It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.
page: 29share:
a reply to: cynicalheathen
Contrary to popular belief the government has been deciding these things for you time and time again.
Do you know the difference between say a dodge charger that a police would drive and one that anyone could drive? The police vehicle does not have a speed governor in it, limiting on how fast it can go, while all others do. And what about computers? Those powerful processors, there are 2 different types out there, one that the government determines for military and security applications that are not out on the market, and those that the public can use. Much about your life, is regulated and determined, and the government decides this all without the input from the public, especially if a company wants to do business with the federal government. So the door is opened up, just that we do not see such so readily.
As I stated before the solution is not going to make anyone happy. But would you not even consider that perhaps the life of a child, the safety of children would warrant it? What if it was your child, your spouse, your relatives in that school, would you be so wanting firearms to be as important in society, continue on the hopes and prayers of people, knowing that this has become a common event in the country? Do you choose to live in fear and darkness, afraid to walk out into the world?
Even the last big event, the shooting of a person on a beach by an illegal immigrant, and the problems with the cartels, all have ties to the main problem of guns in the country. Don’t you think it is time that this is cleaned up and perhaps eliminate one major problem today? Or would you prefer things to get worse, where we see things like more shoot outs, drive by shootings and massacres happen more and more, where cities end up far worse than Puerto Rico, or some of the cities on the Mexican side of the border?
So when was the last time that the people were forced to raise up against the federal government? I am looking through history, and have yet to see a time, beyond the Revolutionary war and the Civil war, where it was necessary for there to be a need for guns at all. So when was the last time that such was required? And beyond the revolutionary war, the Civil war, the war of 1812 was it necessary for people to gather together, and bring their weapons and go march off as a well regulated militia? I didn’t see that at all at any time in the 19th century.
Now you asked why the 99.99% of the law-abiding gun owners and their 2nd amendment rights directly caused the death of these 17 children, I am glad you asked. By supporting the NRA, which donates millions to politicians, they prevent the passing or even the discussion on sensible gun control laws, or fight it when it tries to close loop holes or even preventing people from getting ahold of guns. Take this school shooting. Florida has very lax gun control laws, making it far to easy for anyone to purchase a weapon, even those who should not have been allowed to get such. Obama, put in a regulation to add in mental health, as part of the consideration to not allow for a person to be able to purchase a gun. Congress, comes in and removes that, as signed by the President, and thus this 19 year old was able to now legally purchase a gun, even though he had mental health issues and prior involvement with the law.
And every time some legislation of trying to mitigate, and either stop or remove these kinds of events from happening, funny how all of those law-abiding gun owners, will cry foul and hold up the 2nd amendment rights as being threatened. So while all of those gun owners never harmed anyone, however, if they are going to stop, stall or fight against laws that would control guns that could prevent tragedies like this from happening, then perhaps they should bear some of the blame for such.
The founding fathers knew that the very rights and freedoms in it have a price, and that such price has to be paid. They knew that maybe in the future, there would no longer be a need to have such definitions in place and thus a means to remove it, that society would be responsible for itself. And the ultimate test of those rights would be to support the opposing side of the argument, as the final test of those rights.
Now I am not saying ban firearms, however, I am saying that the time has come to re-evaluate the laws and the place of guns in the country and the society. Now if you are going to hold up and use the 2nd amendment rights to block any sort of law or discussion on such, then you have to bear the price and the responsibility of the actions of those like you and for tragedies that happen.
Contrary to popular belief the government has been deciding these things for you time and time again.
Do you know the difference between say a dodge charger that a police would drive and one that anyone could drive? The police vehicle does not have a speed governor in it, limiting on how fast it can go, while all others do. And what about computers? Those powerful processors, there are 2 different types out there, one that the government determines for military and security applications that are not out on the market, and those that the public can use. Much about your life, is regulated and determined, and the government decides this all without the input from the public, especially if a company wants to do business with the federal government. So the door is opened up, just that we do not see such so readily.
As I stated before the solution is not going to make anyone happy. But would you not even consider that perhaps the life of a child, the safety of children would warrant it? What if it was your child, your spouse, your relatives in that school, would you be so wanting firearms to be as important in society, continue on the hopes and prayers of people, knowing that this has become a common event in the country? Do you choose to live in fear and darkness, afraid to walk out into the world?
Even the last big event, the shooting of a person on a beach by an illegal immigrant, and the problems with the cartels, all have ties to the main problem of guns in the country. Don’t you think it is time that this is cleaned up and perhaps eliminate one major problem today? Or would you prefer things to get worse, where we see things like more shoot outs, drive by shootings and massacres happen more and more, where cities end up far worse than Puerto Rico, or some of the cities on the Mexican side of the border?
So when was the last time that the people were forced to raise up against the federal government? I am looking through history, and have yet to see a time, beyond the Revolutionary war and the Civil war, where it was necessary for there to be a need for guns at all. So when was the last time that such was required? And beyond the revolutionary war, the Civil war, the war of 1812 was it necessary for people to gather together, and bring their weapons and go march off as a well regulated militia? I didn’t see that at all at any time in the 19th century.
Now you asked why the 99.99% of the law-abiding gun owners and their 2nd amendment rights directly caused the death of these 17 children, I am glad you asked. By supporting the NRA, which donates millions to politicians, they prevent the passing or even the discussion on sensible gun control laws, or fight it when it tries to close loop holes or even preventing people from getting ahold of guns. Take this school shooting. Florida has very lax gun control laws, making it far to easy for anyone to purchase a weapon, even those who should not have been allowed to get such. Obama, put in a regulation to add in mental health, as part of the consideration to not allow for a person to be able to purchase a gun. Congress, comes in and removes that, as signed by the President, and thus this 19 year old was able to now legally purchase a gun, even though he had mental health issues and prior involvement with the law.
And every time some legislation of trying to mitigate, and either stop or remove these kinds of events from happening, funny how all of those law-abiding gun owners, will cry foul and hold up the 2nd amendment rights as being threatened. So while all of those gun owners never harmed anyone, however, if they are going to stop, stall or fight against laws that would control guns that could prevent tragedies like this from happening, then perhaps they should bear some of the blame for such.
The founding fathers knew that the very rights and freedoms in it have a price, and that such price has to be paid. They knew that maybe in the future, there would no longer be a need to have such definitions in place and thus a means to remove it, that society would be responsible for itself. And the ultimate test of those rights would be to support the opposing side of the argument, as the final test of those rights.
Now I am not saying ban firearms, however, I am saying that the time has come to re-evaluate the laws and the place of guns in the country and the society. Now if you are going to hold up and use the 2nd amendment rights to block any sort of law or discussion on such, then you have to bear the price and the responsibility of the actions of those like you and for tragedies that happen.
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Krakatoa
Which one killed these 17 kids and wounded 14?
You tell me?
Which one would you consider a "weapon of war"?
And why?
Can I guess?
I'm going to go with the bottom one! Why? Because it was specifically designed to be the semi-automatic version of the military's M16.
The firearms above are the Remington 7400 (top) and the DSA SA-58 (bottom). They have the following qualities:
• They are semi-automatic in operation.
• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.
• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.
• They are both "black" rifles.
• Both have pistol grips.
In other words, they are functionally identical with the exact rate of fire, and just as deadly when used for legal hunting or illegal of killing people.
The only difference is the intent of the person pulling the trigger.
Thanks for playing.
Wait, doesn't one hold more bullets?
Can I play a game.
A 12oz Bud Light or 12oz of Tequila, which would be safer to consume?
• They are both forms of alcohol
• They both go better with friends
No, the magazine size determines the number of rounds that can be fired. And, switching out magazines takes about as long as pulling the trigger again.
So if I were to buy both of those guns, what size magazine comes STANDARD with each?
That would depend upon the state in which it was purchased.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Krakatoa
Which one killed these 17 kids and wounded 14?
You tell me?
Which one would you consider a "weapon of war"?
And why?
Can I guess?
I'm going to go with the bottom one! Why? Because it was specifically designed to be the semi-automatic version of the military's M16.
