DiamondFlyer wrote:

wingman wrote:

Automatic weapons are banned? I'm listening to that audio and it sure as shit sounds like automatic fire to me. Or maybe that machine gun fire is part of the country song? WTF..

Laws only keep honest people honest....

But walls and travel bans keep bad people out, I’m sure.

I’d really love to see a flowchart of Republican logic one day.

MrHMSH wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

They don't have a solution. They just need a scapegoat, and Chicago is one of their favorites.

Because there is truth in it. Chicago has very strict gun laws but yet look at it.. When are you liberals gonna get the fact you cannot legislate your way out of this issue. Hard core drugs, prostitution and at one time Alcohol were and still are illegal where has that gotten us? Alcohol is now legal again and the other stuff you can get pretty readily whenever you want it. This shooter had no criminal background and therefore would not have been stopped by current or future gun laws. I don't know what the answer is I don't personally agree that anyone needs AR-15's or an arsenal of weapons I am not a big gun person anyway but again I agree with background checks etc..But this reactionary view the liberals take is just a feel good measure it will not do a damn thing as long as some evil people live among us you can take away all the guns they will use another method for their carnage think Timothy McVeigh. I think more people need to speak out when they see something out of the ordinary. Maybe this guys girlfriend knew something but said nothing.I know the neighbors of the San Bernardino shooters knew something but said nothing for fear of being called racists. I think people speaking up when they see something wrong will stop this more than any gun laws will. The only people who obey laws are law abiding citizens.

The restrictions in Chicago are undermined by the fact that there are no border checks for states, and neighbouring states having much more lax gun laws?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... story.html

Not only states (WI, IN, MO), but neighboring cities (the suburbs) and counties (every county not named Cook) have lax gun laws. Doesn't take much for the suburbanites to lose their guns and have them end up in the city.

Interesting - Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/numbe ... -1-murder/



Pretty funny how that map meshes with the electoral map:

N867DA wrote:

This thread has gone pretty much exactly the way I thought. Americans are OK with gun violence, and there's no point in trying to stop it in America for a couple more generations.

You are being silly. There has been no one here saying that gun violence is Okay.

No survey to my knowledge has ever reported that a majority or even a fraction of Americans think that gun violence is Okay.

All sane people would like to see an end to gun violence,

But there are strong feelings throughout America on such issues as banning or not banning civilians from having weapons, and which weapons should be or should not be banned.

I'm for strong bans but can still respect those who hold other views.

I even respect the dummies on the Supreme Court who do not see things my way.

jetero wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

wingman wrote:

Automatic weapons are banned? I'm listening to that audio and it sure as shit sounds like automatic fire to me. Or maybe that machine gun fire is part of the country song? WTF..

Laws only keep honest people honest....

But walls and travel bans keep bad people out, I’m sure.

I’d really love to see a flowchart of Republican logic one day.

I would really love to see a flowchart on liberal logic as well. As for the wall I was never really for it a much better deterrent is force employers to use E verify and make any company who is caught knowingly hiring illegals face huge fines, jail time even take their business license the illegals will self deport.

stratosphere wrote:

jetero wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Laws only keep honest people honest....

But walls and travel bans keep bad people out, I’m sure.

I’d really love to see a flowchart of Republican logic one day.

I would really love to see a flowchart on liberal logic as well. As for the wall I was never really for it a much better deterrent is force employers to use E verify and make any company who is caught knowingly hiring illegals face huge fines, jail time even take their business license the illegals will self deport.

*Mass shooting happens*

People getting shot is bad --> Is there a way to reduce number of people getting shot? --> 2nd amendment, my rights, tyrannical government, not affecting me so I don't care, from my cold, dead hands --> Any chance of that changing? --> Never mind --> Thoughts and prayers, candles, wait for next one.

Back to the topic, do US citizens find normal that the FBI has dismissed the Islamist terrorism angle right away ? I thought with Trump the PC was supposed to end ?

