Aseahawkfan wrote:What gun do you buy for $65,000? Did he obtain it illegally for that price?
haxin jaxin wrote:This guy was intent on killing as many people as possible. If it wasn't with a gun, he could have easily gotten in a large truck and run people down in that same crowd killing just as many, if not more.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It was an automatic weapon. What a piece of garbage. Why ruin so many lives? What kind of hate did this idiot feel to do this?
RiverDog wrote:Reports are that it wasn't a fully automatic weapon, it had what is called a bump stock, an attachment that allows for virtually fully automatic operation, which are legal under current US gun laws. Details are still a bit sketchy.
I try to think of the victims in a senseless act like this as freedom fighters, martyrs that gave their lives so we can enjoy the freedom of not living in a police state. I don't particularly care for the stampede of politicians that try to use these events to promote their own agendas.
Largent80 wrote:^^^^^^ Ummm, hopefully YOU don't own a gun. What does a liberal have to do with gun control?????
This kind of thinking is what divides this nation.
Largent80 wrote:Fight all you want but don't take my guns is extremely laughable.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I think of it as you can't control insane people. Norway, one of the model nations for peaceful Europe, had 70 children killed by a madman. Australia banned guns, they had additional mass killings with arsons. More people are killed in oppressive nations by their government. And more people are killed in car wrecks on a daily basis and I don't see people wanting to ban cars. Soon as someone shoots someone, suddenly 99.9999999999% responsible gun owners must suddenly give up responsible gun ownership to appease a certain segment of the group.
Yet these same left wing idiots get up in arms when right wing idiots want to ban Muslims when a terrorist act occurs. The inconsistency is incredibly annoying and stupid. If we banned all Muslims, we would reduce acts of terrorism by Muslims. But it's wrong because 99.99999999% of Muslims are law-abiding citizens looking to take care of their families.
It's astounding how many people are willing to give up their freedoms and the freedoms of others when something frightful or horrifying happens. It never seems to matter to them that the vast, vast, vast majority of people are not this way and are responsible, sensible people. All that matters is they think if they ban the persons or things, it will all stop. It's ridiculous. You can't stop crazy. Crazy finds a way to do evil. It's how it is.
I don't see a reasonable way to halt all this without infringing greatly upon our freedoms. Not just guns, but monitoring in general, including creating government agencies to closely monitor mental health risks. We would literally have to assess nearly all citizens, create criteria for mental health, and monitor people constantly. I don't think that is reasonable.
We can only do the best we can to prevent these things from happening. It will never be zero. Ever. Anywhere in the world for the most part.
I can support some gun control initiatives, such as the ban on assault weapons.
Any attempt to temper the debate, by more strongly regulating military style weapons with no purpose beyond a personal rush or killing people, is immediately confronted as an attempt to take our guns.
I will end by saying that we don't threaten out freedom or our rights by making sensible adjustment to the gun laws.
I don't know what the answer is...
...when the word gun is uttered, the narrative goes bonkers politically.
the ability to get guns this easily will just lead to more of this.
c_hawkbob wrote:I am a gun owner and used to be a paying member of the NRA. They lost me when it became evident that they were more about supporting gun manufacturers and a PAC than about supporting responsible gun owners. (If that's what you want anymore I'd suggest the Civilian Marksmanship Program)
I'm all for large caliber and high power weapons, if your out hunting and are confronted by a bear or a charging moose the is no substitute for knockdown power ... but I'ts my opinion that anything that operates automatically or has a clip capacity over 10 rounds is of questionable use for anything but trying to look like a badazz to your buddies or for mass killings. You don't need a 30 shot clip to shoot a dear.
I would support legislation to that effect.
Largent80 wrote:What does that even mean? Do you write the majority of your posts while drunk or high?
Old but Slow wrote:The NRA has lost its sense of direction. In my youth I took a gun safety class from them, and learned basic gun handling. And, after, my father bought me a 12 gauge shotgun, and a 22 rifle. I learned to take care of them and treat them right. They were both stolen from me. I was naive.
A few years ago, the NRA was screaming that Obama wanted to take our guns away, and gun sales went way up. Did Obama attempt to take our guns away? No evidence of that, but the gun lobby made a bundle.
Any attempt to temper the debate, by more strongly regulating military style weapons with no purpose beyond a personal rush or killing people, is immediately confronted as an attempt to take our guns. Outlawing large ammo clips should not be an unreasonable position, but the NRA acts as though it is a threat to freedom.
I own weapons. Hunting stuff, a 12 gauge, a 30-06 rifle for elk, and a .32 pistol. They were my father's, all made in the 19teens. I prize them, and have no desire to shoot, really, although I would with the right encouragement. I hunted when I was in my teens or early 20's.
OK, I'm rambling here, but I will end by saying that we don't threaten out freedom or our rights by making sensible adjustment to the gun laws. The 2d amendment does not address regulation, and that does not mean that regulation is not allowed.
Agreed, and will add to your remarks that you don't need a 30 shot clip for self defense, either.
burrrton wrote:The fight over high-capacity mags isn't a hill I'd choose to die on, but see my WaPo link above- banning them, while superficially reasonable, would be mostly meaningless. Three 10-round magazines is practically no different than a 30-round mag- they can be changed out so quickly that you'd almost have to have a stopwatch to perceive the difference in a situation where someone is trying to get off as many shots as they can.
Of course, in a more sane time, that would mean that the 'pro-2A' crowd wouldn't be married to resisting that regulation, but the slippery slope rightfully rears its head. You *should* have to defend why you want to regulate it before anyone should have to argue why you shouldn't.
c_hawkbob wrote:If you want to talk about original intent the 2nd amendment was intended to allow small townships rural communities to maintain a "well regulated militia" so that they may defend themselves as it could take a very long time in those days for a protective response from the federal government. Not to arm individuals with enough weaponry to wipe out small townships and rural communities.
This "misunderstanding" of the constitution, as you put it, is every bit as much yours as the other side of the argument's.
Not to arm individuals with enough weaponry to wipe out small townships and rural communities.
Largent80 wrote:Thank you. Finally someone with a sane response. Actually part of that amendment was because of slavery.
I'm not sure how relevant the forefather's concerns back in the 18th century is to our society in the 21st. All they had available to them was single shot mussel loaded muskets, nor did they have a standing army like we do now.
They don't favor background checks at gun shows
Regulate the sale of assault style semi autos, at a minimum limit the amount a single individual can purchase without a dealers license and additional scrutiny. Absolutely ban clips with high rounds capacity.
Ban bump stocks.
burrrton wrote:They couldn't have anticipated the internet, social media, and cable television, either, but I doubt that would have weakened their resolve on free speech and a free press.
I think reasonable people can discuss reasonable limitations on what weaponry the citizenry is allowed to own (although neither side seems capable of being reasonable right now), but (I'm not the first to say this) saying the 2A only applies to muskets is like saying the 1A only applies to printing presses.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests