seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

My brother has an AR. They like collecting them and firing them at a shooting range. They nerd out about them(guns) like we do about aircraft. I would like to point out that making a good gun involves a lot of craftsmanship. The barrel alone involves a great deal of precision. Gun enthusiasts appreciate them like a work of art.

I'm not interested in guns myself not am I defending them, but I'm trying to give y'all some insight on what the appeal is and why gun enthusiasts get so uptight about this. The "2nd amendment people" get too caught up in defending guns from a legal standpoint, when the court of public opinion is not the supreme court. They seem to not realize that the idea of appreciating guns as a hobby is just simply a foreign concept to many.

Jouhou wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

My brother has an AR. They like collecting them and firing them at a shooting range. They nerd out about them(guns) like we do about aircraft. I would like to point out that making a good gun involves a lot of craftsmanship. The barrel alone involves a great deal of precision. Gun enthusiasts appreciate them like a work of art.

I'm not interested in guns myself not am I defending them, but I'm trying to give y'all some insight on what the appeal is and why gun enthusiasts get so uptight about this. The "2nd amendment people" get too caught up in defending guns from a legal standpoint, when the court of public opinion is not the supreme court. They seem to not realize that the idea of appreciating guns as a hobby is just simply a foreign concept to many.

I get that and I am fine with that. Many of us are. Why not have gun owners insure them and train on them like every year? Hunters should have priority over collectors but, still, why not make them prove they are part of a well regulated militia and/or register and insure them? Why is that such a crime?

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

This is why.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9f_1519430555

Jouhou wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

My brother has an AR. They like collecting them and firing them at a shooting range. They nerd out about them(guns) like we do about aircraft.

Mohammed Atta wasn't, as far as we know, and aviation enthusiast. Gun enthusiasts do happen to "fly" their guns into building from time to time.

I would like to point out that making a good gun involves a lot of craftsmanship. The barrel alone involves a great deal of precision. Gun enthusiasts appreciate them like a work of art.

Which is is and is just as fascinating to gun collectors here. They don't need to own ammunition or an actually working gun for that.

The "2nd amendment people" get too caught up in defending guns from a legal standpoint, when the court of public opinion is not the supreme court.

They have no legal point to make beyond the systematic misinterpretation of the 2nd ammendment.

They seem to not realize that the idea of appreciating guns as a hobby is just simply a foreign concept to many.

Have you seen the precision used in nuclear weapons? Guns are a joke in comparison. I still can't have one.

Best regards
Thomas

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

This is why.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9f_1519430555

if they hadn't had a gun, what would have happened? Probably the robber would have been gone.... like the other ten times.

seb146 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

My brother has an AR. They like collecting them and firing them at a shooting range. They nerd out about them(guns) like we do about aircraft. I would like to point out that making a good gun involves a lot of craftsmanship. The barrel alone involves a great deal of precision. Gun enthusiasts appreciate them like a work of art.

I'm not interested in guns myself not am I defending them, but I'm trying to give y'all some insight on what the appeal is and why gun enthusiasts get so uptight about this. The "2nd amendment people" get too caught up in defending guns from a legal standpoint, when the court of public opinion is not the supreme court. They seem to not realize that the idea of appreciating guns as a hobby is just simply a foreign concept to many.

I get that and I am fine with that. Many of us are. Why not have gun owners insure them and train on them like every year? Hunters should have priority over collectors but, still, why not make them prove they are part of a well regulated militia and/or register and insure them? Why is that such a crime?

Well, to bring up the aviation comparison again... you do have to be trained and licensed to fly a plane.

I was speaking of the knee jerk reaction of DON'T TAKE MY GUNS!!!

tommy1808 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

My brother has an AR. They like collecting them and firing them at a shooting range. They nerd out about them(guns) like we do about aircraft.

Mohammed Atta wasn't, as far as we know, and aviation enthusiast. Gun enthusiasts do happen to "fly" their guns into building from time to time.



Which is is and is just as fascinating to gun collectors here. They don't need to own ammunition or an actually working gun for that.



They have no legal point to make beyond the systematic misinterpretation of the 2nd ammendment.

Have you seen the precision used in nuclear weapons? Guns are a joke in comparison. I still can't have one.