The firearms above are the Remington 7400 (top) and the DSA SA-58 (bottom). They have the following qualities:
• They are semi-automatic in operation.
• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.
• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.
• They are both "black" rifles.
• Both have pistol grips.
In other words, they are functionally identical with the exact rate of fire, and just as deadly when used for legal hunting or illegal of killing people.
The only difference is the intent of the person pulling the trigger.
Thanks for playing.
Wait, doesn't one hold more bullets?
Can I play a game.
A 12oz Bud Light or 12oz of Tequila, which would be safer to consume?
• They are both forms of alcohol
• They both go better with friends
No, the magazine size determines the number of rounds that can be fired. And, switching out magazines takes about as long as pulling the trigger again.
So if I were to buy both of those guns, what size magazine comes STANDARD with each?
That would depend upon the state in which it was purchased.
Weird, I've never seen or found a DSA that didn't come with a 20 round clip.
I've also never seen a 7400 that came with a clip that size. In fact my brother had to purchase a 10 round magazine completely separate.
Weird......
Edit to add: We all know you're skirting. The DSA obviously comes standard with a greater capacity than the 7400. Both can kill with ease. One can do so a little bit easier off the rack in the hands of an unskilled civilian.
edit on 15-2-2018 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason
given)
originally posted by: Lurker1
Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.
You want these shootings to stop? Tell your brat-ass children to stop bullying classmates they think are different.
What goes around comes around.
There's a whole lot of reality that you just summed up in two sentences. Add to that the sad shape of mental health in this country, and you're well on the way to identifying, and solving, the larger issue.
That'd certainly be better than blaming an inanimate object, or a color.
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Krakatoa
Which one killed these 17 kids and wounded 14?
You tell me?
Which one would you consider a "weapon of war"?
And why?
Can I guess?
I'm going to go with the bottom one! Why? Because it was specifically designed to be the semi-automatic version of the military's M16.
The firearms above are the Remington 7400 (top) and the DSA SA-58 (bottom). They have the following qualities:
• They are semi-automatic in operation.
• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.
• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.
• They are both "black" rifles.
• Both have pistol grips.
In other words, they are functionally identical with the exact rate of fire, and just as deadly when used for legal hunting or illegal of killing people.
The only difference is the intent of the person pulling the trigger.
Thanks for playing.
Wait, doesn't one hold more bullets?
Can I play a game.
A 12oz Bud Light or 12oz of Tequila, which would be safer to consume?
• They are both forms of alcohol
• They both go better with friends
No, the magazine size determines the number of rounds that can be fired. And, switching out magazines takes about as long as pulling the trigger again.
So if I were to buy both of those guns, what size magazine comes STANDARD with each?
That would depend upon the state in which it was purchased.
Weird, I've never seen or found a DSA that didn't come with a 20 round clip.
I've also never seen a 7400 that came with a clip that size. In fact my brother had to purchase a 10 round magazine completely separate.
Weird......
A 20 round magazine (they are not clips, BTW that is a different accessory for a different rifle) is illegal in Massachusetts, so you could not buy one with that size magazine.
I guess you need to get out more and learn more about how each state decides to regulate these things.
a reply to: Konduit
this is disgusting thinking. what a terrible mess of a world we live in where people are begging for a police state with trained men with guns on every corner and on every playground. god forbid we pay some attention to our children so they don't grow up to be psychopaths hopped up on anti depressants and ADD medication.
people want to make our schools a militarized zone now that is disgusting how about you point the heavily armed trained gunmen on the pharmaceutical and medical industry that are shoving these pills down our childrens throats and creating cowards that have to shoot up a school to make themselves feel better from being "bullied".
we should be ashamed of ourselves as americans as a society that we have so many people in our prison system and so many psychos wandering our streets, who are the animals is it us or is it them? who are the real bad guys? americans are quick to thumb their noses at the uncivilized peoples of the world, TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AMERICA!!!!!!!!
this is disgusting thinking. what a terrible mess of a world we live in where people are begging for a police state with trained men with guns on every corner and on every playground. god forbid we pay some attention to our children so they don't grow up to be psychopaths hopped up on anti depressants and ADD medication.
people want to make our schools a militarized zone now that is disgusting how about you point the heavily armed trained gunmen on the pharmaceutical and medical industry that are shoving these pills down our childrens throats and creating cowards that have to shoot up a school to make themselves feel better from being "bullied".
we should be ashamed of ourselves as americans as a society that we have so many people in our prison system and so many psychos wandering our streets, who are the animals is it us or is it them? who are the real bad guys? americans are quick to thumb their noses at the uncivilized peoples of the world, TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AMERICA!!!!!!!!
