people start selling kits. But yes I do realize this is not a 100% solution.  However having 400 million guns is better than 450 million.  If coupled with serious restrictions on gun transfers we could see a serious drop in new guns getting into the hands of criminals.  

Let's say "responsibility gun owner" has three AR15s and he knows that he will never be able replace them.  Is he going to sell one for a profit at a gun show that is being purchased to be resold to an inner city gang?  Probably not.  But that is happening today.  

And while you as a responsible gun owner might be able to extend the life of you gun through proper maintenance, I am sorta okay with that as long as it stays safely tucked away in your gun safe.  However what will happen is gangs will have much much harder time acquiring replacement to guns lost due to neglect or police confiscation.  

Look I get that it is an impossible dream to believe that even if every senator and rep decided to have a change of heart and enacted everything gun control advocates want to think that Parkland will be the last school shooting.  What I want is less school shootings in 2019 than in 2017 and less than that in 2020 and still fewer in 2021.  Right now we are seeing the shooting increasing.  We need to be as serious about decreasing gun deaths as we're about decreasing kids getting killed getting on and off school busses 25 years ago. Did require cars to stop eliminate kids getting killed? No.  but it sure did improve the situation.

On an AR15, the lower receiver is considered the actual firearm by the ATF. All the other parts are just parts that can be bought over the internet. First you want to ban the gun, then you want to ban parts for the grandfathered guns. I already knew what your reply was going to be, haha. Neither one is gonna happen so it's a moot point.

However, what IS BANNED are "all new semi autos made tomorrow going forward."  And if said ban prevents every single semi-auto made after today from being used in the commission of a crime, that ban is highly effective and is working EXACTLY AS INTENDED.  For example:

Was serial #123 manufactured after January 1, 1987?  If so, go directly to jail, as it was illegal for you to purchase that weapon.

Hey guys, it turns out that crack cocaine is actually 100% "legal" as long as you don't get caught with it!

Again, you're twisting things to frame your silly arguement.  If it's the exact same weapon, it's either banned or not. It doesn't matter when it was made. In this hypothetical example, semi autos are not banned[/quote]
You should stop with your 1986 red herring. It really serves no purpose and makes you look silly. 1986 has nothing to do with anything related to this conversation.
What's your point? 99% of all firearms in the US are legal even if you get caught with them.

You're insisting that "it doesn't matter when it was made" because the fact that the 1986 gun control law effectively removed all new fully-automatic firearms from public availability exactly as it was intended to completely and thoroughly disproves the claim that gun bans don't work.

In 1986, Congress said, "No more new fully-auto firearms shall be allowed into public hands from this day forward."
It was completely successful.
We can do it again for other weapons, too.

Will that make every other firearm magically disappear?  No.  But you can never make any progress without first stopping the flow of new weapons.

Stopped people from killing each other didn't it?

The numbers keep climbing. Liberals are selling a lot of ar15s, ammunition, magazines and NRA memberships with their misplaced hissy fit.........

i think the way firearms culpability should work is that if you sell a firearm without performing a background check and properly registering the sale .. you should be criminally negligent if a crime is committed with that firearm. As many steps back as it takes even if it's been re-sold 14 times and you were #3 and you fucked up the chain of custody then you're the guy that gets jail time along with the guy using the gun during the crime.

I don't think it matters.  Stats show that it's largely the same set of nuts stockpiling more and more guns (3% of Americans own half of the total guns (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-of-adults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?utm_term=.d3aa7889c27d)), and they already have enough weapons to deal plenty of damage to your average movie theater, elementary school, or open-air concert.

We need to radically reduce the number of guns those people have to make a real impact.

I think eventually we'll see an outright ban of the ar-15 and any similar weapon. it's pretty much inevitable at this point. 
And we'll eventually see a constitutional amendment narrowing the 2nd if the NRA obstructionism keeps going.
If you buy politicians and you give the people only one way to solve a constitutional problem, they'll eventually take it.

What will the ban be ... "No "scary looking guns"? Most of what everyone is saying about them is just plain wrong. 

i think you'll see a ban on all long barreled semi automatics

I don't mean for this to sound like an NRA commercial, but there is some validity in it.  Most estimations are that there are over 300 Million guns in the United States.  No draconian legislation will ever pass that makes those existing 300 Million guns go away even if a complete end to ALL gun manufacturing is immediately enacted.  Those existing 300 Million guns represent the potential for many, many years of violent criminal acts waiting to happen.  Also, the school (along with many other mass murder locations) was already a "Gun Free Zone".  Full disclosure, I am a gun owner and I work for a federal law enforcement agency, but by no means am I a "gun nut".   And I am even in favor of tightening some gun laws,  more thorough background checks, age restrictions, etc.  But I am interested in law changes that will actually make a difference rather than "gun free zones", etc. 

Or anything with an external magazine.

Yeah yeah, "We'll just make bigger guns to enclose the magazine."  Fine.  If everyone carrying a gun eventually has to lug around something the size of a bazooka to evade all the regulations, so much the better.

I'm actually in favor of open carry over concealed carry for this reason.  If these wanna-be tough guys like Michael Dunn intend on starting fights while armed, they should be openly armed so their fake courage is on full display from the beginning.

No you won't.  Most hunting rifles are semi automatic and not AR-15s.  Most Shotguns are semi automatic. 

Sorry, but I'm confused by your comment of "no you wont".  I'm not sure what you are referring to.  And yes, most hunting rifles are semi auto and I don't know anyone who hunts with an AR-15 type rifle.  And most shotguns are in fact semi automatic in that they don't have to be reloaded in order to fire again (except for single shot shotguns of course), but I'm confused as to how any of that relates to my post. 

That's my fault, I quoted the wrong post...I meant to quote this one:

No you won't.  Most hunting rifles are semi automatic and not AR-15s.  Most Shotguns are semi automatic.


Just to add Dolphster, people use ARs to hunt hogs.  Since they're a nuisance animal, set up a feeder, wait for hogs to gather, and unload.  Never did this myself, but had a neighbor that did this all the time.

That isn't what I call hunting.

So people who exercise their 2nd amendment constitutional rights are nuts? I guess that explains why most Democrats sound like nuts when exercising their 1st amendment rights.

And just so we're clear for the people who know nothing about firearms. AR15 in their native caliber of 5.56/.223 are a relatively weak when compared to hunting rifles and shotguns. So weak in fact, that some places won't let you hunt large game with them.



I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how an AR15 is different and/or worse than all the other semi auto firearms in existence. Anyone?

Damn  ... no more 22s for squirrel hunting.

Because it is what is being focused on. Who knows what they ago after next? 

People don't realize they look scarier because people can customize them but they are really just a small game hunting rifle. It's really no different than someone customizing their Jeep to look more intense than a regular Jeep.  I will say I have recently learned they are making better ammo for them so they can be used for hunting larger game. Used to be you couldn't use them for large game at all so that was news to me. 

If you have more guns than fingers, you're a nut.

...but if the only function of a Jeep was to kill living beings.

Yes, because 99%+ of the privately owned firearms in the country don't kill people. I guess they failed at their intended function. Or maybe you just made that shit up. When you make up "facts" about a subject you have no knowledge of, you're a nut...

Perhaps I'm wrong.

What is the intended function of a firearm?  As in, what is it designed to do?

Ah, okay.  No worries about quoting the wrong post.  I should have figured that out when I was reading your reply and thinking to myself, "Wait, what?"

I'm sure that some people do use AR type rifles to get rid of nuisance animals.  I just meant that I don't personally know anyone who hunts with an AR-15. 

Shooting. Most people never use their guns for anything more than target practice or shooting clay and they get enjoyment from that. It's a very small percentage of the actual guns that are used for hunting, protection, or even criminal acts.

When I was a teen we used to go over to friends house to shoot. His father had so many guns I can't even begin to guess. We shot guns from before the Civil War all the way up to fully automatic. He used to reload all of his shells as well so he had quite the set up. It was a lot of fun and no one ever got hurt.

You very well know that the primary intention of a gun is to kill. Just because you didn't doesn't mean that's not its primary function.

So you're saying more people are killed or even injured by guns than clay pigeons being shot? I don't even think the two are close.

I would like to see accountability ..  if someone buys a gun and is irresponsible with it and it ends up hurting people, then the purchaser should be responsible

Nowhere did I say that. I simply said that the primary intention of a gun is to shoot another person. Let's not go off on tangents. Can you agree that the primary function is to kill?