Best regards
Thomas

... Do you really know that as fact? I'm pretty sure only a relatively small group of people on this planet are allowed to know about that. For reasons such as rogue nations getting a hold of the tech. (Although it seems Russia hasn't had an issue selling their designs to North Korea)

Jouhou wrote:

... Do you really know that as fact? I'm pretty sure only a relatively small group of people on this planet are allowed to know about that. For reasons such as rogue nations getting a hold of the tech. (Although it seems Russia hasn't had an issue selling their designs to North Korea)

Yup... Not in the technical detail, but I had components milled to that spec in my hand on a customer site. Unbelievable how smooth metal can be. Glas is like sanding paper in comparison. It is mindblowing.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

... Do you really know that as fact? I'm pretty sure only a relatively small group of people on this planet are allowed to know about that. For reasons such as rogue nations getting a hold of the tech. (Although it seems Russia hasn't had an issue selling their designs to North Korea)

Yup... Not in the technical detail, but I had components milled to that spec in my hand on a customer site. Unbelievable how smooth metal can be. Glas is like sanding paper in comparison. It is mindblowing.

Best regards
Thomas

I'm assuming by your description that it was honed/lapped/ground but yes I am familiar with this.

Jouhou wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

My brother has an AR. They like collecting them and firing them at a shooting range. They nerd out about them(guns) like we do about aircraft. I would like to point out that making a good gun involves a lot of craftsmanship. The barrel alone involves a great deal of precision. Gun enthusiasts appreciate them like a work of art.

They seem to not realize that the idea of appreciating guns as a hobby is just simply a foreign concept to many.

I totally understand where you (& genuine gun enthusiasts) are coming from.
And I'm not even going to argue that a collector should accept a disabled facsimile of a weapon. That would be like having a P-51 that doesn't fly, or expecting you to accept a fibreglass replica aircraft, glued together last week.
But for every true collector, interested in the skill & craftsmanship, there are 100 goons who simply get a rush from having a lethal weapon in their hands, and the feeling of power it confers upon them.

If we are talking about works of craftsmanship; I like owning & collecting ivory figurines. They don't pose any threat to life, unless you happen to be an elephant. However society has deemed sourcing/owning/collecting modern ivory as totally unacceptable. Even the US has inched toward shutting down the elephant ivory market, with a variety of legislation in 2013 that still allows intra-state sales in 46 states if the item is pre 1976, and out-of-state sales only if it’s more than a hundred years old or is a small part of manufactured products such as an ivory-handled gun or part of a musical instrument. In the UK, only sales of ‘worked’ items, such as works of art and ornaments dating from before 1947 (deemed ‘antiques’) is permitted.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... gulations/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-b ... vory-sales

If we can do this to limit ivory for the common good, the same should be true for guns and gun "collectors".
That then leaves us with the Second Amendment, and a simple test of reasonableness. A low-calibre (non-lethal) pistol for immediate self-defense if considered absolutely necessary, or a single-shot rifle or shotgun for dealing with vermin or to bag yourself an elk for the freezer. I don't see any place for an AR-15 or equivalent. If you want to play with weapons like those; join the army.

Meanwhile Tommy1808 & Jouhou; I'll see your precision engineered nuclear bomb components, and raise you a carved ivory tusk.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

This is why.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9f_1519430555

Again, the notion of arming everyone to the teeth just kills people, most of whom are simply bystanders. Unless you are trained military or trained police, this one instance is not true of all instances.

Collectors I get. Hunters I get. That is not "taking all guns away from everyone" like you ammosexuals keep screaming.

Let's continue with the airplane analogy:

People own military aircraft. Those military aircraft are airworthy but do not have armament. Seems logical and reasonable to me. Why not have an AR-15 that shoots one round available for collectors and have true, fully functioning AR-15s at licenced shooting ranges?

Apparently Trump supporters are angry he favors banning bump stocks (and buying lots of them).

I have not yet heard one single argument for why you need bump stocks. They allow rapid fire with extremely poor accuracy. Their only use is a Las Vegas shooting scenario, when you have enough people in front of you that wherever the bullet goes it will hit.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It wasn't airtight security. That only costs extra Billions in manpower to cover every school in America.

On how to repurpose the education budget.

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right. You should be desiring to protect the rights that others value. I want to protect the rights you value, whether I use or value them or not.

And semi-automatic firearms are not alone in "need". There's countless examples. One is that we don't "need" alcohol. It's a powerful, sometimes destructive, and too often indirectly deadly substance. Yet it's also lawful under restrictions, and no one needs a reason to consume it.

MSPNWA wrote:

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right..

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob wrote:

Plus the quality of teachers had dropped due to poor salaries and working conditions. it really doesn’t look good for the US.

Isn't it funny how they think that spending 3 times as much on the military ain't enough, but China having more honor students than the US having students won't create a long term problem?

Best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Aesma wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

How was killer able to get around school security?

Accused gunman Nikolas Cruz, who had been expelled from the school for behavioral problems, arrived on campus about 20 minutes before the school day ended. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High has fences, gates and emergency procedures to keep students safe, but a determined gunman found a way around them. He came when he knew the gates would be open and set off a fire alarm that would dismantle a safety system, officials say. As a result, doors that would have otherwise remained shut were being opened by students, making it easier for the gunman to find victims, experts say

So basically the school already spent a lot of money on security, that proved ineffective.

It wasn't airtight security. That only costs extra Billions in manpower to cover every school in America.

But, we don't have, nor do we need a "Federal National Education System" in America. Public education is left up to local area/states. This is not Mother Russia, nor do I want it to be.

I've got it.... why don't we slash out Defense Budget to the bone, leave off being a Military Superpower, and use those Billions for Education and other stuff. We'll leave being a Military Superpower for the good of the world to.... Communist China. We'll let's see how that works out IN THE LONG RUN!

Education for all but a few lucky people living in the right locations with wealthy families has been starved of finances and standards have been dropping for decades, soon the US population will be too stupid to build all those weapons systems because you’ll run out of educated people. Plus the quality of teachers had dropped due to poor salaries and working conditions. it really doesn’t look good for the US.

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

NIKV69 wrote:

This is why.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9f_1519430555

You have got to be kidding me!

Those two girls couldn't handle the little popguns they had, and you want to let them loose with semi-automatics?

For sure, somebody would have been killed, but my money is on the daughter shooting her own mother, which she very nearly accomplished at 1m20s. Perhaps if she had put the phone down and held the gun in both hands, or taken up a better shooting angle, or...... yeah, let's give her an AR-15 instead.

For those who haven't seen the video, here's a summary.
The single robber, armed with a shotgun, was only interested in the cash register, and had no intention of harming the two clerks. Please don't argue that I couldn't possibly know that as I will simply re-direct you back to the video.
And while we are at it, even after he was fired upon, I didn't see him open up with the shotgun, which begs the question, was it even loaded?

They two women (Mother, 53 & daughter, 30) displayed no tactical awareness and should have taken defensive positions to either side of the counter, or retired to the rear of the store. (q.v. Second Amendment "well regulated {i.e. trained} militia")

Quote of the day; "Ashley then puts her hands up as Tyrone rifles through the register."

Numerous shots were fired at the perp, mainly from very close range, and yet the main risk was shot #1 which nearly took out the CCTV camera, and later when the daughter joined in with a second weapon and narrowly missed hitting her mother whilst she wrestled with the perp. When you are in possession of a loaded gun, and the other man isn't (Tyrone Lee having now discarded the useless shotgun), don't let him get close enough to be a problem.

The only reason this wasn't a total bloodbath is because the perp, Tyrone Lee, did not discharge his shotgun at the women. And because the handguns that the women used didn't seem to have lethal stopping power. On both counts we should be grateful.
Imparting semi-automatic weapons to either side would not in any way have improved this outcome. But you wouldn't guess that from the responses posted on various sites. For many in America this video is the gun-lovers equivalent of porn. I'm sure countless good ol' boys all around America watched it whilst nursing a semi......

But let's end with a nice touch; Tyrone Lee's aunt stopped by the store on Friday. She apologized to the family who own & run the store (which includes the two women involved), and AFAIK they apologized to her for having to put her nephew into hospital.

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right. You should be desiring to protect the rights that others value. I want to protect the rights you value, whether I use or value them or not.

And semi-automatic firearms are not alone in "need". There's countless examples. One is that we don't "need" alcohol. It's a powerful, sometimes destructive, and too often indirectly deadly substance. Yet it's also lawful under restrictions, and no one needs a reason to consume it.

Right, nobody needs permission to exercise rights.

Besides, these are all esoteric arguments anyway. Let's imagine a world where gun control was fully enacted. Whoops too late, because untraceable, 3D printed AR-15s and handguns are already a thing. The genie is already out of the bottle.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... ndguns/amp

Even if guns were "outlawed", millions of people would be 3d printing them at home. Authoritarians like seb who envision mass confiscation and disarmament (which ironically could only be accomplished via heavily armed government agents) would quickly realize the futility of their efforts.

A war on guns would go about as well as the war on drugs has.

tommy1808 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right..

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

Stick to speaking German Tommy. Your English reading comprehension is not so good. Arms isn't referencing human appendages in this case.

FreequentFlier wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right..

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

Stick to speaking German Tommy. Your English reading comprehension is not so good. Arms isn't referencing human appendages in this case.

1. something which has been written over 200years ago is an absolute truth and we can't discuss it?
2. What is arms? Including all arms, so no restrictions?

FreequentFlier wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right..

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

Stick to speaking German Tommy. Your English reading comprehension is not so good. Arms isn't referencing human appendages in this case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ ... _bear_arms

Arms is not refering to weapons either.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

Stick to speaking German Tommy. Your English reading comprehension is not so good. Arms isn't referencing human appendages in this case.

1. something which has been written over 200years ago is an absolute truth and we can't discuss it?
2. What is arms? Including all arms, so no restrictions?

I'm just correcting tommy's factually incorrect statement.

tommy1808 wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

Stick to speaking German Tommy. Your English reading comprehension is not so good. Arms isn't referencing human appendages in this case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ ... _bear_arms

Arms is not refering to weapons either.

Best regards
Thomas

LOL! The founding fathers weren't referring to coats of arms in the constitution. Just admit you were wrong and move on. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

FreequentFlier wrote:

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

And yet that right is infringed in multiple ways. The SC has also ruled that the right is not unlimited and that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of firearms.

So how do you square that with the words "shall not be infringed"? I guess the pro-gun lobby simply has its own unique interpretation just as it does with the words "as part of an organised malitia".

Dutchy wrote:

if they hadn't had a gun, what would have happened? Probably the robber would have been gone.... like the other ten times.

Yes he is one of the friendly armed robbers. Since you have your crystal ball out who is going to win the world series? Want to get a bet down.

seb146 wrote:

Again, the notion of arming everyone to the teeth just kills people, most of whom are simply bystanders.

Who said arm everyone? Why do you keep defaulting to this CNN propaganda? It's a choice. Not every liquor store owner should have a gun but their choice to do so should never be taken away.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The single robber, armed with a shotgun, was only interested in the cash register, and had no intention of harming the two clerks.ore :

Another person with a crystal ball who also sympathizes with felons committing armed robbery. Excuse me but I totally ignored your reply.

[quote="NIKV69"]Who said arm everyone? Why do you keep defaulting to this CNN propaganda? It's a choice. Not every liquor store owner should have a gun but their choice to do so should never be taken away.

Nikky V, please let me know where this is being proposed other than the Domino Theory of your mind.

NIKV69 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

if they hadn't had a gun, what would have happened? Probably the robber would have been gone.... like the other ten times.

Yes he is one of the friendly armed robbers. Since you have your crystal ball out who is going to win the world series? Want to get a bet down.

So you have a crystal ball? Why would you shoot someone if you are only after the money? Apparently, he had 10 armed robberies in his name, before this....

wardialer wrote:

Ok ok...Sorry Its not bashing the US. I am a proud American myself and pro-gun.
I agree, its not all about the guns that's at fault here but its the people of America.

The US should be like Israel as well. Having armed guards in airports and at every malls and schools.

Americans tend to be weakened by stress than Europeans and even Asians.
American teens don't get to travel as much as they do in European countries so their minds wonder about...practically due to boredom.

But I am willing to bet this kid was drugged up by a shrink with who knows what type of psychotropic meds that may have triggered his fantasies about killing up many people.

Why couldn't teachers be armed?

There are over 300 million guns in the USA. I'm a proud gun owner who routinely teaches other people the basics.

To others:
If guns are to be banned, that requires a change to the Constitution.

This assailant had dozens of Sheriff calls. Existing laws should have disarmed him. He showed up at school with a backpack full of bullets! That isn't normal!

I have kids, so my guns are locked up as well as ammo.

There is a bad neighborhood that is now safe due to how many home owners have guns. Not a problem in years, but within a few blocks, with just the people I know, thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammo.

If the legal gun owners of America were a problem, you would know it. I've owned guns for 30+ years and have never had less than a thousand rounds of ammo; why should I give up a right and hobby?

Europe has a bad history of people being suppressed because they were unarmed.

Let's deal with the opiates problem please. There has been a rash of suicide in the USA and 80% of the people I know who took there lives we're with opiates. On gun and one hanging. Oh, all but one of the opiates suicides were ruled accidental... Sorry... Wasn't.

Lightsaber

jetero wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Who said arm everyone? Why do you keep defaulting to this CNN propaganda? It's a choice. Not every liquor store owner should have a gun but their choice to do so should never be taken away.

Nikky V, please let me know where this is being proposed other than the Domino Theory of your mind.

Guys, stop with the gas lighting. It's not fooling anyone. The last Democratic President is on record calling for an Australian style mandatory gun buyback policy.

Let's say it actually passed somehow and armed agents went door to door confiscating firearms.

Gun rights supporters can now 3D print metallic AR-15 style firearms in their basement. Your dreams of disarming people you don't like are already doomed to failure.

Anti-gun advocates need to decide if their intent is stop mass shootings, or if it's to disarm gun owners simply out of malice. If it's the former, reasonable actions can be taken to address it. If it's the latter, then nothing will be accomplished, since millions will still just be gunsmithing and 3D printing in their own homes. And a 2nd civil war might be sparked in the interim.
Adjust your reality accordingly.

NIKV69 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

The single robber, armed with a shotgun, was only interested in the cash register, and had no intention of harming the two clerks.
Please don't argue that I couldn't possibly know that as I will simply re-direct you back to the video.
And while we are at it, even after he was fired upon, I didn't see him open up with the shotgun, which begs the question, was it even loaded?

Another person with a crystal ball who also sympathizes with felons committing armed robbery. Excuse me but I totally ignored your reply.

No worries; it wasn't written exclusively for your benefit. I was posting it for the majority here who have open minds and freedom of thought.

So, did you see him fire off that shotgun, either before or after he was shot at it himself? I thought not......

And speaking of crystal balls.... where did you get the idea I am "another person who sympathizes with armed robbery" from?

All in all, I'm reading a lot of balls.

Which reminds me; having watched the video, how are you getting on with that semi?

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Who said arm everyone? Why do you keep defaulting to this CNN propaganda? It's a choice. Not every liquor store owner should have a gun but their choice to do so should never be taken away.

Nikky V, please let me know where this is being proposed other than the Domino Theory of your mind.

Guys, stop with the gas lighting. It's not fooling anyone. The last Democratic President is on record calling for an Australian style mandatory gun buyback policy.

Let's say it actually passed somehow and armed agents went door to door confiscating firearms.

Gun rights supporters can now 3D print metallic AR-15 style firearms in their basement. Your dreams of disarming people you don't like are already doomed to failure.

Anti-gun advocates need to decide if their intent is stop mass shootings, or if it's to disarm gun owners simply out of malice. If it's the former, reasonable actions can be taken to address it. If it's the latter, then nothing will be accomplished, since millions will still just be gunsmithing and 3D printing in their own homes. And a 2nd civil war might be sparked in the interim.
Adjust your reality accordingly.

There we go again ... essentially being threatened by a gun owner.

lightsaber wrote:

If the legal gun owners of America were a problem, you would know it. I've owned guns for 30+ years and have never had less than a thousand rounds of ammo; why should I give up a right and hobby?