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Krakatoa
Which one killed these 17 kids and wounded 14?
You tell me?
Which one would you consider a "weapon of war"?
And why?
Can I guess?
I'm going to go with the bottom one! Why? Because it was specifically designed to be the semi-automatic version of the military's M16.
The firearms above are the Remington 7400 (top) and the DSA SA-58 (bottom). They have the following qualities:
• They are semi-automatic in operation.
• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.
• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.
• They are both "black" rifles.
• Both have pistol grips.
In other words, they are functionally identical with the exact rate of fire, and just as deadly when used for legal hunting or illegal of killing people.
The only difference is the intent of the person pulling the trigger.
Thanks for playing.
Wait, doesn't one hold more bullets?
Can I play a game.
A 12oz Bud Light or 12oz of Tequila, which would be safer to consume?
• They are both forms of alcohol
• They both go better with friends
No, the magazine size determines the number of rounds that can be fired. And, switching out magazines takes about as long as pulling the trigger again.
So if I were to buy both of those guns, what size magazine comes STANDARD with each?
That would depend upon the state in which it was purchased.
Weird, I've never seen or found a DSA that didn't come with a 20 round clip.
I've also never seen a 7400 that came with a clip that size. In fact my brother had to purchase a 10 round magazine completely separate.
Weird......
A 20 round magazine (they are not clips, BTW that is a different accessory for a different rifle) is illegal in Massachusetts, so you could not buy one with that size magazine.
I guess you need to get out more and learn more about how each state decides to regulate these things.
Clip is just a colloquial term.
I could care less how Massachusetts regulates their rifles.
Although interesting enough, Massachusetts has the 2nd lowest death rate by firearm (Hawaii is 1st) in the United States. They also rank 14th out of all states in gun ownership.
I wonder what Massachusetts is doing that other states aren't that is curbing the death by guns??? Hmmmmmmm.....
edit on 15-2-2018 by
GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: Kryties
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties
2011 and 2014 are now not after 1996?
i am confused
None of those you listed is defined as a mass shooting as per the official definition....
From: en.m.wikipedia.org...
defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed
oh so people get killed but dont fit your bs definition
i see
what utter bs
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: Kryties
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties
2011 and 2014 are now not after 1996?
i am confused
None of those you listed is defined as a mass shooting as per the official definition....
From: en.m.wikipedia.org...
defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed
oh so people get killed but dont fit your bs definition
i see
what utter bs
It's not MY definition, it's the OFFICIAL definition.
Go complain to the people in charge of definitions, not me.
edit on 15/2/2018 by Kryties because: (no reason given)
a reply to: MOMof3
www.ontheissues.org... she seems to agree with most pro gun members here so are you so sure about that?
www.ontheissues.org... she seems to agree with most pro gun members here so are you so sure about that?
so shes against high capicity mag bans, dosent want background checks at gun shows ,wants to loosen them further,and is even for not including the bs rinky dink trigger locks sold with most guns .
Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. Congressional Summary: ,Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. ,Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. ,Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. , Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury. Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999 Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. ,Rated B+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.
her exact words for why she was not for a high cap magizine ban. why are you idolizing her but not listening to the fact that mag bans dont do anything to reduce deaths or violence
Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.
a reply to: sdcigarpig
First, a star and thanks for a well-reasoned post without any insults.
I'm aware of speed limiters on cars. I'm also aware that hobbyists easily remove those same limiters.
Some regulation is not bad. Congress has the power to write laws for a reason. Their powers are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
Congress does not, however, have the power to blanket ban a right. Mechanisms can be used to say "Yeah, that individual can't exercise X right responsibly." But it's a result of due process.