I asked what firearms are DESIGNED FOR, not what people choose to use them for.  If you purchase a gun and the only thing you ever do with it is display it on your wall as a treasured collectible, that does not change the fact that it is a weapon purposefully designed to inflict lethal injury.

So when you compare guns to Jeeps or knives or baseball bats, keep in mind that all those other things are not created to kill.  Most knives are not created with the specific intent of injuring people, and those that are... are frequently outlawed, regardless of the 2nd Amendment.

So you're saying that what something was designed to do outweighs what it ACTUALLY does? 99%+ of firearms owned in this country don't kill people. You're silly.

The overwhelming majority of weapons are not used, because we don't live in a post-apocalyptic dystopia.  That doesn't change what they are and what their primary intended purpose is.

By your logic, it doesn't make any sense to outlaw biological weapons, because how often are they actually used?

Yes, because biological or nuclear makes a huge difference doesn't it? You seem to forget that using a weapon of any type can be offensive or defensive. If 99%+ of firearms aren't used to kill people, then firearms aren't a problem. It's common sense.

So, I don't know if this should go here or somewhere else, but Trump wants to take people's guns without due process. How does that sit with ya'll?  ;D

Trump doesn't want the guns, he wants constant media attention, and the wheel of drama stopped at "Guns" yesterday.

does he tho ? .. he's all talk and no action .. he won't do jack or shit

Of all recent presidents he seems to do more of what he says he will than the others .... so its possible.

He does do some of what he says...I'll give him that. The things he's doing are wrong, and he's a racist, narcissistic POS who is making America look like idiots to the world, but hey...he does do some of what he says.

LOL ... I think there are an awful lot of people on that train!!

If you can name one person who is contributing 1/100th of the amount of idiocy that Trump is showing the world, please post their name...I'd love to be able to have a variety of clay pigeons to shoot at.



(...waiting for the inevitable "Hillary Clinton" autoresponse)

You set yourself up here. I can't believe no one has bitten on it yet.

There are so many it would be hard to narrow it down to just one. The first question is do we go with Hollywood, political, millennial Tide eaters or sports? There are no shortage of embarrassments, both conservative, liberal, and so called moderates that live amongst all of them. 

Just the fact that you'd put up a handful of kids doing something stupid like eating soap as comparable to the embarrassment that Trump has brought this country tells me that you either are in total denial of the truth, or are so far down Trump's rabbit hole that being reasonable isn't an option for ya any more.

You did say 1/100th, so it's not like it's 1:1  >:D

Sorry. I forgot the never Trump people who think being psychotic about bashing him makes them somehow seem normal to the outside world. Regardless of if it's Trump, Clinton, Pelosi or George Bush .. if it consumes your every thought then you have lost both the battle and your mind.

Stick to construction...you don't have the chops to make it as a philosopher.

Let's be real, everyone has lost their damn minds.

That was kind of a let down ... hahaha ...  I expected much better from you.

Over a year later and they still going ape shit that Clinton lost. I love it, LMFAO....

Lol, and now Trump is tanking the economy. Starting trade wars with allies. Putting tariffs on imports. This guy is so unfit for this office it's amazing. This is certainly the new normal.

Tanking the economy? He’s keeping jobs in the US. China has committed to build in the US to avoid the tariffs and I would bet others will too. We can’t compete with slave labor of other countries (although people pretend we have slave labor) so he has to do something to help the US. Otherwise American dollars continue to go elsewhere.

I work in the regulated alcohol industry, and can tell you the tariffs on aluminum is going to univerally raise the price of beer...yay to $20 12 packs of Miller Lite!

It's already like that in some cities for soda and sports drinks. Someone will make it cheaper here ... but you can't do anything on what's already here like a tax levied on "sweetened beverages"

(https://i.redditmedia.com/1Kj_9WdPUHSDi1ZvOngforLql9D8WAn16nzvbw6z8-g.jpg?w=612&s=d9fe9bb3759a2914b083e26746a5ccb2)

A 65% sweetened beverage recovery fee. What the fuck are they recovering?

China doesn't export aluminum or steel to the US, this tariff is meaningless to the chinese. The EU is for sure going to retaliate against american exports. There's a reason Bush in 2003 proposed this same thing and then backed out right quick after the EU put up retaliatory tariffs.

Do the math. That is about 75 cents per 16 ounce bottle. I bet you pay more here.

How much you got to bet? Because you are way off.

Costco site isn't listing Gatorade. Sam's site is showing me around 62 cents per 20 ounce bottle.

You are totally misunderstanding. That is in addition. That is an added tax to the price. It’s not the price. If you go outside of Seattle you only pay the top price. In fact ... I’ve seen pics where Costco ... or maybe Sam’s ....have posted signs that say as much.

I routinely get 32oz bottles of gatorade at the grocery store for 79¢.


Costco in Seattle

• 35 units x 16.9oz = 591.5 oz
• $26.33 ÷ 591.5oz = .0445¢ per oz

Sam's site per you

• 62¢÷20oz = .031¢ per oz

My local grocery store

• 79¢÷32oz = .0246¢ per oz
  
  So Seattle is almost double per oz than what I pay locally. Interestingly, if you remove the recovery tax it comes out to .027¢ per oz at Costco.  Which is right in between the price of Sams and my grocery store. So yes, the idiot recovery tax in Seattle significantly affects the price.
  
  I won the bet. Instead of a case of Gatorade, I want beer, LMAO....
  
  Anyhow, back on topic.....
  
  

I would also like to point out that there was no epidemic of crimes committed with fully automatic weapons before the 1986 law was enacted. Therefore, if there were virtually no crimes committed with that small subset of Class III automatic weapons before the law was enacted. How did the law do anything?

You're saying the law worked as intended because virtually no crimes were committed after the law was passed. However, there was nothing for the law to fix since virtually no crimes were committed with those firearms before the law was passed. You can't fix a problem that didn't exist. It was just another feel good law that in all actuality changed nothing.

Whether or not gun control laws will actually make an impact on the amount of violent crime committed with guns is a reasonable discussion.  But that's not the discussion we're having.

The discussion at hand is the claim that gun control laws cannot have an impact on gun crime because criminals don't obey the law and will simply buy illegal guns on The Black Market.  All available evidence indicates that the black market for post-1986 fully-automatic weapons effectively does not exist, which means that said gun control law (which said the public MAY NOT PURCHASE this category of firearms, under ANY circumstances) was extremely effective.  Therefore, we may deduce that a similarly restrictive gun control law - one that's not full of loopholes, and is similar to the gun laws in many other countries that have successfully curbed gun crime - would be equally effective.

There was no crime and/or a black market relating to fully automatic firearms. It did not exist before the 1986 law was imposed. It didn't exist before the law and it didn't exist after the law. Therefore the law had no effect. Please prove the difference the law made, because as far as I can tell, no black market = no black market. Again, pre or post 1986 doesn't matter, there wasn't any crime or black market before or after. If there was no black market, what black market did the law stop? You don't make any sense.

It's kind of strange that you're only focusing on the 1986 law as relates to crimes with fully-automatic weapons.  It is, of course, true that the 1986 law is not the prime mover in that regard; the more significant law was the 1934 National Firearms Act, which greatly restricted (but did not outright prohibit) public purchasing of fully-automatic weapons.  And as you have stated in this thread many times, there are a near-zero number of crimes committed with Class III NFA weapons... yet another example of a highly-effective gun control law.

So there are really two points here:

1) The 1934 law drastically reduced actual crimes committed with fully-automatic firearms
2) The 1986 law completely removed all new fully-automatic firearms from the public marketplace (and the black market) from that point forward

The primary arguments that gun advocates use against gun control laws is that they won't reduce crime and that even if they would, you can't enforce them because criminals don't obey the law and will still get illegal guns anyway.  America's experience with the regulation of fully-automatic firearms disproves both of those arguments.

I didn't misunderstand.. The sign is a simple read. I just expected our local price to be higher.

I kept waiting for you to bring up the earlier law.

How is it not less here? You don't have to pay the $10.34 here or at their other local stores.
(https://coxrare.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/screen-shot-2018-01-09-at-3-01-59-pm.png)

Bush was too scared to play hardball with the EU.  Trump certainly aint

I just thought it would be more than 75 cents a bottle here.

I'm trying to understand your point. So are you saying that the 1934 and 1986 laws stopped the black market and crime relating to fully automatic weapons because it limited their availability?

