Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In a gesture of goodwill, Southwest named a row of seats after her.

Been doing this long enough now to see the slide from something I dreamed of doing all my life to something that is absolutely unbearable at times.  Dad flew for 28 years before me and both of my gran

No dog in the fight.  But the 480FS Wikipedia page has an awesome “Woke era to present write up.” never seen that before must be a new AF Historian.

Posted Images

I have to admit, I had no idea what a bump stock was until I watched the video of the chick on YouTube installing one and testing it with a drum magazine. If full auto weapons are highly regulated and require permitting, how can anyone modify an AR like that? It seems to me to be a technical way of circumventing federal laws.

I don’t own an AR yet, but I do have a concealed carry permit and enjoy the right to carry to protect myself if needed. I also know no additional laws will prevent all future events like Vegas, but imagine what the backlash will be 5 years from now when a Pulse nightclub or Vegas massacre happens every few months. I hope that’s not the reality, but our society’s morals are eroding by the day. I’d hate to see a vote for full on modification or repeal of the 2A when enforcing current gun laws or modifying regulations could possibly help the situation. How we go about doing that, I have no idea but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

I have to admit, I had no idea what a bump stock was until I watched the video of the chick on YouTube installing one and testing it with a drum magazine. If full auto weapons are highly regulated and require permitting, how can anyone modify an AR like that? It seems to me to be a technical way of circumventing federal laws.

I don’t own an AR yet, but I do have a concealed carry permit and enjoy the right to carry to protect myself if needed. I also know no additional laws will prevent all future events like Vegas, but imagine what the backlash will be 5 years from now when a Pulse nightclub or Vegas massacre happens every few months. I hope that’s not the reality, but our society’s morals are eroding by the day. I’d hate to see a vote for full on modification or repeal of the 2A when enforcing current gun laws or modifying regulations could possibly help the situation. How we go about doing that, I have no idea but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought.

We probably have a moral problem not a gun problem... these folks https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html who are not right leaning by any means (Nate Silver's 538 analysts) can't find a gun control solution that will work, and Chicago (where guns are almost 100% illegal, and 100% illegal for felons) had 57 murders in September alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
We probably have a moral problem not a gun problem... these folks https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html who are not right leaning by any means (Nate Silver's 538 analysts) can't find a gun control solution that will work, and Chicago (where guns are almost 100% illegal, and 100% illegal for felons) had 57 murders in September alone. 


Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity.

Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

 


Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity.

Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.

 

I can yell fire in a theater...if there's a fire.  I just can't intentionally induce a panic for no reason.  Just like I can have firearms, but I can't point them at people (or worse fire them)...unless I'm defending my life.  If guns are the problem, that means that alcohol is to blame for people being murdered via drunk driving.

Besides, if stricter gun control laws worked, then Mexico would be a much safer country than the US.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, first off, The Constituition never mentioned anything about race when counting slaves.  Second off, since slavery was banned in 1865 by The Constitution (yep, same one I'm referring to), not a single person has been counted as "3/5 of a person".  
So yes, I still do support The Constitution and its banning of slavery.  
Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres.

This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres.

This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.

Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Let me know the 38 states that will vote to ratify the change.  Besides, I thought you were a "Pro-2A" guy?  And who is going to take away our guns, exactly?   You progresives make me laugh...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Let me know the 38 states that will vote to ratify the change.  Besides, I thought you were a "Pro-2A" guy?  And who is going to take away our guns, exactly?   You progresives make me laugh...

 

*Edited to remove the personal attack. Apologies* This has to be internet bluster.

 

They don't have to change the 2A. It'll be a "common sense" set of laws that just "keep us safer" and a few more of these shootings, they'll have enough supporters to get it through Congress. Maybe it'll be after the Republicans lose the House or Senate, and the President goes to a prayer ceremony for the dead and sees that we have to do something, just can't let this go unanswered...

 

It'll go into effect, and of course be challenged, all the way up to SCOTUS. Then Roberts, in his perpetual effort to "keep the court respected," makes another not-a-tax-but-a-fine decision that shocks everyone, and boom, the new law is deemed constitutional. And now, because you worship the infallibility of the Constitution, and you recognize that the Constitution says that the SCOTUS determines if something is constitutional, you support the new law with all your patriotic furor, and your AR-15s are illegal once more. It wasn't the supreme court or Constitution that made them legal again, it was a sunset clause. Don't expect that mistake to be made again.

 

There are people who are honestly (and insanely) arguing against the first amendment. And some people are listening. I don't know if it's just because you guys haven't lived anywhere else in the world (where the things we consider inalienable rights are proven quite alienable), but this shit is only as secure as the voters who believe in it. Our politicians are for sale and the media is against you, and the best you got is "Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment?"

 

Furthermore, and back to the original point, if I really am this undercover progressive, I've asked questions that were met with non-sequiters and disparagement. Other conservatives have expressed concern as well. This is how you convince us to remain on your side?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a compromise.

This is an "either/or" issue.