It's really strange that Trump tweets instantly condemning such terrorism when it happens elsewhere, but when it's in his own backyard, suddenly it's the devil's fault or whatever nonsense ?

stratosphere wrote:

Because there is truth in it. Chicago has very strict gun laws but yet look at it..

Do you know how state borders work? It sounds like you don't.

[quote=“stratosphere”]I would really love to see a flowchart on liberal logic as well.[/quote]

A perfect example of Republican logic.

NoTime wrote:

Interesting - Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders

Wow congrats you found out people live in cities! Very impressive.

MaverickM11 wrote:

NoTime wrote:

Interesting - Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders

Wow congrats you found out people live in cities! Very impressive.

And all the mass shooters are white males who live in suburbs. NoTime, I hope Trump has you under surveillance by your (lack of) logic.

NIKV69 wrote:

Actually the reason we can't get gun control is because the left won't just stop at automatic and high cap clips. The far left wants all guns gone and that will never happen.

That is a lie and you know it. The only people who keep this lie up are right wing media outlets who hand feed it to right wing zombies who believe everything they are told period. Who and when as any "far left" politician recently said they want to ban ALL guns? Names and dates, please.

Is there a new edition of the Bible out? I ask because the right proclaims this is a Christian nation. Apparently there is a new Bible out, too, in which Jesus endorses guns for all. I want to pick up the latest edition so I don't look foolish on Sunday.

Also, when these terror attacks happen, the right is always loudest to proclaim that we can not ever do anything about Second Amendment rights. What about Philadno Castile, Tamir Rice, and Andy Lopez who were exercising their Second Amendment rights? You all stayed silent when their Second Amendment rights were stripped from them. Some of you actually sided with the police who murdered them.

But, what can we expect from a group who look at a group of dead children and simply say "meh... I got my guns, so I don't care..."

Trump supporters and/or Republicans always love showing that map when they win. I remember seeing it a lot in 2004 as well.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-ele ... am-2016-11


Looks like the US is a giant sea of red

Here's the map distorted for population:


As far as your point, there is no correlation between the county electoral vote map and amount of murders. Generally one would expect there to be more murders where there's a higher concentration of people. If anything this is just another reminder of how much gun violence is an epidemic in this country.

NoTime wrote:

Interesting - Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/numbe ... -1-murder/



Pretty funny how that map meshes with the electoral map:

seb146 wrote:

Is there a new edition of the Bible out? I ask because the right proclaims this is a Christian nation. Apparently there is a new Bible out, too, in which Jesus endorses guns for all. I want to pick up the latest edition so I don't look foolish on Sunday.

Why should you worry about looking foolish on Sunday? Do you worry about it on any other day of the week?

The safest way for you to not look foolish on Sunday is to remain absolutely silent on Sunday.

That will prevent you from sounding foolish.

Most people probably don't care what you look like.

NIKV69 wrote:

Actually the reason we can't get gun control is because the left won't just stop at automatic and high cap clips. The far left wants all guns gone and that will never happen. Write a common sense bill. Talk to your Pelosi and Warren. I have no issue with banning automatic weapons. Problem is the far left wants us to be Europe and that is just not reality

Even the slightest gun control measure will, by definition, reduce the number of guns sold. So the big losers of any such regulation are the gun manufacturers. It's in their interests to ensure that you believe that every left-leaning person wants a total gun ban to ensure that you never allow even the slightest compromise which could eat into their profits. I have no doubt there are plenty of people who would in fact like a total ban, but there are plenty who don't as well..

And there would be even fewer supporting a total ban if we took measures to reduce the numbers of high profile mass shootings. People have short memories- once the mass shootings stop or even decline, gun control will plummet to the bottom of the left's to-do list. Sensible gun control measures could be the savior of gun ownership.

But if these kind of mass shootings continue and all we get is prayers, there's a risk that public support for gun ownership could collapse, and once that happens even the Constitution won't save you.

BobPatterson wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the instances (since the 2nd Amendment was adopted) in which a group of citizens rose up as a check against tyrannical government.

I'm aware that on some occasions the Federal or State Governments have called out the militia to suppress illegal activities by groups of citizens.