I'm confused, are we talking about guns or gatorade?

guntorade ! it quenches your thirst while taking care of a bad guy with a gun!

.. and it's got electrolytes.

Admittedly, I am torn on this issue. Generally, I do not think there is a need for things such as bump stocks and semi-automatic rifles which seem to deal so much death. However, there is the matter of the second amendment, and it does seem (at least since post 2008 when the court decided it this way) to give individuals close to a more-or-less absolute right to own at least handguns.

I guess my issues comes down to the following:

1. We need to protect life in America. I am for a consistent life ethic in all stages of life, and this would include increasing the prospect of living without fear of a violent gun death or possible gun attack. Common sense gun control laws seem to be the best way to accomplish the aforementioned goal.
2. However, millions of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. How do we deal with them? I am not so sure. Surely they would feel more or less betrayed if we took their guns, and understandably so - they haven't done anything wrong and they consider ownership a right (and it is, for better or worse, a right).
3. Gun control seems to work in similarly situated countries.
4. But that's no guarantee it would work here - after all, Mexico has moderately strict gun control, (comparatively to us) but, there are plenty of gun deaths there.
5. Likewise, a forced gun buyback would likely result in innumerable clashes between the police/authorities and gun owners, and, as with prohibition of alcoholic beverages, would probably simply create an enormous black market which would move guns to people who really wanted them anyway. I can't imagine that many of these people would be law-abiding otherwise.   

My belief, however, is that the gun situation in America presents a strategic opportunity unlike, IMO, any others. I would argue that conservatives and liberals should be called to the carpet in the following regard:

1. Liberals should be told to stop crying about dying children if they continue to deny the personhood of unborn children.
2. Conservatives should be told to stop whining about abortion if they can't seem to care about children who literally have their lives placed at risk by simply going to school.

Thus and so a bargain could be worked out: a scaling back of the abortion right in trade for a scaling back of the gun right. Both sides have something to lose, both sides have something to gain. However, the gain here would serve everyone's life: less children (presumably) aborted, and less children (presumably) shot dead in school. Not a bad gain for either side. Probably no one would walk away happy, but that, IMO, is how you know it is a good deal.

Wow.... That is so asinine... You're really saying that people should stop getting pissed off that children are dying from guns in school almost every two weeks, just because they're for abortion? That is just so stupid.... I just can't...

More kids die from many other ways so it just seems a little hypocritical that schools are the only place people are whining about. Kind of like only worrying about a few blacks being killed by cops and ignoring the fact a black man is 2000x more likely to be killed by another black man in their own neighborhood.

We are creating mental cases everyday in this country so regardless if every single gun was turned in they'd find a way to create havoc. Statistics show that an NRA member is more likely to be a law abiding citizen than the average citizen but they have become the target?  We protect politicians and celebrities with tight security and guns yet no one wants to protect our children with the same. Just doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that more people are worried about how they can use certain situations for gain than they are really about fixing society. 

The tie in of guns and abortion is the worst idea ever. That is a non starter . I say that as a person who supports the right to both.

To you it doesn't matter. To people who believe that an abortion is killing an actual baby they are comparable. As such ... that's exactly why one side thinks it is a choice and the other thinks it is murder. If people on both sides saw the "fetus" as a baby then I'd think they would be against the "choice" and vice-versa. 

When you try to live your life by a 2,000 year old work of fiction, these sort of misunderstandings can happen...

Gun control and abortion are separate issues.  Just as the death penalty and abortion are separate issues.  Or veganism and abortion are separate issues.  I have a friend who is pro life, vegan, opposes the death penalty, and supports extremely strict gun control.  While I respect the common thread of her positions, they are separate issues as evident by little intersection of people who would agree with her on four.  In particular there is a very small intersection of people who oppose both death penalty and abortion.  One can be any permutation of the issues and still maintain a consistent logic, although I do find being pro-choice and vegan a bit odd, but most vegans I know are pro choice. 

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's unfair to look at it from the other side's point of view. They think you're supporting child murder. Therefore, to them, your ability to persuade has therefore been permanently impaired, and your tears on the gun matter appear (to them) as crocodile tears. You may disagree. You may see them as hateful mongrels clutching their guns and their superstitions. That's your right. But if you wish for progress, I suppose I'm suggesting you have to bring something to the table to offer, and to treat each side as acting in good faith. I think a grand bargain can be made. If you don't, what do you propose to stop it? I haven't seen your side make much progress on the gun issue in 30+ years. Similarly, the right has made only mediocre progress on the abortion issue in 30+ years. I'm suggesting a compromise but, again, if you don't like it, ok. Call it asinine. I'm sure calling it that will stop people from dying, or whatever.


Yes, they are separate issues, but both issues mean something deep and intense to both sides. I'm suggesting a give-for-get proposal.

For example, when I work on a DUI matter wherein the person also has an implied consent matter attached to it and based out of the same facts, I often may lose the implied consent matter if, in exchange, I get a good (exceptionally beneficial) plea (or even at times a dismissal) on the DUI. It's give and take. I've negotiated 100s of these deals. Legally, and technically, the implied consent matter, under my state's law, is a totally separate matter judicially - one does not affect the other, i.e. you may be not guilty of DUI but you may have an adverse judgment nonetheless on the implied consent. When I work with prosecutors, we often do a "package deal". This allows us to move cases effectively, make progress, help people, and - a benefit not to be undersold - not hate each other because we are at constant war.

I thought this was moderately self-evident.

Not sure what you are suggesting?  That you will trade Heller for Roe v. Wade?  Besides being impossible and impractical it just confuses both issues. 

Plus a slight majority are pro choice the overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control.

Over 90% of all Americans including a substantial majority of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gunsales including private sales and gun shows. 

The majority of gun owners supports banning bump stocks.

The majority of gun owners support banning high capacity magazines.

The problem is we have allowed a fringe minority to set gun policy the only equivalent I can think of is if Ingrid Newkirk was allowed to write the country's farm policies.

Hoodie has the key to why combining the two is no place to start. I own guns but recognize the need for practical regulations. I have never met a "pro-lifer" that can look past their own personal practice and consider another view. Otherwise, they are pro - choice by definition

Which is true for the vast majority of gun owners.  Very few gun owners support the extremist positions of the NRA, just like many vegetarians don't agree with PETA's extremists views.  Abortion is an evenly divided issue in this country while the majority are pro choice the prolifers are a very substantial minority.  With the bulk of Americans taking a moderate position with the majority of pro choice opposing abortions in the third trimester and most pro lifers making exceptions for the health of the women and often rape and incest.  Most pro choice advocates want to see abortions decrease by increasing access to contraceptives and making adoption easier.

Debating abortion and finding a middle ground actually makes some  sense.

Gun control is just off the charts nuts.  It as if PETA was setting farm policy or ELF had completely control of industry policy.  I am a lefty, I agree with a lot of what ELF stands for, but I am also a realist and understand if they had the power of the NRA it would be very bad for our economy.  While I sympathize with them on many issues I don't want them in charge.  But the NRA is just as extreme on guns as ELF is on the environment.  And that is why children are dying.

Where do these stats come from? They're not even close to being accurate.

Numbers are so skewed it isn't even funny. For instance ... Senator Bill Nelson sent me, and other Florida voters, a poll asking if we support commonsense gun control? My question is ... who doesn't? The issue is what is commonsense to me is not sensible to my liberal friends and vice versa. There is a huge spectrum included in that answer.

Modified to add that a this same poll just popped back up on my Facebook feed. hahahahaha

You have a partial point.  Yes, everyone wants "sensible" and there is some disagreement on what is "sensible" But there are things with near unanimous support.

Banning bumpstocks and requiring background checks for all gun buyers has universal support with just a fringe few opposing those two changes.

Banning the sale of all new semi automatic rifles has wide support but not the overwhelming universal support of the other two. 

A confiscation of all existing guns including single shot rifles and shotguns is supported by only a fringe few. 

So yes, there is a continuation of perspectives but right now our current gun laws cater to one fringe, that claims that any change would be as bad as the opposite fringe position.

Background checks for all is far from universal. Few people would want to have to go through a broker to sell their firearm. As well ... many people don't want the government tracking what they have.

If what you are saying were true there would already have been a deal in place.   

It may have support from people ignorant of how firearms work. But people with knowledge of firearms know that you can bumpfire very easily with your belt loop, a stick, or even just your finger. Simple physics. Are you going to ban belt loops, sticks, and fingers also?

