It's the Guns

a reply to: queenofswords

BINGO!

Exactly the sort of thing that cannot be quantified on a standardized test. And we must teach to the test to keep the tax dollars rolling in when the State grades the schools.

But I never did two semesters as a Secondary Education major or anything only to be told to take sign language or Braille to “guarantee a high paying job anywhere I wanted at the salary I named.”

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

We don’t have to ban them, just have to stop making them (for everyone except law enforcement and the military).

Why exempt military and law enforcement?

Because members of law enforcement and the military are called upon to kill people far more often than members of the general public?

And, in the case of the military, that call frequently requires many people to be killed as quickly as possible?

Neither law enforcement or the military is called upon to kill anyone. Law enforcement are called upon to investigate crimes, make arrests, write tickets, etc. The military is called upon to make opposing forces surrender. The only ones I can think of offhand who are frequently called upon to kill people are executioners and, in some cases, doctors.

The response I offered was my opinion/supposition based on the statement from Colt announcing their decision.

Perhaps you should address your question to Colt’s management.

And, following your logic, perhaps law enforcement and the military should be disarmed as well, since neither are “called upon to kill anyone”?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ErEhWoN

Well America has more people in jail than any other country and blacks make up a very large number of those in jail...

We also have more population than all European countries, more than the top three combined:

1 Russia 145,872,256
2 Germany 83,517,045
3 United Kingdom 67,530,172
4 France 65,129,728
5 Italy 60,550,075
6 Spain 46,736,776
7 Ukraine 43,993,638
8 Poland 37,887,768
9 Romania 19,364,557
10 Netherlands 17,097,130
11 Belgium 11,539,328
12 Czech Republic 10,689,209
13 Greece 10,473,455
14 Portugal 10,226,187
15 Sweden 10,036,379
16 Hungary 9,684,679
17 Belarus 9,452,411
18 Austria 8,955,102
19 Serbia 8,772,235
20 Switzerland 8,591,365
21 Bulgaria 7,000,119
22 Denmark 5,771,876
23 Finland 5,532,156
24 Slovakia 5,457,013
25 Norway 5,378,857
26 Ireland 4,882,495
27 Croatia 4,130,304
28 Moldova 4,043,263
29 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,301,000
30 Albania 2,880,917
31 Lithuania 2,759,627
32 North Macedonia 2,083,459
33 Slovenia 2,078,654
34 Latvia 1,906,743
35 Estonia 1,325,648
36 Montenegro 627,987
37 Luxembourg 615,729
38 Malta 440,372
39 Iceland 339,031
40 Channel Islands 172,259
41 Isle of Man 84,584
42 Andorra 77,142
43 Faeroe Islands 48,678
44 Monaco 38,964
45 Liechtenstein 38,019
46 San Marino 33,860
47 Gibraltar 33,701
48 Holy See 799

Several of our cities have more population than the upper-middle of this list. I hate it when people compare our country to others, there are no other countries like the USA. None. We are unique in a lot of ways. Some good, some bad. I wouldn't live anywhere else.

All you have to do to see ten times the violence we have is look to the south. Those countries are run by drug lords and they kill anyone they want whenever they want and their gun laws are tighter than most of ours. Keep going south and it gets worse.

I don't have the answer as to how, but there needs to be a cultural shift in our country back to personal responsibility. We took guns to school when I was in high school and no one batted an eye because we were hunters. No one shot up the school back then because we knew it would be wrong to do so.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Don't think m16 or ak belong in the hands of civilians.

I pulled that from your other reply I didn’t get a chance to get around to it .


OK let’s say you just moved to Montana. Your wife is down at the creek with your two and three-year-old daughters. You look out the window and see that there’s a 8 or 900 pound grizzly charging at them .

Would you rather get off one maybe two rounds with your Remington 700. Or would you rather have fire power to give your family the extra edge ?

Now you’ve moved from Montana to Colorado . You’re sitting on the porch in the morning farting in your underwear. While your wife and two daughters go to pick wildflowers .

When you look over you see a pack of wolves circling their intended pray . Would you rather get off one or two rounds at five or six wolves with your Remington 700 or have the fire power to take a few of them down quickly to protect your family .

Now you’re tired of all the danger from the wildlife. So you move to California. Who would need a powerful weapon in California it’s the land of liberal utopia after all.