Is the right of a child to life greater than my ( or anyone else's ) right to life? My right to life is protected by my right to self-defense. So I am to give up my rights because a sick individual misused a gun?
No gun owners I know:
Want felons or criminals to own guns
Want children to die
Responsible gun owners take measures to prevent misuse of their guns. Period.
Guns aren't only for protection from tyranny.
They can be used for:
Competition
Self-Defense
Hunting
Defense against dangerous animals
Target Shooting ( fun )
But the deterrent to tyranny is firearms ( and the will to use them ) in private hands. That is the reason there hasn't been an uprising.
The NRA argument doesn't hold water. I am not a supporter, nor will they ever get another dime from me beyond the one time $25 I was required to spend. They are a gun lobby organization designed to make gun manufacturers money. They do not protect the 2A, and some of us have long enough memories to know that.
The last part of that paragraph makes no sense. The ultimate test of a right is not to allow it to be infringed. Rights are inalienable. They are inherent in the individual. I cannot possibly give my rights away. Even if all guns are banned and taken away, the right remains.
To say all law-abiding gun owners are responsible for senseless tragedies ignores personal responsibility.
You drive safely and have never been in an accident. You have all the proper licenses. Do you have blood on your hands for all the traffic deaths?
You enjoy a beer or some bourbon occasionally. You do so in moderation and care for your health. Do you have blood on your hands for all the deaths attributed to drinking?
You have an operation and need opiod pain killers. You use them in accordance with your doctor's instructions so as not to get addicted. Do you have blood on your hands for all the opiod deaths and heroin deaths?
Personal Responsibility. I am no more responsible for these children's deaths than you are.
First, a star and thanks for a well-reasoned post without any insults.
I'm aware of speed limiters on cars. I'm also aware that hobbyists easily remove those same limiters.
Some regulation is not bad. Congress has the power to write laws for a reason. Their powers are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.
Congress does not, however, have the power to blanket ban a right. Mechanisms can be used to say "Yeah, that individual can't exercise X right responsibly." But it's a result of due process.
Is the right of a child to life greater than my ( or anyone else's ) right to life? My right to life is protected by my right to self-defense. So I am to give up my rights because a sick individual misused a gun?
No gun owners I know:
Want felons or criminals to own guns
Want children to die
Responsible gun owners take measures to prevent misuse of their guns. Period.
Guns aren't only for protection from tyranny.
They can be used for:
Competition
Self-Defense
Hunting
Defense against dangerous animals
Target Shooting ( fun )
But the deterrent to tyranny is firearms ( and the will to use them ) in private hands. That is the reason there hasn't been an uprising.
The NRA argument doesn't hold water. I am not a supporter, nor will they ever get another dime from me beyond the one time $25 I was required to spend. They are a gun lobby organization designed to make gun manufacturers money. They do not protect the 2A, and some of us have long enough memories to know that.
The last part of that paragraph makes no sense. The ultimate test of a right is not to allow it to be infringed. Rights are inalienable. They are inherent in the individual. I cannot possibly give my rights away. Even if all guns are banned and taken away, the right remains.
To say all law-abiding gun owners are responsible for senseless tragedies ignores personal responsibility.
You drive safely and have never been in an accident. You have all the proper licenses. Do you have blood on your hands for all the traffic deaths?
You enjoy a beer or some bourbon occasionally. You do so in moderation and care for your health. Do you have blood on your hands for all the deaths attributed to drinking?
You have an operation and need opiod pain killers. You use them in accordance with your doctor's instructions so as not to get addicted. Do you have blood on your hands for all the opiod deaths and heroin deaths?
Personal Responsibility. I am no more responsible for these children's deaths than you are.
what a terrible mess of a world we live in where people are begging for a police state with trained men with guns on every corner and on every playground.
It might be by design. The majority react and are lead by fear.
originally posted by: roadgravel
It might be by design. The majority react and are lead by fear.
Certainly the majority of assault rifle owners.
originally posted by: YeeHaw
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: YeeHaw
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: odzeandennz
We had 18 school shooting this year so far, and I don't mean school year, I mean calendar year; we're in February still...
As I pointed out a page or so back of those 18 incidents, 10 were either an accidental discharge or a suicide on school property. Not that 8 is something to brag about however I wanted to clarify that stat with context.
We need to stop accidental discharges... lets give more people guns. Everyone get a gun quick and then everyone can feel like a potential hero. Or more likely an accidental killer.
Better still we can ignore facts and instead act like a bunch of snowflakes who are scared of their own shadows because everyone in this world is a winner.
Now, you done with the sarcasm?
Ah! Snowflakes, lets hope you tell the parents of the dead children to stop acting like snowflakes.
Go back to your cave Troll.
Thank you for proving my point.
a reply to: Blue Shift
Same for people with car alarms, house alarms, pepper spray, first aid kits, ad nauseum...
Certainly the majority of assault rifle owners.
Same for people with car alarms, house alarms, pepper spray, first aid kits, ad nauseum...
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus
Sure, as long as they are afforded due process..
Due process is what people are afforded after they kill 10-20 children.
If someone is mentally unstable, they have no business owning a gun. I can/will put them down, but I can't follow those I love everywhere.
Otherwise you're infringing on Constitutional rights for arbitrary reasons.
the constitution demands regulation. Conservative Zealots have failed our constitution, people and country in choosing to not regulate well who gets to own firearms. Their failure has cost thousands of lives, many children.
Do you believe mental illness didn't exist in the founder's day? It was far more misunderstood then, actually. Yet, the second amendment is CONSPICUOUSLY silent when it comes to mentally ill, felons, etc.
That's because the 2nd amendment discussed a well regulated local militia in service of defending the union.
I am in agreement that should be expanded to all patriots, but not the mentally or criminally ill.
[quote[
Obviously I have no problem with felons losing their gun rights, simply because they're afforded due process. Provided the "mentally ill" are also afforded those same protections, I say go for it.
President Obama passed a regulation saying that anyone that was not capable of managing their own Social Security checks should be included in the FBI database for review.
follow that?
If someone was so incapable of depositing or spending a Social Security Check that they named a relative to manage those tasks for them, they should be looked at twice before being given a gun.
Trump repealed that regulation this year.
Eff idiots who make my and my childrens life more dangerous. I don't mind shooting sociopaths, I do mind politicians who take bribes from the NRA so they can sell more guns to sociopaths.
Eff the idiots that defend such stupidity.
edit on 15-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Xcathdra
No, I did not miss your point.
Here again you are not getting mine. In all of my postings, I never once advocated the banning of firearms, nor the removal of them. I am saying that we need to re-evaluate those laws and the place of guns in our society. If you equate that as being a ban on guns, then you are mistaken.
An AR-15 is a forerunner for the M16. If fires a 5.56X45MM projectile. Should the public have access to weapons with the same firepower as the military has?
Does the public need a semi automatic weapon, or would a single shot weapon do just as well?
Really, cops done carry what ever they want? Then why are police departments acquiring military grade vehicles and equipment? Do you really think we need a militarize police department that bad?
While criminals do not have the same sort of constraints, the very nature of their actions dictate such, however, why make it easier for them to get ahold of the very weapons that law enforcement is ill prepared for or to deal with?
What is easier from a law enforcement to deal with, a criminal with a revolver or a handgun that is a semi auto fire weapon? One where the criminal has to re-cock every time, to fire, or one where the criminal has to just point and shoot and not have to re-cock every time?
Would you not agree that there is a percentage of the population out there, who is law abiding, who should not have a firearm at all, as they have mental illness that would impede them from being safe with it?
Would you not agree, that there are far too many firearms out there on the streets right now, that perhaps having more would add to the problem? Or that only 3% of the population owning half of the guns is not a good idea? Does the average gun owner really need to have 8 to 17 guns in their possession at any given time, along with the ammo? I can see if a person is a hunter, or in a profession that uses firearms, having 3 or 4 firearms, but do they need 8 to 17?