Did it ever occur to you that one very big reason government hasn’t even dared turn tyrannical in the history of the U.S. is BECAUSE of the existence of the Second Amendment?

EA CO AS wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that one very big reason government hasn’t even dared turn tyrannical in the history of the U.S. is BECAUSE of the existence of the Second Amendment?

That is a poor argument. What about all the other governments out there without a 2nd amendment? Why in this same time period have they not turned tyrannical?
And is I have said, a number of well regulated militias would address that far better.

Tugg

EA CO AS wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the instances (since the 2nd Amendment was adopted) in which a group of citizens rose up as a check against tyrannical government.

I'm aware that on some occasions the Federal or State Governments have called out the militia to suppress illegal activities by groups of citizens.

Did it ever occur to you that one very big reason government hasn’t even dared turn tyrannical in the history of the U.S. is BECAUSE of the existence of the Second Amendment?

No, that has never occurred to me. You make it sound like there were times when "the government wanted to turn tyrannical" but didn't because the people had guns.

There have been times when some people thought the government was being tyrannical. The first time was when Washington rode out with the militia to suppress a rebellion. It happened several other times, most famously during the civil war. The Federal tyrants forced those secessionists to put their guns away.

There has been no real tyranny because of all the other provisions of the Constitution, not because of the 2nd Amendment.

Nor because of the sages on the Supreme Court who disagree with me.

By the way, if one accepts as a definition of tyranny "oppressive power exerted by government" (Webster's Ninth Collegiate) we began as a tyrannical nation, as any slave, such as Dred Scott, might have informed you.

The sages on the Supreme Court overruled me by 7-2 on that one.

Isn't it wonderful that we can freely disagree and argue about these things?

EA CO AS wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that one very big reason government hasn’t even dared turn tyrannical in the history of the U.S. is BECAUSE of the existence of the Second Amendment?

So the higher the rate of a country's gun ownership, the lower the prevalence of government tyranny, right? Can you plot that on a graph for me? I'd be interested to see how straight that line is, with the tyrannical Ireland with 4.3 guns per 100 people, and the libertarian paradise that is Saudi Arabia with 35 guns per 100 people.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Because none of what you just rattled off is a constitutionally granted right...

Apparently so are same sex marriage and abortion. Some states have only one abortion clinic and you never ever said a word about that, so i am thinking ramping up the requirements to a) have a gun store and b) actually get a gun to a point where it gets very, very convenient to buy one, maybe even having to go to a different state to buy one, will be totally fine with you.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

Yes, I do want to live in that country because my chances of actually being a victim of that statistic are minutely low if I'm a law-abiding citizen (few deaths occur to people not involved in criminal activity or in taking their own life). I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government. It far, far outweighs the minute chance of being a victim of a shooting that will still remain a possibility even with misguided losses of firearm freedom. It comes to a cost-benefit analysis. It's not close. The benefit side wins. You're mistaken by believing that somehow gun rights supporters aren't bothered by gun deaths. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's highly bothersome, but the difference is that the thought process behind what needs to change is different. Creating misguiding laws that take away freedom for no benefit is not a wise solution. Too many people have no problem giving away freedoms as long as it apparently doesn't personally adversely affect them. That's selfish. That's misguided. I want to protect the forearm rights of my fellow citizens no matter if I personally use it or not. What I find worth criticism is that people focus on one tool (guns) that are used in destruction, but don't put the same care into other tools that kill and harm more people, or more importantly why people want to harm themselves or other people in the first place. Cure the cause, not the symptom.

I'm listening. But don't tell me what to do as if you know better than the people of that country. You don't. I'm not telling you what to do. I wish your laws were different, but that's your country and your decision, not mine. You do as you please, and we'll do the same.

Would you be willing to give up some rights in order to be a bit more save? Americans to have a disproportional number of guns in the hands of its citizens, about 40% of all guns in the world, while there are only about 4% Americans. Gun death and all other kinds of negative things have a causal relationship with gun ownership. You gave one real reason: protection against tyrannical government. Don't you have any faith in American institutions to protect you? Do you need to have private gun ownership en mass? If might give you a safer feeling, but that feeling isn't supported by numbers, I would say the opposite even.