Then one morning you get up humming Kumbaya to yourself happy to be in the greatest state in the union .

As you brush your teeth and rinse your mouth you look out the window there’s a mountain lion getting ready to attack and carry your kid off. Would you rather try to hit that elusive son of a bitch with a bolt action rifle or a semi automatic weapon with a high-capacity magazine .

By now the lower 48 have freaked you out. But you recently heard they opened a new Starbucks in nome and realize you should go north to the future .

The creeks are frozen, it’s too cold to let the kids out and they’re definitely ain’t no flowers growing . Finally everything‘s in the green what could possibly go wrong ?

You keep that pleasant thought in your head until around 1 AM. That’s when you wake up hearing grunts, slobbering sounds and and feel the RV moving back-and-forth. It is at that point you realize that you should’ve taken the left not the right . Then you wouldn’t have parked on a game trail that leads to the town dump.

Still shaking the cobwebs out of your head . Your nostrils fill with a delicious aroma followed by panic and a adrenaline spike. Your first words since waking up are Oh # the wife left the chili on and the Bears smell it . Which explains the grunts, slobbering sounds, rocking motion, the sides being ripped off the RV and the bear coming through the windshield .

Now you’ve got three or four polar bears tearing their way into your RV your children are screaming your wife’s cussing at you for bringing them to Alaska and all you’ve got is a bolt action rifle. Which will be about as effective on four bears halfway in your RV as taking the wooden spoon out of the chili and hitting the bears on the nose .


^^^^ I had fun with that.

The read I got on you is that you have a sense of humor. So I figured what the hell . Lol


But my point is you can’t make a blanket statement on a assault weapons ban. There are far too many variables .

I feel the same way on home defense but everyone uses that argument .

I just wanted to be long-winded, amuse myself and take a different angle .

a reply to: DBCowboy

Isn't that the problem with "democracy"? The "majority" of "educated" idiots gets the say? State run this. State run that. State run "education".

The United States of America is a Republic. A "representative" Republic. Not a "DEMOCRACY"! Every constable, Soldier and politician swears an oath, to our "supreme law", The Constitution of these United States. To swear an oath to that law of the Republic and then, to actively engage in trying to change that law? Makes them? Let us just say, highly unliked. Not to mention, makes many of us wonder why, they took "the oath" in the first place.

a reply to: murphy22

I swore an oath not to a president, not to an ideology, but to the Constitution.

I still take it seriously.

A pity others do not.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Yes. They are being undercut. The civilian market isn't profitable for them with regard to the AR platform.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

We don’t have to ban them, just have to stop making them (for everyone except law enforcement and the military).

Why exempt military and law enforcement?

Because members of law enforcement and the military are called upon to kill people far more often than members of the general public?

And, in the case of the military, that call frequently requires many people to be killed as quickly as possible?

Neither law enforcement or the military is called upon to kill anyone. Law enforcement are called upon to investigate crimes, make arrests, write tickets, etc. The military is called upon to make opposing forces surrender. The only ones I can think of offhand who are frequently called upon to kill people are executioners and, in some cases, doctors.

The response I offered was my opinion/supposition based on the statement from Colt announcing their decision.

Perhaps you should address your question to Colt’s management.

And, following your logic, perhaps law enforcement and the military should be disarmed as well, since neither are “called upon to kill anyone”?

I anticipate that I would receive the same evasion to the point from Colt's management.

The point is that law enforcement and the military do not "need" guns to do their jobs. They have guns to protect themselves while they do their jobs. That leads to the obvious next question: Why shouldn't ordinary citizens have the same right to self defense as government employees? After all, the Constitution reserves the right to bear arms to the People, not to the Government, so there would be no legal hurdles there.

So, yes, if a weapon is prohibited to the general public on the basis of "don't need", then that weapon should also be prohibited to law enforcement and the military based on the same "don't need." The general public has to contend with the same criminals and the same foreign adversaries as the government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: murphy22

I swore an oath not to a president, not to an ideology, but to the Constitution.

I still take it seriously.

A pity others do not.

Glad someone takes it seriously. If you, in fact, do (we've been though this).

A pity indeed. Especially certain Congresspeople, people in power, and a certain "president."

a reply to: ErEhWoN

How about? We just make murder illegal? Regardless of the tool, implement?
Oh shoot! That's already illegal!!!!
Okay,
Better yet! Let us have a "buyback" on hands. Can't use a "pistol grip" without a hand. Total "common sense"!!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: murphy22

I swore an oath not to a president, not to an ideology, but to the Constitution.

I still take it seriously.

A pity others do not.

At one point, and still in some circles, the constitution was the common ground between people who otherwise had massively different views.

It seems that such a perspective is now considered "partisan and far right." Not by everyone, of course, but by enough people to be concerning.

When someone says "Murica. Love it or leave it.." There is a very important concept being relayed there. Too many nowadays conflate "criticism" with "hate." If someone hates this nation, they genuinely might be happier in a nation that fits them better. What appears to be legitimate hate, and a desire to dismantle the very foundation of the US, is often defended as "criticism." Actual criticism then just kind of evaporates in such peoples minds, leading to some pretty epic derpiness.

The whole social interaction thing has become totally bizarre. People are defining their personal identity with garbage information vectors and even corporations.

a reply to: Serdgiam

It was a wake up call for me after the drama and issues in Charleston a few years ago when I defended the nazis right to free speech. On this site I was branded a nazi sympathizer because I defended their 1st amendment right.

a reply to: Liquesence

I took it seriously. It is sad to me under the "oath" that only two things are considered treason. Because treason seems to be the norm nowadays. But that is the "law", and they have a 1st. Amendment right, and I swore to defend that/their right. They do have that right, as do I.
But they, and I, have a 2nd amendment right... The difference is? I know how to use it.
They live by fear of inanimate objects. Hopliphobic ignorance. Words are easy for them. After all? It's a "right" by "law"!
I've stood between them and guns. I don't need to be told what my "needs" are. And I will not be told!

Basically all the idiot left is telling me? Is I can't trust them with guns.

a reply to: DBCowboy
As did I. In our Republic, Presidents come and go, as do legislators. I swore an oath to our Republic, our "law". So did/do they. By my "oath", they will be held to it! As will I, no doubt.

a reply to: shooterbrody
The sad fact is? The only people you're talking to, are the only people that know what you're talking about.

Though many of us know what you're saying. Just know, you're not alone.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Driving a car is not a right.

To state it in the most simple terms... the United States ranking on the International homicide rankings, is around 110th.

a reply to: dasman888

Correct. But you rank 20th for gun homicides . Nice deflection though .

a reply to: Bhadhidar
Colt is a brand. An American brand at that! God bless them. But every American gun manufacturing company makes an AR15 rifle, other than Colt. Because Colt no longer holds the monopoly on AR15 "style" rifles. S&W, Savage, Ruger and other American companies build the same rifle, for half the cost and they are just as good, for it's intended purpose, with modern manufacturing technologies. You can swap a bolt from either of them and make it run. It
Is not rocket science. Just Capitalism at work. Colt firearms command a well deserved price tag for name alone. But not when another American company builds the same product for half the price.

It has nothing to do with "rights". Colt is another failed American business, being held up/supported by "government" contracts.

Trust me. Colt can afford to not sell more AR15 rifles. Their marketing staff, with government, have worked out the details years ago.

They're going to push their 18, 19 and 20 century handgun line, for all the Colt brand can muster. It's all about the "pony", Which nobody is really willing to pay for anymore, not with better options available.

Colt isn't giving in, or complying with any political pressure. It's just doing business as always. Make your name $ unattainable every 40 years, come back with a "new model", old model of whatever ever? And you have a $200 rifle or pistol, worth a $1,000 because "prancing pony". Don't fret OP. It's normal.

a reply to: MachineMan

Who told you that? Riding a horse isn't a "right" either, nor is "driving" a wagon, but you don't need a license to do that. Do you?

a reply to: Liquesence

Absolutely wrong. Guns are designed to fire ammunition. The choice to kill or not is up to the operator of the gun.

What’s more is specifically the big evil AR-15 (or M-16 varieties) use a round that is specifically designed to wound rather than outright kill humans. Because it takes two men to remove the wounded man from the battlefield.

In fact when AR-15’s are used in mass shootings, deaths typically result from bleed out while waiting for the scene to be secured for EMT’s. Even lethal gunshots from higher calibers like .45 doesn’t mean instant death like in the movies. You can return fire and get in a lethal shot on the shooter as well.

Sorry to ruin a misconception and be morbid about it. Just being educational.