I think that firearms should be regulated, and taxed at a higher rate than it is already. The government does it already with other items, like say a car. If you get into an accident and it is your fault, there is tickets and points, loose too many points and they revoke a persons right to drive. Now while there are a lot of gun owners who have never done anything wrong, however, there is a percentage that have acted in an unsafe and reckless manner in the handling of a firearm. It is estimated that 1300 kids are injured or killed annually every year at home, due to accidents with firearms. Don’t you think that if in a 3 year timeframe 1.2 million guns being stolen and used in crimes, is a good indications that there are too many out there already? That perhaps the idea of having less is far better than more, that slowing down the number sold and acquired would be a good thing, to thin down the sheer numbers of such?
Don’t you think that one of the ways to stop the Mexican cartels that ship drugs to the north, would the dynamic be different if they were not able to get ahold of the thousands of firearms from the USA?
And based on what you replied, I guess that you believe that your rights outweighs a child’s life.
I am not saying that a gun is a problem, I am saying that the very issue of this tragedy is that people are holding their rights above human life, and that of a child’s that they can not even fathom or consider any idea or solution that may force them to give up a bit of their rights in favor of protecting that child.
News flash, if all of the states have legislation that restrict a person from obtaining owning a firearm if they were adjudicated as mentally unfit, are apparently not working, cause all of the mass shootings, like the one that just happened in Florida showed that. There you have a 19 year old, who has mental issues, who has run ins with the law, yet he was able to purchase a firearm and then shot up a school. Are you sure those laws are working? If they are, why are there so many mass shootings already?
Newsflash the TSA is getting involved with bus and train travel. And if a person does not drive, and on the terror watch list, they could be unable to travel, as forms of such they could be banned from being able to travel across country, or even to another state.
The laws are not working. There is a problem with guns in this country. And if you are not willing to take a chance, and that maybe your rights might be limited in scope, not removed, but limited, then there is part of the problem. Contrary to popular believe our rights do have limits. There are responsibilities and a price for those rights.
No, I did not miss your point.
Here again you are not getting mine. In all of my postings, I never once advocated the banning of firearms, nor the removal of them. I am saying that we need to re-evaluate those laws and the place of guns in our society. If you equate that as being a ban on guns, then you are mistaken.
An AR-15 is a forerunner for the M16. If fires a 5.56X45MM projectile. Should the public have access to weapons with the same firepower as the military has?
Does the public need a semi automatic weapon, or would a single shot weapon do just as well?
Really, cops done carry what ever they want? Then why are police departments acquiring military grade vehicles and equipment? Do you really think we need a militarize police department that bad?
While criminals do not have the same sort of constraints, the very nature of their actions dictate such, however, why make it easier for them to get ahold of the very weapons that law enforcement is ill prepared for or to deal with?
What is easier from a law enforcement to deal with, a criminal with a revolver or a handgun that is a semi auto fire weapon? One where the criminal has to re-cock every time, to fire, or one where the criminal has to just point and shoot and not have to re-cock every time?
Would you not agree that there is a percentage of the population out there, who is law abiding, who should not have a firearm at all, as they have mental illness that would impede them from being safe with it?
Would you not agree, that there are far too many firearms out there on the streets right now, that perhaps having more would add to the problem? Or that only 3% of the population owning half of the guns is not a good idea? Does the average gun owner really need to have 8 to 17 guns in their possession at any given time, along with the ammo? I can see if a person is a hunter, or in a profession that uses firearms, having 3 or 4 firearms, but do they need 8 to 17?
I think that firearms should be regulated, and taxed at a higher rate than it is already. The government does it already with other items, like say a car. If you get into an accident and it is your fault, there is tickets and points, loose too many points and they revoke a persons right to drive. Now while there are a lot of gun owners who have never done anything wrong, however, there is a percentage that have acted in an unsafe and reckless manner in the handling of a firearm. It is estimated that 1300 kids are injured or killed annually every year at home, due to accidents with firearms. Don’t you think that if in a 3 year timeframe 1.2 million guns being stolen and used in crimes, is a good indications that there are too many out there already? That perhaps the idea of having less is far better than more, that slowing down the number sold and acquired would be a good thing, to thin down the sheer numbers of such?