I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion. Do you feel save in the Netherlands when people in Utah have no rifles? I think gun ownership is part of the American culture and a symbol of the different approach of the founding fathers when it came to building a state. In Europe people depend on the state to defend them, in the US the state depends on the people to defend it. I think this constitutional idea is worth protecting.

Tugger wrote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How many dead US citizens/year from tyranny and or military attacks on the USA?
How many dead from having guns just in case you need them for the above: 30k/year.

But people do sometimes complain about the number of Vietnam war victims...

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

[
I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion.

Perhaps they want to help us to form a more perfect union.

Maybe, it's because they are failing at that task in Europe?

Interesting question.

BobPatterson wrote:

seahawk wrote:

[
I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion.

Perhaps they want to help us to form a more perfect union.

Maybe, it's because they are failing at that task in Europe?

Interesting question.

Every country has some regulations that look strange from the outside.

- Guns in the USA
- no speed limits on the highway in Germany
- liberal drug laws in the Netherlands
..

seahawk wrote:

I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion. Do you feel save in the Netherlands when people in Utah have no rifles? I think gun ownership is part of the American culture and a symbol of the different approach of the founding fathers when it came to building a state. In Europe people depend on the state to defend them, in the US the state depends on the people to defend it. I think this constitutional idea is worth protecting.

Why are you interested, as an European, in this idea, do you feel more save in Germany if people in Utah do have a gun?

The state should be the sole source of violence in a society, narrowly defined of course. I think it is the same in the US, don't see why in the US the state depends on the people to defend it. That idea sounds a way to be far more arbitrary.

seahawk wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seahawk wrote:

[
I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion.

Perhaps they want to help us to form a more perfect union.

Maybe, it's because they are failing at that task in Europe?

Interesting question.

Every country has some regulations that look strange from the outside.

- Guns in the USA
- no speed limits on the highway in Germany
- liberal drug laws in the Netherlands
..

Sure, but I am ashamed to say that the drug laws in Alaska are more liberal than in The Netherlands

BobPatterson wrote:

Perhaps they want to help us to form a more perfect union.

Maybe, it's because they are failing at that task in Europe?

Interesting question.

Compared with the polarization in the US, the EU is a paradise of harmony.

seahawk wrote:

I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion.

Maybe some of us have friends and/or family living in the US?

I think gun ownership is part of the American culture and a symbol of the different approach of the founding fathers when it came to building a state.

guess why Germany has so many Shooters streets, squares and festivals. Heck, Hanover has the worldwide biggest marksmen's festival, although just few participants actually shoot.

The USA has 60 times, only 15 times if you count illegal guns, times more firearms in private ownership than Germany, but 250 times the victims.

In Europe people depend on the state to defend them, in the US the state depends on the people to defend it. I think this constitutional idea is worth protecting.

....well regulated militia, necessary to the security of the state. Yup, 30+k gunshot victims/year is making the state so much safer....

best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

seahawk wrote:

[
I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion.

Perhaps they want to help us to form a more perfect union.

Maybe, it's because they are failing at that task in Europe?

Interesting question.

Bull shit question. Still, haven't dug into the workings of the EU and still commenting on a very superficial way, are we? I got to love that you are rating your own question as interesting.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seahawk wrote:

[
I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion.

Perhaps they want to help us to form a more perfect union.

Maybe, it's because they are failing at that task in Europe?

Interesting question.

Bull shit question. Still, haven't dug into the workings of the EU and still commenting on a very superficial way, are we? I got to love that you are rating your own question as interesting.

"Interesting question" referred to "I wonder why fellow Europeans.......".

Sorry I didn't make that the first line in my response. It was an afterthought.

socalgeo wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think your fears are groundless, removing certain types of weapons and making people get licenses for the weapons they own is in no way the start of banning weapons althogether. A good example is the right to vote and voter registration, I doubt the founding fathers thought about voter registration and never made allowances for it in the constitution, just like the second amendment, but you now have to register to vote so why shouldn't you register your weapons?