That's like banning straws for drinking beer. People will just do it a different way and pick up the bottle and drink or pour it in a mug. More useless legislation isn't going to help anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64)

That's never gonna happen.
 

Also never gonna happen.
 

Not when you take into account that 99%+ of privately owned firearms in the US never kill anyone. That stat alone says that there is no serious epidemic. You have a better chance of dying from cancer that a firearm. Go ban cancer!

And 0% of criminals would want to sell through a broker.


Then, instead of collecting weapons that can kill people, I suggest you consider collecting Hummel figurines or something.

Every poll I have seen shows a large majority are in favor of background checks. As for needing a broker, that can be avoided by creating a universally accessible system so any of us can run our own checks with approval from the buyer. As for not wanting the government to know,  I just say grow up to those people. They already know what you drive, where you live, who you talk to and much more if they care to look into it all.

How often do ordinary gun owners sell their guns.  The gun owners i know have never sold even one.

One friend almost sold one, but found out 5 minutes before he was going to deliver it that the buyer had a restraining order for threating his ex-girlfriend.  He doesn't want the gun, but won't sell it, because he does not want it in wrong hands.

He is a gun owner who is a huge proponent of background checks.

Happens all the time...upgrading is the usual reason.  If I have a Glock 9mm and buy a Kimber Custom 9mm, I could sell my Glock.  Some people will just hold both though.

Funny you should ask. I'm selling one right now so I have money for Bike Week. Want to purchase it? It's a EAA Witness 10mm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/EAA_Witness.jpg)

So you are at the gun dealer anyway. Just do a trade in and call ot a day.

And still how often will an average gun owner going to do this?  A couple of time over the course of a lifetime.  That level of inconvenience is worth preventing guns getting into criminal hands.

And you don't care if i am a psychopath or not as long as the check clears?

How you like the Kimber in 9mm? Been looking for a commander length 1911 in 9mm.


Buddy of mine has a CZ75, those are really good shooters.

I won't accept a check ... hahaha.  If the person seems sketchy I obviously wouldn't sell it but there are a ton of people who swap guns all the time. My FIL goes almost every single weekend to a gun show with a group of guys and they will sell and/or swap while there. I don't think you get just how "normal" it is for guns to change hands among the gun owners of this world. At least here in the south it's pretty normal.

Even if you have a "system" for doing it on your own there is still a charge to maintain and operate said system. Nothing is free or hidden.

Haven't shot the Kimber 9mm but Kimber makes some very nice guns. They are one of the few who spend money on looks. I recently purchased a Sig Sauer 9mm that I love so I no longer have a need for the 10mm. It's always been my favorite but no longer needed. I carry a Ruger .357 so they are only used for home defense.

I'm not actually against background checks but I completely understand those that do not. I've had to endure a background check along with having fingerprints taken, training and so on. The truth is I learned more from growing up with guns than a basic course will ever teach.

Again we are back to good old "What about black on black crime?"  This is always the worst counterexample, because "black on black homicides" are murder, and everyone agrees that we should stop murder.  However, you don't believe a few unarmed blacks being killed by cops are also victims of murder, and so you DON'T think we should take significant action to stop it.

The ultimate irony is that Chicago liberals have TRIED to stop "black on black gun crime" by enacting tough gun control laws, but local gun control laws can't work when it's a 10 minute drive to the wild west of Indiana, where a 13-year-old can legally buy an AR-15.  Only a federal gun control law can have the kind of effect needed to drive down gun homicides in places like Chicago.

And while we're on the subject of disagreements of what constitutes murder:

Obviously, you know exactly what it is like when an act that you consider murder is considered a necessary transaction by someone else.  Liberals don't consider zygotes or fetuses incapable of surviving outside the womb to be full humans with a constitutionally protected right-to-life.  Similarly, conservatives don't consider black people accused of crimes by the police to be full humans with a constitutionally protected right-to-life.

So I think that, not gun control, is the better analogy to draw.

Yes.

Good news, everyone!  Since it turns out that over 99.99% of radical Muslims will never destroy a single building in America (much less a pair of skyscrapers), the War On Terror has been cancelled and all troops are coming home, effective immediately!

Maybe you're not aware, but if people wanted fully auto firearms. With a small amount of effort, they could illegally convert semi auto firearms to fully auto rather easily. There is no black market or demand for fully auto firearms simply because no one wants or needs them. If they did, you would see people converting them. And more importantly you would see it in the stats.
Don't change the subject, we're not talking about Muslims. OVER 99% of privately owned firearms in the US never kill anyone. That stat alone says that there is no serious epidemic, only a left wing agenda.

Then you should get off your keyboard and go out and meet some, rather than living with this prejudicial and dim-witted caricature.

As a conservative who successfully defended, in the past month, two black women criminally charged with DUI and other criminal/traffic violations: you are totally ignorant of the reality of our court system - at least as it exists in my state - and I would invite/challenge you to come with me for a month to see how things actually work.

I had a buddy that had one.  It was nice, but way too expensive for my taste.

Funny, I have that same exact CZ-75 stainless.  My first purchase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpeUznIhgLU

Your example proves gun laws do not work. On Monday of this week a kid brought a homemade bomb (that he learned how to make from an Isis video) to school but got caught before he could detonate it. They were very lucky. This had nothing to do with guns and had it gone off ... would have been one of the worst school disasters.

It's only a matter of time before it happens again because society is evil and not the items being used. It pisses me off that media has been silent on this. I saw this on multiple conservative sites but had a problem finding anything on a liberal news source.

This gentlemen ... is our new normal!!

http://6abc.com/student-allegedly-brought-bomb-to-school-in-backpack-tried-to-detonate-it/3185564/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teen-charged-bringing-homemade-bomb-utah-school-53561605

I fully expect there to be a fee and I fully expect it to be considered as part of the price of buying a gun. I have gotten all of mine from private owners but I know not everyone can be trusted as much as me.

Given the number of people killed by firearms in the US compared to the total number of firearms in the US. Yes, statistically almost everyone can be trusted.

So it seems that your argument here is that gun control laws don't work, but everyone Just Happened To Stop Wanting these weapons at the exact same moment the laws were passed.  There was plenty of demand for fully-automatic weapons prior to 1934, but according to you the NFA didn't actually do anything and everyone just decided they no longer want them for reasons that had nothing to do with changing legislation.  From this viewpoint, it would be impossible to show that ANY gun control law IS CAPABLE of working, because either:

1) crimes with these weapons are (successfully!) reduced and you claim it's not because of the law, but because people just don't feel like getting/making these newly restricted weapons

OR

2) crimes with these weapons are NOT reduced, at which point you declare the law a failure because criminals obviously won't obey laws

All bases covered!

YOU just changed the subject to "If the majority of [x] is not the source of a crime, [x] must therefore be OK."

But you wouldn't extend this ridiculous goldfish logic to anything besides guns (or maybe cops killing unarmed black people).  Are we going to talk about black-on-black murders in Chicago?  In 2017, there were 650 murders in Chicago.  2010 census says there are approximately 862,000 black people in Chicago.  Therefore, if EVERY Chicagoan murdered last year was black, and EVERY perpetrator was another black Chicagoan, that means over 99.9% of blacks in Chicago are not committing black-on-black murders! So by your logic, what's the problem?

I'm pretty sure that you just made that up. There was no mass epidemic of fully automatic firearms killing people before or after. But I'd love to see your stats showing thousands upon thousands of people running around killing other people with fully auto firearms before either of those laws were passed. Do you come up with all this non sense by yourself or is there some private MOD thread somewhere where all you lefty guys sit around and make shit up?

No problem with me whatsoever. I don't live in Chicago so I don't care either way. People killing each other with guns is the same in Chicago or a school in Florida. It just points to your hypocrisy and now you're trying to deflect.

That is rather funny. You still think that you can convince me of some gray area. Pro-lifers have no other stance than abolishing abortion except for the rare instances of health to the mother and sometimes rape. Some don't even make those exceptions. Anything else means you are pro-choice. There is no middle ground and no bargaining. You are undeniably smart but naive if you think there is any bargaining on the definition of those positions.

I disagree. Most people on both sides would rather abortions not happen. That's common ground and a great place to start. Next the conversation goes in a direction that would work towards that goal and so on.

There is almost always a common ground to which disagreeing parties can agree if they actually talk to each other instead of AT each other.

Okay let's run with that...if you want to minimize abortion then decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.  Most effective way to do that is make contraceptives more accessible. 