Don’t you think that one of the ways to stop the Mexican cartels that ship drugs to the north, would the dynamic be different if they were not able to get ahold of the thousands of firearms from the USA?
And based on what you replied, I guess that you believe that your rights outweighs a child’s life.
I am not saying that a gun is a problem, I am saying that the very issue of this tragedy is that people are holding their rights above human life, and that of a child’s that they can not even fathom or consider any idea or solution that may force them to give up a bit of their rights in favor of protecting that child.
News flash, if all of the states have legislation that restrict a person from obtaining owning a firearm if they were adjudicated as mentally unfit, are apparently not working, cause all of the mass shootings, like the one that just happened in Florida showed that. There you have a 19 year old, who has mental issues, who has run ins with the law, yet he was able to purchase a firearm and then shot up a school. Are you sure those laws are working? If they are, why are there so many mass shootings already?
Newsflash the TSA is getting involved with bus and train travel. And if a person does not drive, and on the terror watch list, they could be unable to travel, as forms of such they could be banned from being able to travel across country, or even to another state.
The laws are not working. There is a problem with guns in this country. And if you are not willing to take a chance, and that maybe your rights might be limited in scope, not removed, but limited, then there is part of the problem. Contrary to popular believe our rights do have limits. There are responsibilities and a price for those rights.
originally posted by: seagull
originally posted by: Lurker1
Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.
You want these shootings to stop? Tell your brat-ass children to stop bullying classmates they think are different.
What goes around comes around.
There's a whole lot of reality that you just summed up in two sentences. Add to that the sad shape of mental health in this country, and you're well on the way to identifying, and solving, the larger issue.
That'd certainly be better than blaming an inanimate object, or a color.
No.
This is what is wrong.
We're trying to stop bullying, but that will never end.
What we need to do is to teach our children that bullying exists and provide them with the tools to cope with bullying.
How in the hell are we ever going to stop bullying? Do we police the homes and backyards of homes? Do we police playgrounds and shelter children even further?
You are absolutely correct, something needs to be done,however, the reason is not one you want to hear.
I have kept track of 51 mass shootings/killings not related to open war, going back to May 1988. It is a spread sheet with numerous issues such as prior animal cruelty, prior threats, sexual assaults, medication, prior military/PTSD, political and religious affiliation.
Very interesting results. There were a few radicals and a very few prior military. Of the 51 references, four (4) only had no reference to medication. All the rest have prescriptions, generally for anti-depressants, ADHD or depression. Many times for multiple issues at the same time.
Attempted to place the spreadsheet at the end, but it turns into a disorganized mess.
I have kept track of 51 mass shootings/killings not related to open war, going back to May 1988. It is a spread sheet with numerous issues such as prior animal cruelty, prior threats, sexual assaults, medication, prior military/PTSD, political and religious affiliation.
Very interesting results. There were a few radicals and a very few prior military. Of the 51 references, four (4) only had no reference to medication. All the rest have prescriptions, generally for anti-depressants, ADHD or depression. Many times for multiple issues at the same time.
Attempted to place the spreadsheet at the end, but it turns into a disorganized mess.
new topics
-
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 4 hours ago -
Dr. Demento
Music: 6 hours ago -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 6 hours ago
top topics
-
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 6 hours ago, 10 flags -
Green Grapes
General Chit Chat: 16 hours ago, 7 flags -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 12 hours ago, 6 flags -
Dr. Demento
Music: 6 hours ago, 5 flags -
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 4 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Dr. Demento
Music • 12 • : GENERAL EYES -
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 145 • : Flyingclaydisk -
President Carter has passed
Mainstream News • 45 • : WeMustCare -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 73 • : Flyingclaydisk -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness • 16 • : network dude -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies • 30 • : Oldcarpy2 -
The Truth about Migrant Crime in Britain.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 39 • : gortex -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 1037 • : tinkerbell99 -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3976 • : Thoughtful3 -
The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform
2024 Elections • 4370 • : fringeofthefringe