Interesting - then you would be in favor of requiring voters to show a valid ID?

Yes I would, that's why I also don't have a problem with people having national registration cards, I used to have an issue with it but after having one for the last 11 years I don't see any issues with it today.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I wonder why fellow Europeans are so interested in this discussion. Do you feel save in the Netherlands when people in Utah have no rifles? I think gun ownership is part of the American culture and a symbol of the different approach of the founding fathers when it came to building a state. In Europe people depend on the state to defend them, in the US the state depends on the people to defend it. I think this constitutional idea is worth protecting.

Why are you interested, as an European, in this idea, do you feel more save in Germany if people in Utah do have a gun?

The state should be the sole source of violence in a society, narrowly defined of course. I think it is the same in the US, don't see why in the US the state depends on the people to defend it. That idea sounds a way to be far more arbitrary.

To be honest, I hardly care what the US does with their gun laws, however I can understand the different view points in the US. In the end you discuss the topic for ages, but imho there is way too much money at play to believe that a serious regulation would come.

BobPatterson wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the instances (since the 2nd Amendment was adopted) in which a group of citizens rose up as a check against tyrannical government.

I'm aware that on some occasions the Federal or State Governments have called out the militia to suppress illegal activities by groups of citizens.

There are many instances of cops bashing the shit out or or killing people in cold blood caught on video, what I wonder is where are the good guys with guns, why aren't they helping there fellow citizens against the tyranny of the forces of government? Isn't this exactly what many supporters the the 2nd think it's all about?

Aesma wrote:

Back to the topic, do US citizens find normal that the FBI has dismissed the Islamist terrorism angle right away ? I thought with Trump the PC was supposed to end ?

It's really strange that Trump tweets instantly condemning such terrorism when it happens elsewhere, but when it's in his own backyard, suddenly it's the devil's fault or whatever nonsense ?

This isn't terrorism, this is a mass shooting, terrorism requirers some form of political or religious aim, until that's discovered this is a guy who got out of bed put his pants on and started shooting people without reason.

Kiwirob wrote:

There are many instances of cops bashing the shit out or or killing people in cold blood caught on video, what I wonder is where are the good guys with guns, why aren't they helping there fellow citizens against the tyranny of the forces of government? Isn't this exactly what many supporters the the 2nd think it's all about?

i wonder what the chances of being acquitted are if you shoot a cop that is beating the crap out of someone .......

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

There are many instances of cops bashing the shit out or or killing people in cold blood caught on video, what I wonder is where are the good guys with guns, why aren't they helping there fellow citizens against the tyranny of the forces of government? Isn't this exactly what many supporters the the 2nd think it's all about?

i wonder what the chances of being acquitted are if you shoot a cop that is beating the crap out of someone .......

best regards
Thomas

If you're defending a citizen against violence by the govt and have it all on video, you might have a pretty good chance at being acquitted.

seahawk wrote:

To be honest, I hardly care what the US does with their gun laws, however I can understand the different view points in the US. In the end you discuss the topic for ages, but imho there is way too much money at play to believe that a serious regulation would come.

That last statement is the bottom line, the NRA seems to be the toughest lobby of them all.

Dutchy wrote:

I think it is the same in the US, don't see why in the US the state depends on the people to defend it.

All nations depend on their people to defend the nation, states, provinces, municipalities.

At least I am unaware of any states/nations that hire outside mercenaries.

But that is about today, not about when the USA began more than 225 years ago.

Back then there was great resistance to the idea of a standing army. There was instead the Minuteman concept of a militia springing up spontaneously to defend the new nation.

Our 2nd Amendment with its talk about militias is an anachronism.

Kiwirob wrote:

If you're defending a citizen against violence by the govt and have it all on video, you might have a pretty good chance at being acquitted.

That is a lot of "if". If guns are supposed to protect from government violence, the burden of proof has to be below to that a cop has. Armed and a perceived threat = legal shooting.