If Hobby Lobby wants to reduce the number of abortions ......

They are a private company and I wouldn't expect them to be forced into doing anything outside of pay taxes and their employees. Education, contraceptives, adoption and other ways people could compromise.

It's rather funny watching conservatives make wild swings between Obama's Chicago was a crime-ridden cesspool full of black-on-black murders than liberals won't talk about followed immediately by rampant gang violence committed with fully-automatic weapons during Prohibition was all Fake News.  I guess guys like Al Capone and John Dillinger were famous for their music careers, or something.


Ahem:


Some consistency, please.

And this is before we get into your repeated declarations about how black people "commit more crime as a group" (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=23513.msg322885;topicseen#msg322885).  Since well over 99.99% of black people haven't committed any crime at all, why have you repeatedly referenced black crime rates?

This "99%" line of argument is absurd and you should drop it.

100% agree.. medicare for all that way companies don't need to be involved with healthcare

So how many fully automatic weapons killed people during this rampant crime spree you speak of? 100? 500? 1000? 10,000? Automatic weapons were not a statistically relevant issue then or ever since.

Nothing in my quote you posted indicates anything other than liberal hypocrisy. Dead people in Chicago are the same as dead people in Florida. You lefty guys seem to prefer to sensationalize one over the other. Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Here we go spinning the subject again. First you deflect to Muslims and Terrorists. Now it's deflect to black crime rates. The only reason you think that relevant statistical numbers to this topic are absurd and should be dropped is because they prove that there is no epidemic of firearm deaths. And in all actuality, the nation’s overall gun death rate has declined significantly since the late 80s/early 90s. The numbers don't lie. You call them absurd because they blow your whole premise out of the water.

By the standard you are using to judge gun crime, 9/11 was not "statistically relevant."

I would be much more content with your approach to policy by statistics if you applied it consistently, but you don't.  3,000 deaths in NYC means we spend trillions of dollars playing world police, killing hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place.  Firearms cause many more intentional (<--- this part is important) deaths than that every year and your only answer is less gun regulation.

Stop deflecting, none of that has anything to do with this topic. You just bypass the facts and stats and switch topics. Also, intentional deaths aren't really relevant since you fail to note that more than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns, die by suicide, not homicide. Then add in self defense, and legal interventions and your argument falls flat.

That leaves us with intentional homicides. And if you didn't know, intentional means that someone intends to do it. If someone intends to kill someone you're not going to stop them. It's been happening for thousands of years and will continue no matter how much you bitch, moan, and cry about it. A dead body is a dead body, whether it's in Chicago or Florida. Less than 1% privately owned firearms in the US ever intentionally or unintentionally kill people. However, according to the FBI more people are killed with hammers & clubs each year than all assault rifles. And I'm pretty sure that those are intentional and not suicides. Go ban hammers and clubs because the nation’s overall gun death rate has declined significantly since the late 80s/early 90s. We don't have a gun problem we have a hammer and club problem.

You're the one advocating the premise that our level of concern about a topic should be tied to its statistical impact.  If that reasoning was sound, it would apply outside of the one instance you're using it for.  It does not.

Suicides are intentional.  Reducing the availability of guns would also reduce suicide by gun.  I'm not sure why you believe that is somehow irrelevant.

Given your endless rants about exactly what constitutes an illegal gun, I'm surprised that you seem to be unaware that shooting & killing someone in self-defense is both intentional and a homicide.  Intentional homicide is not necessarily illegal.

And in case you are curious as to whether my intention is to disarm Law-Abiding Patriots who are Merely Standing Their Ground, that is absolutely the case.  Ultimately, I would like to disarm both the George Zimmermans of America (who are confident in using their sidearm to resolve conflicts knowing the legal system will back them up, and are proven right) and the Michael Dunns of America (who are equally confident, and are proven wrong).

It does apply outside of this instance. Which also would be outside the scope of this thread. This thread is not about Muslims, terrorists, or black crime rates. It's about mass murder of innocent school children per OP. Once and for all, stay on topic.

Rants? LMFAO. Anyhow, I was under the assumption that you understood that we were talking about illegal unjustified homicides, e.g. the topic of this thread-"mass murder of innocent school children." Given that fact, suicides, self defense, and legal interventions don't really have anything to do with mass murder of innocent school children. They are in separate categories altogether.

That's all fine and good but you're still missing the topic again. If you would like to discuss the merits of firearms and self defense, please start a thread. If you would like to discuss Muslims and terrorists, please start a thread. But please stop all the mumbo jumbo circular babbling trying to side step relevant statistics and facts.

2018: 11 weeks; 17 school shootings. 

Let it be known this is not 17 mass school shootings.  One doesn't involve students, it just happened in a University parking lot.  Some are crimes of passion involving two people.  One is a dumb teacher who's gun misfired.  Some accidental.  A few where there were no fatalities.  3 out of the 17 are what people think of as "school shootings".  If that's part of the argument, state so, otherwise it is misleading and fear mongering.

That's what the lefties do. They twist the truth and facts to fit their agenda through fear mongering and misleading ignorant people.

Same thing with the terms "assault weapon" and AR15. In the real world, it's just another semi automatic weapon, just like any other one. But to fit their agenda, it's a "weapon of war". If that's the case then so is Grandpa's hunting rifle and little Kevin's 10/22.

I guess little Kevin gots him a "WAR" on dem dere squirrels... 

That's what the righties do. They twist the truth and facts to fit their agenda through fear mongering and misleading ignorant people.

Well, that was too damned easy...

I didn't say mass, 17 shooting on school property.  But okay let's use your number and describor.  

3 months; 3 mass shootings.

Exactly...that is really bad.  So why is it that stats need to be padded?  It's fear mongering and agendas.  This isn't a left vs right thing this is a media manipulation thing.

I don't know that 17 school shootings is a misleading number. there were guns on school property .. they went off. the fact that nobody got hurt in some cases is an happy stroke of luck.  the fact that this has happened 17 times already is enough and significant. I don't want to rely on my son's well being to a happy stroke of luck if someone brings a gun to his elementary school.

One was an instructor accidentally firing a gun in a safety class and another was at an apartment complex that was a part of the university so I wouldn't call them school shootings.

With that said there is no doubt there have been too many mass shootings. Even if it's one a year that is too many. We need to secure our children.

Funny that no one was blaming the "bombs" in Austin and yet they figured out how to stop the person responsible. Maybe we can take the focus off of "guns"  long enough to figure out to stop school shootings.

There are differences in elementary schools and adults on a college campus though. You are still trying for the shock factor by leaving those designations out.

That said, children at school need to be protected more but that is done through security measures enacted by the district and not legislation  (and I do support common sense regulations ).

I dont think the debating if the number is 3 or 17 is important.   Three is too many.

Sure is.  My point being why sensationalize it to 17 when 3 is already too many.  Because of agendas and special interests.

I agree but as I mentioned, the best way to keep children on the school grounds safe starts with individual security efforts in each district. Gun legislation doesn't affect the ease of access in many schools. I was an education major and have been to many a campus as a visitor. You have no idea how easy it is to walk on to way too many of them.

Even funnier is that you don't see any of the Second Amendment crew jumping on the telly to scream that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to make bombs, or that bombs don't kill people, people kill people, or that if IEDs are outlawed (http://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammonium-nitrate-sales-regulated-2011-8), only outlaws will have IEDs.

But while we're on the subject of Austin: the amount of excuse-making and sympathetic stories (https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/976532172344561665) from the media on this has been sickening.  If you're a white terrorist in America, we get long-form profiles on how you are a good kid (https://nypost.com/2017/09/17/clean-cut-american-kid-suspected-of-race-murders/) with a troubled life that led you astray (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/relatives-charleston-church-shooter-dylann-roof-describe-quiet-sweet-kid-n379071).  The contrast to how non-white terrorists are treated is stark.

Yet to hear him be referred to as a Christian terrorist.  Yet that is what he is.  Compare the coverage of him to the Boston Marathon

NRA logic: we should provide every fedex employee with a hand grenade because the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb. 

I'm pretty sure you're more likely to die from a Christian terrorist than a Muslim one.

How is he a Christian terrorist? He was raised in a Christian home but I haven't seen anything to say he was killing anyone in the name of Jesus. I realize that is hard for a prejudiced person to understand but that's kind of how it works. If it turns out he was it doesn't make him any less culpable or Christians, in general, any more guilty.  The kid is obviously mentally disturbed and a piece of crap ... as far as good people go. The saddest part it seems he realized he was psycho in his video confession.