Neither side is going to give, and to my mind, it's only been one side that's ever 'given,' so it will be either Constitutionally settled permanently, legally temporarily, or bloodily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

 

 

There are people who are honestly (and insanely) arguing against the first amendment. And some people are listening.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

your AR-15s are illegal once more. It wasn't the supreme court or Constitution that made them legal again, it was a sunset clause.

I’ve read all your posts and I think I understand your viewpoint excepting the above and similar statements.  What are you talking about?  The AWB of 94-04 (I think those were the years) never made ARs illegal.  In fact, this entire Vegas massacre could have been prosecuted with the same ARs available for purchase during the AWB era, as the ban was cosmetic, not functional.  The sole piece of hardware banned during that period but used in this attack was “high capacity” magazines; under the AWB era mags were limited to 10.  However, mags produced before the ban date were grandfathered in and readily available for purchase.

And that’s really key to your debate: the previous ban would not have stopped this attack, just like it didn’t stop Columbine.  Crazy people kill.  Nothing you’ve suggested would stop this incident, other than magazine capacity restrictions.  However then we’re left facing the fact that law breakers don’t follow laws.... so, your inability to justify high capacity magazines wouldn’t stop this guy from using them.  Given the level of lucidity he showed during attack prep & execution, in addition to financial resources, this guy seems like he could make his own magazines.  Yes that’s a real thing.

I’m solidly on the side of maintaining gun rights as they exist; I’d even repeal the NFA.  But for arguments sake let’s say you banned all semi-autos.  Do you think we’d not have shootings still?  The US is not Australia (to cite a commonly held comparison): were already flooded with weapons, have easy borders to cross, have a culture of gun ownership, etc.  Mexican cartels move cocaine shipments protected by full auto weapons, do you think they aren’t business savvy enough to start moving weapons instead?  Where I’m going is this: there is no putting the gun genie back in the bottle here.  It’s impossible.  There is no law which can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening when an intelligent and rich and insane person sets his mind to doing it.

if the gun control lobby wants to find a middle ground and work together, I’m happy to discuss potential legislation on mental health issues.  That they are laser focused on restricting the 2A, despite years of data disproving a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, tells me they’re uninterested in “solving” the mass shooting issue, and instead shamelessly using these tragedies to advance their partisan agenda.  I get your point- we gun owners should brace ourselves for inevitable forthcoming bans and be prepared to question the necessity of every weapon and weapon add on.  I get it, but I reject your entire premise.  What law would have stopped this crime?  The same laws that stopped Nice & Paris attacks in France?  The laws that stopped the Utoya massacre in Norway?  The laws that keep Mexico so safe?  I reject the notion of gun-violence, it’s just violence.  What fixes violence?  Culture.  

I took the time to type this out because I think your original questions were well intended, and demanded a reasoned reply.  Hope you found something in here we can agree upon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that more laws would not have prevented the massacre. Evil people will do evil things no matter what. But maybe it’s time to start playing the game a little smarter and give the crazy left something that appears like they are trying to solve the problem. I’m not sure if that’s what Lord Ratner is trying to say, but I can sure see that if we don’t agree to something now that they can tout as a ‘win’ for gun control, then the changes that do eventually get made will erode gun rights even further.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

start playing the game a little smarter and give the crazy left something.....

No.  They are not good faith partners in minimizing social violence.  We can’t give them anything, they’ll never stop taking and will create Chicago slums on a national scale.

17 minutes ago, gearpig said:

Is there any circumstance in which any person should not be allowed to purchase or possess any type of firearm without government involvement?

If so, why do you hate the second amendment and why aren't you supporting and defending the Constitution?

Is this directed to me?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gearpig said:

No point in passing a law because there will be law breakers.

You’re too smart for this straw man.  The point I’m making is more complicated than your oversimplification implies.  For example: we have speed limits.  Sure some are too slow for my tastes, but I don’t deny the need for regulation.  However, if someone spends 100k on a race car and plans the time and route to race illegally, surely you wouldn’t suggest more speed limits would stop them?  It’s an imperfect example, but the overall point of my metaphor is that yes laws are necessary but when a criminal shows a unique level of diabolical sophistication in their planning and execution of a crime, that is a person whose criminal intent cannot be legislated away solely by addressing the means used.

To your point above, I’d argue law, like any tool, is only effectively wielded by users who understand the capabilities and limitations of the tool.   I’m sure some gun laws (mandatory waiting periods?) have prevented crimes of passion while others (background checks) present obstacles for deliberate and pre-meditated criminality.  However, in this particular case, given what we currently know about the alleged shooter, any law short of a  ban & confiscation would not appear to have stopped him.  And at that point, you’ve trampled my rights without making us safer from crazy people who wish us harm.

31 minutes ago, gearpig said:

That's the spirit! Sarcastic oversimplified hyperbole is the best weapon against sincere reasoned debate over a complex issue.

Gearpig I normally enjoy your posts, but do you not feel hypocritical responding to my reasoned post with oversimplified snark, then being surprised by receiving the same in return?   I challenge you to propose a law change that could prevent a wealthy and thoughtful person from committing a mass casualty event.  Bonus points for leaving out personal attacks.

Edited by tac airlifter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...