Lightsaber

There's a huge problem with your point. Most guns that kill people were or are in fact legally purchased. Any person can buy a weapon at a gun show. Any person can circumvent state restrictions by simply crossing state lines to buy. The Florida killer legally owned his weapon of mass murder. What sane Americans want is dialogue around tightening up the definition of "legal". Over the course of our history, and especially with the advent of the NRA as the sole power broker in this national debate, millions upon millions of guns have been legally manufactured and sold in the US. Those numbers keep going up but the mass death doesn't go down (so teachers with guns is an absolutely moronic approach to this problem, witness the fact that there was an actual trained armed officer at the school and he didn't do shit to stop it..so what makes people think that Larry the math teacher and Suzie from English Lit are going to stop the next Columbine with their Glocks...please Jesus where is the sanity?).

Asians, Africans, Europeans, Latinos are all EXACTLY the same. They all have the same mental problems, watch the same violent TV and play the same insane video games. You've seen the charts, despite this fact one country stands out from all others (including countries that have their own LEGAL gun ownership traditions). Which country is the outlier and what is the singular scientific fact that makes it different from all others? The answer is the United States, guns and mass shootings that now take place practically every fucking quarter.

You're a nice guy Lightsaber, a genuine law-abiding American with a clean record. Aren't you willing to try a new tactic in this tragedy by going through a process as painless as buying and operating a motor vehicle, closing the gun show loophole, initiating a massive national buy back campaign to get guns off the streets, prevent cross state purchases and travel with weapons unless specifically allowed? No one in American history has EVER threatened to take any anyone's guns. Despite the fear mongering shoved down your throat and the throats of all gun owners, the number of guns just keeps going up. Isn't 1000 dead kids worth a conversation, one that doesn't instantly devolve into this idiotic screaming about " from my cold dead hands"?

Apply the same level of rational thought you tend to display in these forums and tell me what you think.

lightsaber wrote:

Why couldn't teachers be armed?

It's not a great idea. The funding and training will have to be carried out, putting a lot of stress on what is already a very stressing job, as well as a lot of responsibility on their shoulders, having to make the decision to shoot a student or not and live with the consequences. Easy to see where this could go wrong, as anyone who has taught in schools probably knows (yes, I'm a teacher and I would be horrified if someone gave me a gun and the responsibility). Teachers are meant to teach and enlighten, not police.

There are over 300 million guns in the USA. I'm a proud gun owner who routinely teaches other people the basics.

Given that thousands of Americans are dying every year from firearms, I suggest you widen the net a little, because someone's not doing their job properly.

To others:
If guns are to be banned, that requires a change to the Constitution.

Most people think there should be more regulations, not bans.

This assailant had dozens of Sheriff calls. Existing laws should have disarmed him. He showed up at school with a backpack full of bullets! That isn't normal!

I have kids, so my guns are locked up as well as ammo.

There is a bad neighborhood that is now safe due to how many home owners have guns. Not a problem in years, but within a few blocks, with just the people I know, thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammo.

If the legal gun owners of America were a problem, you would know it. I've owned guns for 30+ years and have never had less than a thousand rounds of ammo; why should I give up a right and hobby?

No one's asking you to give up your hobby, only that you agree to ways that help prevent guns getting into the hands of people who use them for mass shootings, murders and such.

The bad neighbourhood is better because of guns?

Europe has a bad history of people being suppressed because they were unarmed.

Let's deal with the opiates problem please. There has been a rash of suicide in the USA and 80% of the people I know who took there lives we're with opiates. On gun and one hanging. Oh, all but one of the opiates suicides were ruled accidental... Sorry... Wasn't.

Lightsaber

I'd like to know which Europeans were oppressed that didn't have firearms.

In any case we're much less bothered about being armed, if we want to get rid of our governments we vote them out, the ability to feel like you could stand against the government/military for us simply isn't worth the guarantee of more deaths every year from guns.

scbriml wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

And yet that right is infringed in multiple ways. The SC has also ruled that the right is not unlimited and that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit all regulation of firearms.

So how do you square that with the words "shall not be infringed"? I guess the pro-gun lobby simply has its own unique interpretation just as it does with the words "as part of an organised malitia".

I agree with some regulation, but when is a right regulated away? For example, in California new semi-auto pistol types cannot be sold and any on the market over 5 years cannot be sold either.

But let us also be realistic. You do realize how easy it is to make a gun, right? I personally know over 80 people who made an AK-47 from scratch. You know, the gun invented in a primitive Soviet rail repair garage? Have you seen photos of the machine shop John Browning invented the 1911 pistol? I have more capability in my garage and among engineers, I have a poor home machining setup.

Ammo isn't hard either. Not for Soviet or older designs. I know a few people (not many), who made ammo from scratch too.

All you do is keep guns from law abiding people.

Heck, on of my friends made 3 AK-47s, a couple 1911s, and a CZ-75 at home. Another when he listed off what he's made we plugged our ears and told him to get them out of California as they were class A.

Maybe it's because I hang around and work with people who design and build next generation aircraft.

I'm ok with proposals to make sport rifles for purchase online at an older age, for most troublemakers have a felony by age 25.

I'll teach my kids to shoot, but at a later age than I learned entirely due to my older child not being ready.

But I'm miffed I cannot get a carry permit in LA county. Then again, a few dozen coworkers figured a work around and will be getting theirs... Hmm...

It shouldn't be only the rich or political can defend themselves. For example, every Hollywood and political figure has armed bodyguards. What makes them nobility? Guns for me but not for thee?

Regulate reasonably. Let people hunt, skeet shoot, and protect themselves.

But you do realize the popularity of the AR-15 is because it can be cheaply made in a mom and pop machine shop? America manufactures.

And you do know gun crime is most prevalent in gun free zones? With 300+ million legally owned guns plus a huge number in criminal gangs...

I insist on keeping my constitutional rights, for without them there is no law.

Lightsaber

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Who said arm everyone? Why do you keep defaulting to this CNN propaganda? It's a choice. Not every liquor store owner should have a gun but their choice to do so should never be taken away.

Nikky V, please let me know where this is being proposed other than the Domino Theory of your mind.

Guys, stop with the gas lighting. It's not fooling anyone. The last Democratic President is on record calling for an Australian style mandatory gun buyback policy.

Let's say it actually passed somehow and armed agents went door to door confiscating firearms.

Gun rights supporters can now 3D print metallic AR-15 style firearms in their basement. Your dreams of disarming people you don't like are already doomed to failure.

Anti-gun advocates need to decide if their intent is stop mass shootings, or if it's to disarm gun owners simply out of malice. If it's the former, reasonable actions can be taken to address it. If it's the latter, then nothing will be accomplished, since millions will still just be gunsmithing and 3D printing in their own homes. And a 2nd civil war might be sparked in the interim.
Adjust your reality accordingly.

I missed your post. You don't need a 3D printer to make guns at home. Any half competent engineer or machinist can do it with common stuff from home Depot. Anyone who cannot make homemade ammo shouldn't call themselves an engineer. We're talking 1903 to 1950's technology (for non-polymer guns). Ghad old stuff is trivial to make at home. You just don't need much due to most gun designs pre-dating modern coatings and materials.

The 1911 is 1905 technology. I wish I knew how to properly explain how primitive manufacturing was prior to the global electrification that occurred in the 1920s...

We need policies to stop mass shootings.
We need to de-stigmatize suicide to fix a crisis.

To others:
But if it is to punish a political opposition, I hope you realize most legal gun owners own because the government is failing them in some way (protection).

Look at New York state, a huge number of known gun owners are protesting registration and opted out. So many previously legal gun owners that the State Police had to issue statements they will be left alone or they loose neighborhood cooperation!

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

If the legal gun owners of America were a problem, you would know it. I've owned guns for 30+ years and have never had less than a thousand rounds of ammo; why should I give up a right and hobby?

Because it is not a right; that is a warped mis-reading of the Second Amendment.
And a thousand rounds of ammo isn't a hobby; it's a serious worry for your neighbors, just waiting for the day you take one trip too many (and I'm not talking about flying), have one beer too many, or quietly drift off into dementia. That's not an insult, and hopefully you will be spared; but it's a real factor related to getting old. I'm pretty sure I've got it coming my way because I've seen it already manifest itself in my parents and grandparents. Thankfully my father never had access to a gun + 1,000 rounds of ammo.

lightsaber wrote:

Europe has a bad history of people being suppressed because they were unarmed.

Go on, enlighten me. Seriously.