Buried in the news coverage is occasional mention of his memberships in a Christian survival organization and his homophobic blog.  If he was Muslim it would be in the headline. 

hahaha ... the anti-Christian slant is strong in this one. If it was a Muslim it would be buried even deeper. Last month a student who was already outed for sympathy for Isis ... was arrested in school with a bomb before he could detonate it. Definitely an Isis supporter but it was, and still is, very hard to find in the news. In fact other than Fox ... has anyone admitted the Pulse shooter was a Muslim extremist to this date?

I have as much, or little, respect for a "Christian" extremist as I do a Muslim extremist. I just wish everyone else was like that.

I knew he was, and I avoid Fox like it's the bubonic plague...so one or more of my other news sources obviously let me know this.

I see Trump do that a lot as well...say something like "None of the mainstream media is covering this"...about 10 minutes after I finish reading about it pretty much everywhere. Always makes me scratch my head a little.


I am the same way, though my qualifications for "extremist" include Christians trying to legislate non-Christians based on their interpretations of an antique book...one that folks outside your religion consider as fiction.

Stop trying to pass laws based on the Bible, or worse, what "God tells you" (Hint: That's your voice you're hearing, not God's), and I'll have no problems with Christians at all.

I posted it here ... on the same day I purposely looked for it on CNN, NBC and ABC. I guess they eventually felt obligated as it ended up getting noted two days later in a sub-story but never actually made headlines nor called him an Islamic extremest or Isis sympathizer.

The MSM slants left and it is getting worse all the time. Like yourself ... they cannot help themselves. They have to bash Christians no matter how far they have to reach and defend Muslims even though they are against everything they supposedly respect (killing gays, women's rights etc.) only because they aren't Christians. It is insane.

It's kind of like if they started attacking the NRA instead of holding the liberal Sheriff and the FBI accountable for not doing their jobs in the latest successful mass shooting. Oh wait ... that is exactly what is going on. Same goes for not recognizing the SRO who actually did his job in Maryland since it doesn't support the narrative.  They pretend that didn't happen.

I literally know nobody who thinks this way. Are you sure this isn't just something laid out as a talking point on Fox?


Would attacking the inept sheriff keep assault weapons off the street? If not, then the sheriff gets the local punishment, and the NRA gets the national campaign.

Doesn't that seem like an equitable distribution of penalties for that situation?  Or are you a "You can have my assault weapons when you pry them out of my cold dead hands" type?

If the inept sheriffs people did their jobs then it wouldn't have mattered about him having a rifle. Not sure why you think he had a fully-automatic weapon but it wasn't. It was a semi-auto with a limited clip.

I don't understand how anyone with a triple digit IQ actually believes by me giving up my guns they are safer from guns.  Where is the statistics that show how many criminals have turned in their guns since the protests began? That might change my mind.   

if you give up your guns, then you can't shoot me with your guns, also your guns can't be stolen and used against me .. therefore i am safer than i was before. It's logic 101.

Don't conflate the issue of criminality with the issue of gun ownership. Unless your point is "look the criminals don't have to obey laws, why do I?" in which case .. ok you just want to be a criminal.

I challenge you to go back through my posts in this thread and point out where I said he had an automatic weapon.

Fewer guns owned outside the military, fewer gun deaths outside of the military. If you can't do basic math, please at least have the decency not to run around screaming that 2+2=7. You'll confuse those without evolved problem-solving skills.

You being ex military know very well an assault rifle is fully automatic so I didn't think I needed to remind you.

As far as someone stealing my weapons ... is there a made up statistic that says mas shootings have been done with stolen weapons? I didn't even know that was a thing. Other than one kid I can remember it sounds like most were purchased.

Criminals will not give up their guns.  They will continue to find a way to get them.  Tougher gun laws will only make it impossible for law abiding citizens like you and me to defend themselves

The AR15 Rifle is a System and a Platform that allows the shooter to build it, configure it and accessorize it any way he or she wants for their needs and pleasure.  People are wanting AR-15 rifles deemed illegal because they look scary. What about these pistols? They look pretty scary too! 2 of these are common 9mm pistols and one is a .223 ... which is the same as the rifle.

(http://www.primaryarms.com/SSP%20Applications/NetSuite%20Inc.%20-%20SCA%20Mont%20Blanc/Development/img/MPXP9KM_00.jpg?resizeid=3&resizeh=0&resizew=320)
(http://www.primaryarms.com/SSP%20Applications/NetSuite%20Inc.%20-%20SCA%20Mont%20Blanc/Development/img/76935_00.jpg?resizeid=3&resizeh=0&resizew=320)

(https://ii.cheaperthandirt.com/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?FIF=/images/cheaperthandirt/source/2-bandt-36056_1.tif&qlt=75&wid=275&cvt=jpeg)

The math is already done. Much less than 1% of all firearms owned in this country are involved in fatal shootings. Statistically it's a non issue. 

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the actual functional difference between a so called "assault weapon"(made up political term) and any other semi auto firearm on the market.

Above, I cited examples of puff pieces where neighbors say he is a "quiet, nerdy young man" from a "tight-knit, godly family."  You don't see any of that kind of nuance when the terrorist is a Muslim.  If a terrorist's religion is mentioned and it's Islam, no one writes long profile pieces on how he was a quiet, godly young man.  It's either "Muslim" as a standalone, or "radical Islamic extremist" (depending on the source).  But his religion is DEFINITELY a factor.


CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html), Time (http://time.com/4411523/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen-muslim/), Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/orlando-mass-shooters-wife-noor-salman-denounced-isis-attacks-facebook-and-was-707559), and the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/01/18/under-islam-the-orlando-shooters-wife-is-also-guilty/?utm_term=.3bdbff9580a3) all mentioned the Pulse shooter's religion.

Again, funny how literally every criminal has decided that they Just Don't Want any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after 1986.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with those weapons being illegal for the public to own, though!

Time for more tots and pears.

We started protecting celebrities when they showed to be vulnerable to crazy people. Why aren’t kids protected the same way??  Gun free zones are just asking for a crazy person to do some damage and make a name for themselves. Sure it’s nice to try and paint the NRA as bad but I’m betting this kid, like the others before him, are not members.

Are proposing each child have their own body guard?  Celebrities can afford that.  Schools that can't pay teachers a decent wage can't afford to hire a body guard for each pupil.  Every other democracy on the planet has a better solution to prevent this than the USA.  Every. Single. One.

Stupid answers like that are why nothing gets resolved. You purposely went outrageous so you can make a point. Other wise ... you apparently have none.

If Beyonce or Jay Z was in that school today there would have been plenty of security that was not being paid for by them.  Of course they have their own but whenever they have a public event, where people will know they will be there, then security is provided. Both private and public in many cases.

There is a huge debate that needs to happen but the size of the magazine and taking guns from people who aren't committing crimes are useless and have no effect on the issue at hand. The common denominator is some crazy (not NRA member) with a gin attacks people in a gun free zone. How can we make that situation safer?

Close the loopholes that let these people have guns!  It is that simple.  It works in every other democracy.  The cost of having Beyoncé or Jay Z level security at every school every day would be astronomical.  And in case you forgot Parkland had an armed security guard. 

if only we could commission studies in order to explore causes and solutions to this kind of gun violence.
unfortunately due to NRA lobbying, the government and the CDC are prohibited from funding these studies.
i guess we can just keep wondering how we can fix it without data and facts .. *shrug*

This kid had a shotgun and a pistol from his father so the majority of the liberal propaganda just got tossed out the window. No made up term "assault rifle" was used. No high capacity magazine and no gun show loophole.  Outside of taking all guns away ... which isn't even possible ... these things are going to happen.  Obviously hold the father accountable as well.

It really sucks to admit this but our society is screwed up. We can argue all day why that is but everyone knows that is true. With that said ... in a society so screwed up where it is bad to assume a girl is a girl or a boy is a boy then people are going to hurt other people for a variety of reasons.  The only thing we can do is to protect ourselves. Gun free zones are the most vulnerable so they will continue to be hit.  Once we protect our elementary, middle and high schools our universities will be the next targets and so on.  People want fame and to hurt as many others as they can.

Honestly ... I don't even know how to address this as it seems pretty silly.  The CDC recently admitted they skewed or purposely left out the results of gun statistics so that it didn't show how many times a bad person was stopped with a good person with a gun.

Bullshit.  They haven't been able to do any meaningful research in two decades.