And i am not really sure it would be good enough to have a video in any case.

best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob wrote:

socalgeo wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think your fears are groundless, removing certain types of weapons and making people get licenses for the weapons they own is in no way the start of banning weapons althogether. A good example is the right to vote and voter registration, I doubt the founding fathers thought about voter registration and never made allowances for it in the constitution, just like the second amendment, but you now have to register to vote so why shouldn't you register your weapons?

Interesting - then you would be in favor of requiring voters to show a valid ID?

Yes I would, that's why I also don't have a problem with people having national registration cards, I used to have an issue with it but after having one for the last 11 years I don't see any issues with it today.

i'm in the same boat. Having one for the last 17 has proved dead handy!

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I think it is the same in the US, don't see why in the US the state depends on the people to defend it.

All nations depend on their people to defend the nation, states, provinces, municipalities.

.
.
Our 2nd Amendment with its talk about militias is an anachronism.

The last depends on how you understand it. For example you could think of a having a volunteer militia on the county / state level, which would be a bit like the Swiss Army reservists and a bit like the Federal Agency for Technical Relief in Germany. Trained and armed citizens with a leadership structure and maybe trained in providing technical assistance in emergencies would be a very positive solution. They could provide order, security and help to rebuild the infrastructure after natural disasters.

The US has the drivers license and social security number. These are the non-mandatory mandatory identification you need to get most stuff.

So, what do we call the perpetrator of this latest attack? It's hard to tell the exact hue of whitenesss from his photo...

EA CO AS wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that one very big reason government hasn’t even dared turn tyrannical in the history of the U.S. is BECAUSE of the existence of the Second Amendment?

The same lack of rigor from those sponsoring gun ownership has also lead to the tyrannical setup to be viewed as democratic.

i.e. multi-gun owners ~= GOP ~= lockstep/love relationship with authoritarian views.

330west wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

330west wrote:

Why is it that you people need to have guns anyways? Are you that afraid of the world that you can't leave the house without a lethal weapon?

I own a firearm, I carry a firearm, but, and this is a huge but....why someone needs to own 10 firearms, let alone automatic rifles is beyond me, there is no legitimate reason to own that much fire power.

Why do you even need to own and carry one?

Because of the nature of what I used to do for a living, I used to go into companies that were in deep trouble and turn them around, there were times when employees would have to lose their jobs, it for the most part sucked to do it, but in order to save the business and other peoples jobs it needed to be done.

Rather than have another person do it, 99% of the time I would sit in and explain why it was happening and if I could (and they were a good employee) I would try and have at least an interview set up with another company for them.

However, as is of course realistic, some people were more than upset about losing their job, that I can totally understand, however, on a couple of occasions I ended up in hotel parking lots, late at night being confronted by former employees, for the most part they just wanted to yell at me, that's fair, but on one occasion I was out with the wife and it didn't just end at words being exchanged, the next day I signed up for a CCW class.

stratosphere wrote:

Because there is truth in it. Chicago has very strict gun laws but yet look at it..

The shame of it is, those laws are a total waste of time, go 45 minutes out of town and you are in Indiana, where buying a gun is easier than getting a drivers license.

Kiwirob wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Good thing good guys with guns deterred this shooter and stopped him...oh wait...that didn't happen either.

Well...thoughts and prayers then.

Dan Bilzerian ran home to get his gun after the girl standing beside him head exploded.

Had never heard of this guy.

What a winner.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... d48ca7839a

EA CO AS wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I enjoy the freedom to own, carry, and operate a firearm in most circumstances. That's a very important freedom for me personally, my fellow citizens, and for checking against tyrannical government.

I wonder if anyone has ever compiled a list of the instances (since the 2nd Amendment was adopted) in which a group of citizens rose up as a check against tyrannical government.

I'm aware that on some occasions the Federal or State Governments have called out the militia to suppress illegal activities by groups of citizens.

Did it ever occur to you that one very big reason government hasn’t even dared turn tyrannical in the history of the U.S. is BECAUSE of the existence of the Second Amendment?