Maybe you forgot about Obama ordering them to do one in 2013? https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

You know ... the one where they purposely left out the statistics that showed
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#4c14fe68299a

Florida State University professor Gary Kleck, “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?“


Kleck looked at some previously unpublished results from the CDC surveys conducted in the 1990s and concluded:

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

These are the exact reasons why they were stopped. they were being funded by gun control lobbyist companies and were based on opinion and not fact. It was and is too easy to leave out opposite opinions (as they did) and facts when they don't support you.

This is just another situation where satire is so accurate, it becomes tragedy and then farce.

From The Onion: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens (https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527)

This is why Trump was lecturing Brits on how much knife crime they have... because they don't have mass shootings any more after severely restricting guns.  Anyone want to pull the statistics on how many people died in the last mass stabbing?  Or perhaps talk about the last time a guy stabbed hundreds of people below from the 30th floor of a nearby skyscraper?

When all else fails, redirect to the usual sources of blame.

Mass shootings have nothing to do with anyone's naughty bits, and it's ridiculous of you to try to bring that up.

Enough of this good guy with a gun BS. It's the equivalent of solving a coyote problem by introducing cobras into the ecosystem to hunt the coyote.

Things certainly have changed in 50 years.  In 1968 kids stayed in school to avoid the military.  In 2018 more people have died n school shooting than in the military.  Drop out of school and join the Army, its safer.

They kill with trucks and bombs too. The area of concern is (or should be) stopping the killing and not making them use a different instrument to do it.  Statistics show having a good person take them out as soon as possible is the best way to avoid more killings from a crazy person.

This country was founded with guns and as such, a provision was put in that made sure that would never change. This means if you don't like being around guns then move to a country where guns are not a right.

Trucks are not devices designed specifically for the intent of inflicting injury.
You could make a strong claim that bombs are, which is why it makes sense that generally speaking, it is illegal for private citizens to make or possess bombs.
If the Las Vegas shooter was forced to use a knife instead of a gun, well over 99% of the casualties would have been stopped specifically because he was forced to use a different instrument.  I'd call that working as intended.

Now, if you want to make the argument that the existence of the 2nd Amendment means that we have no choice but to accept hundreds of schoolchildren being shot to death as the cost of doing business, fine.  As we have discussed before, I think it's perfectly reasonable to read the 2nd Amendment as applying only to "a well-regulated militia," and I think the first ~200 years of its judicial interpretation is consistent with such a position.  It wasn't until relatively recently that activist Republican judges started insisting that it applies to everyone.

As a gun owner who generally sides with liberals on a lot of things, I find this worse for us gun owners. I'm not a guy who needs the thrill of an ar or ak though I have had fun shooting them. I would rather the focus of ire be on guns I don't plan on buying but turning the focus on things I do is not good.

Spider, you always leave this section out when you quote the amendment,  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I would rather the focus be on the people causing the issue. It appears that not one of the ridiculous (from my point of view) laws that has been proposed would have stopped this circumstance. It wasn't an assault rifle even under the liberal definition. It was an underage kid who wasn't supposed to legally have a gun. The person he stole it from obtained them legally (and should be held accountable).  Sadly ... this just reaffirms law abiding gun owners issues with adding new laws. 

It's crazy to me ... and I'm being serious when I say that ... that we do not blame cars for DUI deaths but we do guns when the rate of deaths is much higher.

In all honesty I think that the fall of the American family and the values that come with that is to blame but I know that isn't politically correct to say. It appears this kid was spurned by a girl several times and he couldn't take it. In a world where everyone gets a trophy he couldn't get the girl so he made others suffer.  I think the only way to fix the lack of parenting that causes these things is to secure our schools. It's too easy for crazy people to make a name for themselves.

BTW ... I saw a young white guy going to high school this morning and he was wearing a military style jacket and had that kind of loner look. I instantly thought should i follow this guy? Obviously if he was black or Arab I would know how it would be interpreted but since he was white am I still guilty of racial profiling? 

Regardless of where any of us stand on gun legislation, it is pretty evident that Congress will never pass any "meaningful" gun restrictions.  They will pass the occasional minimally impactful law, but the gun industry and groups have way too much money and way too much support from the large "pro gun" voting base to ever pass anything that will have any real teeth to it. After all, the one thing that politicians care about more than anything else is getting re-elected.   I read where one of the Parkland kids was quoted after last week's Texas school shooting, "Now Congress will do their traditional two weeks of pretend outrage."  Paraphrasing there, but you get the idea. 

We have a dumb idea that owning an unlimited amount of guns is a birth-right in this country.  That's just dumb.

Every citizen is not, by default of their being born here, capable or responsible or sane enough to be given that right.  So long as we have this mindset, we will continue to have this problem.

I don't mind an armed public, but the onus should be on the individual to earn that right, like with many other things.  Even then, there would still be incidents, but way fewer.

I think there are enough "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bumper stickers on the roads to be reasonably certain that everyone is familiar with that part of the text.

Nevertheless, I will happily affirm that the right of people in a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."  The problem is that the people who are fond of citing the "infringed" part always seem to believe the "well-regulated militia" part either doesn't exist, or is completely meaningless.

I really am not sure what you are referring to. What rights are earned?

1 Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2 Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3 No quartering of soldiers.
4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9 Other rights of the people not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
10 Powers reserved to the states.

Freedom of speech is a right and should never have to be earned. Something like a drivers license is a privilege so it has to be earned and paid for.

But even those rights are not absolute.

Your right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does it include incitement to violence or making threats to the President.  The rights of due process and a speedy trial do not apply to "enemy combatants," even if they are American citizens (not that the Constitution makes a distinction for citizens).

Nor does your right to bear arms include shooting people without a legitimate reason.

Or they have a different view of who should regulate it. Not that I buy into their thinking,  but you are only considering government regulations. Modern militia men believe they are a viable alternative and have the freedom of self regulations. Many of those you oppose feel they read it the same way you are asking them to.

You're right: I do not recognize the concept of "self regulated" as a legitimate interpretation of "well-regulated" in the context of government legislation, which is what the 2nd Amendment is.  The very concept basically makes the term "well-regulated" meaningless; literally every action that any individual voluntarily takes is already "self regulated."  I cannot think of any scenario in which "self regulated" activity does not precisely resemble unregulated activity.

Which brings me back to the point I just made: everyone who is fond of citing "shall NOT be infringed" always seems to interpret "well-regulated militia" in a way that renders it meaningless (or they just ignore it altogether).

Seems to me you're arguing with yourself at this point since you seem to be ignoring that the courts have already settled this issue.


Furthermore, even more importantly the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So what was your argument again?

Dave said the "rights" of  the second amendment should be earned. That's a completely different narrative. There are plenty of regulations of where and how I can use my 2nd amendment rights but they do not keep me from having my 2nd amendment rights.

Seems pretty obvious but please let me allow liberal comedians/magicians Penn & Teller explain the second amendment to you.  Warning ... NSFW

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution

https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ



The biggest question from a pro second amendment side seems to be .... when the hijacking of planes caused disaster in the US we took immediate action to protect flights. Since then no US plane has been hijacked and used for destruction. Why then ... after numerous school shootings do Democrats refuse to use that same protection for our schools? I'll say this just as we were taught about public safety in my business ... the answer better not be money because 1 life is worth more. 

 

I agree with CF, the 2nd amendment is fairly explicit.

there is an individual right to own arms and there's no need to earn that right.

There are limits however, and those limits aren't enumerated in the 2nd amendment. People don't have the right to own a  tank. Even tho if you look at the meaning behind the amendment. I would say that firing a rifle from horseback (the 18th century equivalent) is probably covered in the amendment. Also whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to cannons is a decent question.

I think in the end, it doesn't supersede common sense. If the government were to pass legislation that says only front loading single shot weapons are allowed for public ownership, i'm having a hard time seeing where that could be overturned from a constitutional perspective.

Are you seriously going to say it is only Democrats? My experience is that local government responsible for schools are heavily Republican leaning. I know it is different everywhere but in the counties I have lived it has been more conservative.

Here in the land of God,Guns,and Country (in that order) Where you have more freedoms owning your gun that you do your car,house,or dog  ???...The good news is today is the last day of school here in town! so the next school incident involving guns,will probably have to wait till the fall....The last couple of weeks a high school kid bring a loaded gun to school,and lock down because of Gunfire all around an elementary school... :-X

I don't disagree with that but this needs to come from the top down. Most local governments have no way to generate the money needed. It needs to come from the guys who print their own.

The problems with the spineless Republicans in office is that there is still a decent percent who will side with the Democrats because of all the fear mongering going on. Without Democratic support the Republicans have no chance... and none of them want Trump to be involved with anything positive.   

A few years ago ... I was having lunch with my wife and in-laws and our kids went into lock down at their school. There were reports of an active shooter. One of my kids was locked in a closet with bunch of her classmates and the other barricaded in the corner of their classroom. There is no way to explain how terrifying their texts to us were or how scared everyone was. It was a horrible couple of hours that you can't really understand until you go through it. I can't imagine how bad it is at a school that has an actual shooting. Fortunately in this case the kid who made the prank call was caught and dealt with.

I think you and I have a very different idea of what "settled" means, since the National Firearms Act was not ruled unconstitutional in the same decision you are citing.  But let's not get sidetracked.

I don't dispute what the current state of law is.  But that's not what we are discussing, is it?  We don't need a 20-page-long thread to debate the existing state of affairs.  The question at hand is whether changes can be made to the status quo.  New gun laws can be passed, and they don't require a constitutional amendment to do so; all that they require is a SCOTUS that is willing to return to the same interpretation in place for the first ~200 years of the 2nd Amendment's existence.

So, what is my argument?  My argument is that, with sufficient political will, gun ownership can be drastically curtailed in this country (and I do mean drastically, as in obtaining a fully-automatic firearm made after 1986 drastically), and it can happen with as little as one retirement on the Supreme Court.

Penn & Teller are libertarians, not liberals.  Those are not remotely the same thing.  Just ask them how they feel about taxes.

And as I predicted would be the case: "well-regulated militia" is always interpreted in a way that renders it meaningless.  According to P&T, it's just flavor text that has no impact whatsoever on judicial interpretation of the law.

That's kinda what I'm saying.  It shouldn't be a right given to everyone.  It should be something limited, vigorously tested for, applied for, etc.  Some people are born crazy and unstable, even if they have yet to act out as a criminal.  Those people shouldn't have a right to own a weapon just because they were born on this dirt.

These are not laws of nature; they are laws of men.  They should be changed.  A fundamental right for all citizens to own an unlimited amount of firearms is dumb, IMO.

The original intent of the second amendment was NOT to give individuals the right to arm themselves.  The intent was to insure the individual states were allowed to regulate their own individual state militias. 

Keep in mind under the articles of confederation, while the federal government had the power on paper to raise a national army it was at the mercy of the states for its military power.  (Kinda like the UN today, there are no organic UN forces all of them are troops borrowed from some country)

The Constitution put the Federal government in charge of the military. The second amendment was put in place to give the states the right to keep their well regulated militas.  In essence the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to prohibit the Federal Government from disarming the Florida National Guard and Florida State Police. 

I find it humorous to argue the original intent from either side. None of us were there. None of us know original intent, we just have modern day, personal interpretation of what we think the intent was.

And we also have the Supreme Court interpretation, which is the only one that matters.

Again, the Supreme Court appears to be completely OK with the existence of the National Firearms Act, which is definitely an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

We're not talking about the National Firearms Act, stop changing the subject. We were talking about your silly interpretation of "well-regulated militia". That issue seems to have been settled with several court rulings, ending with the Supreme Court. I could be wrong, but I doubt that they'll visit that issue again any time soon. Haha, and you bring up an 85 year old law that no one is even talking about and has nothing to do with anything. You drunk or something?

There was a bombing at a restaurant in Toronto yesterday where the two perps got away. At about the same time there was an active shooter at a restaurant in Oklahoma where the shooter was killed by a good guy with a gun.   

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd shots fired at an Indiana middle school today. I'm sure within a week from today we can add another school.

I can show you a couple of stories about humans biting dogs, but it certainly isn't the norm...

If we can just get democrats to quit shooting people then everything would be fine. Maybe that's the ticket. We officially declare liberalism a mental disorder and keep guns out of the hands of democrats. Then the law abiding NRA members would not have to protect themselves so it's a win-win.  ;)

Just laugh ... you that's funny!!

Regardless of anything else in this world that we do .... unless you limit access points and tighten security with detectors then this kind of thing is going to keep happening to our schools. Every low life who thinks his life is worthless and over is going to keep copy catting to become the latest legend. They will use guns, knives, bombs or whatever comes up next.  It took moments to secure our airports and yet years later only a minimal amount of schools are protected.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Glg15V1q51Y&feature=youtu.be


pretty powerful

Pretty silly.

That's so stupid. I guess we need ... sorry your baby got raped cards as well. Seriously ... the amount of reaching by some people to only appeal to their extreme base is mind boggling.

I guess we have different definitions of powerful.

They can put them next to the "The Baby Jesus Was A Refugee Too" cards.  As a society, we embrace hysterical dramatics.  From "Obama wants to take your guns" to "Trump hates immigrants".   The truth has become pretty irrelevant these days.  But we just can't get enough sensationalism and exaggeration.

just to nitpick .. "obama wants to take your guns" isn't equivalent to "trump hates immigrants" .. one of those is hysterical conjecture .. the other one is an over generalization.. trump doesn't hate immigrants .. just the brown ones.

a more apt comparison would be "trump likes golden showers from russian hookers" ..
then again .. that one may be true too .. hmm

ok ok .. how about "trump is a russian stooge and takes marching orders from putin" ..
crap .. this is hard..

how about "trump wants to group immigrant kids into concentration camps and wants to raise them as ninja assassins.."
ok that one works .. it's only half true.

^Orange man bad, got it.

ding ding ding ding ding .. winner !!!

There fixed it for you. Now it's all true....

Nope .. wrong again .. trump's cracking down on legal immigrants with green cards and finding ways to have them lose their permanent resident status. so it isn't just illegal immigrants .. it's any immigrant .. as long as they aren't european .. so i guess only those from "shithole" countries

Yeah, I heard he was the Nazi Devil also.

Okay, so the crazy hysterical person from the left has weighed.  Next up to bat, the counterpoint crazy hysterical person from the right to presently equally ridiculous comments. 

Yes yes, "both sides."

"Hillary is a career criminal whose illegal e-mail server was an outrageously overt high crime" and "Trump is a career criminal whose campaign manager and personal lawyer have already pled guilty to multiple felonies" are both equally ridiculous partisan comments.  Just like "Obama is a Marxist Muslim who wants to take all the guns in the country" and "Trump is a white supremacist who repeatedly courts the support of Nazis."

It's always "both sides," and if you blame one side more than the other, well, you're just a hysterical partisan.

^No, when you vilify one side repeatedly and see no fault in your own side's corruption, that makes you a hysterical partisan, which is what you and others do repeatedly here.  I'm not speciaI, even I get caught up in it too.

is any of what i said incorrect? funny thing is i don't believe i made anything up .. other than the ninja assassins thing .. but i was trying to make something up there.. on the other hand .. i see trumpland just flat out inventing shit out of thin air all the time...

there isn't an equivalency here.. there really isn't

and i never called trump a nazi .. i think I've posted it before .. historically he's much more of a Mussolini than a Hitler

Just when I think I wouldn't find any humor in this thread. Thanks Fau!!

Snowflakes with Trump Derangement Syndrome are specifically created because of the extreme fake crap that gets posted by your crazy liberal media. Please watch the video in this article. fortunately the business owner stepped up, apologized and fired the employee.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6538155/Vape-shop-worker-launches-furious-rant-against-Trump-supporter.html#v-36176539697592496

perfect example of false equivalency.  one person that might hate Trump or might be a false flag is somehow the moral equivalence as the actual president of the united states going off on unhinged factually false rants.

Exactly.  If there's some video of a random college student anywhere in the country complaining about Trump being a Nazi, that is exactly the same as the President of the United States complaining about allowing in too many people from "shithole countries."

Both sides are at fault!

You make no allowance for "vilifying one side repeatedly" because they actually deserve it.  As you put it previously:


So when one side is materially behaving worse than another, you value analysis that calls things right down the middle as if both sides are equal.  That's ridiculous.

It is not being hyper-partisan to accurately describe the facts of how one party is significantly worse than another.  How many felony guilty pleas did high-level members of the 2008 Obama campaign and Obama Administration submit before 2011?

You can't say both sides are bad. The Republicans are CLEARLY the worst of the two by a HUGE (yuuge?) margin. If you can't see that then you must be listening to fake news.