Now that’s just golden.

Nice to see how your mind works (or doesn’t work) (again).

You probably gave it a thunk under Obama, didn’tcha?

You guys are just nuts. As I stated in another post please keep your manias to yourself and don’t project them on to the rest of the county.

(Ain’t nobody going to hurt you in Podunk Iowa, MSPNWA. Except maybe a mass shooter.)

jetero wrote:

(Ain’t nobody going to hurt you in Podunk Iowa, MSPNWA. Except maybe a mass shooter.)

Ain’t nobody going to hurt you anywhere unless you go looking for it.*

* Except a mass shooter. That said, you probably still have a better chance of hitting the lottery.

MrHMSH wrote:

As soon as we try to engage in discussion, you call us gun-grabbers, natter on about how we're coming for your guns, and remind us that the 2nd amendment means rights shall not be infringed, and if we want your guns we take them from your cold, dead hands. Debate with people in favour of owning guns can be hard.

So if it turns out that you don't actually mind the right to bearing arms being infringed if a person doesn't pass a background check, then the next question is why to bother with the 2nd amendment at all, why not change it so there's a clearer understanding as to who can own a gun and maybe some restrictions if they're shown to not be safe or trusted.

This is precisely why I will not engage the gun fanatics. I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion with pro-gun types who are willing to work on a solution to this country's gun problem. However, I will not engage those who immediately take the debate to "gun grabbers," "the far left wants to take all our guns," "I want to live in a society where 30,000 people die of gun deaths each year because freedom." The argument that a "good guy with a gun" is the best defense to a bad guy with a gun has been proven over and over and over to be false. The vast majority of these "good guy" stories most people can point to are home invasions and such, but the stories of mass shooter events halted by a "good guy with a gun" are in short supply.

I have a difficult time understanding how their thought-process works, but they're clearly not thinking rationally about this entire debate. There's a great essay in the New Yorker from five years ago that is still quite relevant today. It speaks of the moral choice the gun lobby and the gun fanatics have made to oppose gun control and its heavy cost on our society, particularly in the number of children that fall victim to gun violence.

"[T]hose who oppose [gun control] have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine. This is a moral choice;"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-co ... un-control

Indeed it is a moral choice. It's a failure to see the damage their love of guns is reeking on society. It's a failure to understand that the unfettered right to gun ownership hadn't even been decided until 2008. It's an failure to understand that the gun lobby is using them as pawns to further its own deadly agenda. It's sickening.

MaverickM11 wrote:

They don't have a solution. They just need a scapegoat, and Chicago is one of their favorites.

It's funny. They love to use Chicago as the scapegoat while ignoring all those cities/states with strict gun controls AND low prevalence of violent crime.

jetero wrote:

Had never heard of this guy.

What a winner.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... d48ca7839a

Oh yeah, douchebag doesn't begin to describe this guy. From everything I've read, he's a grade-A low life. And, as expected, when it actually came down to it, Mr. Macho gun owner ran from the scene. What a shock...

stratosphere wrote:

jetero wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Laws only keep honest people honest....

But walls and travel bans keep bad people out, I’m sure.

I’d really love to see a flowchart of Republican logic one day.

I would really love to see a flowchart on liberal logic as well. As for the wall I was never really for it a much better deterrent is force employers to use E verify and make any company who is caught knowingly hiring illegals face huge fines, jail time even take their business license the illegals will self deport.

Mexicans and those from Central America leave when there are no construction or farming jobs. The Republicans and tRump are doing everything they can to crash the economy again. When they do, Mexicans and Central Americans will go back. Their plan is more effective than any wall.

Why not worry about those who have overstayed their visas? If you recall, it was 19 who were on visas who carried out 9/11. And, there are already fines for companies who hire illegals. But, with Republicans cutting funding to the Labor Department so they can make sure employees are legal, why blame the workers and companies?

EDIT:

I don't know why people are going off on this tangent of illegals in America when it is white Christian men who commit mass shootings.