I don't doubt you can come up with some countries where people were suppressed; I'm more interested in how an armed militia would have saved them.
In most cases, the best you could hope for is civil war between two opposing groups of heavily armed militia.
In other cases it was pea-shooters against tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... on_of_1956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pa ... hoslovakia
and the daddy of them all...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia


On the other hand, the events leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall thankfully avoided any mention of any armed citizens...

Wikipedia wrote:

It soon became clear that no one among the East German authorities would take personal responsibility for issuing orders to use lethal force, so the vastly outnumbered soldiers had no way to hold back the huge crowd of East German citizens.

Are you reading this piece of history differently, maybe with gunfire in the background? I believe we should all be very grateful that the masses were unarmed.

C'mon Lightsaber; you are usually such a beacon of commonsense in a sea of utter madness. Don't burst that bubble.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Again, the notion of arming everyone to the teeth just kills people, most of whom are simply bystanders.

Who said arm everyone? Why do you keep defaulting to this CNN propaganda? It's a choice. Not every liquor store owner should have a gun but their choice to do so should never be taken away.

Because Republicans and terrorist organization NRA keep perpetuating the myth (lie) of "good guy with a gun" and that arming everyone makes us safe. IT DOES NOT WORK. "Defaulting to CNN propaganda" is not even the same thing as repeating what I hear directly from gun nuts, ammosexuals, Republicans and terrorist organization NRA.

Why do you keep insisting anyone who wants to talk about gun laws wants to ban all guns? Why do you default to the FOX/main stream media propaganda?

FreequentFlier wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right..

It is not, it is a failure to comprehend the English languange, killing 10th of thousands per year.

There is no reference to weapons in the US constitution.

Best regards
Thomas

"The right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."

Stick to speaking German Tommy. Your English reading comprehension is not so good. Arms isn't referencing human appendages in this case.

You ammosexuals keep leaving out "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"

FreequentFlier wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why does someone need semi-automatic weapons?

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right. You should be desiring to protect the rights that others value. I want to protect the rights you value, whether I use or value them or not.

And semi-automatic firearms are not alone in "need". There's countless examples. One is that we don't "need" alcohol. It's a powerful, sometimes destructive, and too often indirectly deadly substance. Yet it's also lawful under restrictions, and no one needs a reason to consume it.

Right, nobody needs permission to exercise rights.

Really? Because Blacks, women and LGBTQI community would disagree. Why does your "right" to carry an optional piece of equipment outweigh my right to live how I want to live?

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is how the Amendment starts. It does NOT start with bear arms. The Founding Fathers wrote it that way for a reason. They put WELL REGULATED MILITIA first.

seb146 wrote:

Why do you keep insisting anyone who wants to talk about gun laws wants to ban all guns? Why do you default to the FOX/main stream media propaganda?

I don't watch Fox. The people that say ban semi automatic weapons are not on FOX either. Much like the immigration bill. Republicans said fine Dreamers can stay as long as you secure the border and not one Democrat will even talk to them, They are doing the same here. If a bill gets to them that says, ban bump stocks, no gun show loophole, wait till 21, better background checks and no high capacity clips not one democrat will vote for it. Unless it has a ban on semi auto weapons.

It's right in front on your face but keep denying it. Everyone says they want common sense gun reform until it's time to actually do it. We will have another mass shooting and this time the person will not be insane or known to law enforcement. He may even use handguns like Virginia tech and Gabby Giffords. Then what will you say?

We all now what you will say. Which is why legislation never even gets to the floor for a vote. Now if you stopped making gun owners out to be insane whackos and making props out of victims insulting people that own guns maybe we can get somewhere but to continue to tow the far left lets be Europe model we will get nowhere. It's a non starter.

Dutchy wrote:

So you have a crystal ball? Why would you shoot someone if you are only after the money? Apparently, he had 10 armed robberies in his name, before this....

So you support just letting someone with a deadly weapon rob you and let them go? Sorry that is anarchy and it can't stand. If I was those women I would have an issue with someone pointing a loaded weapon at me and stealing my hard earned money just to let them go on their way. I would have been armed and shot him. Maybe if more people did less people like him would hold up liquor stores and get a job.

NIKV69 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So you have a crystal ball? Why would you shoot someone if you are only after the money? Apparently, he had 10 armed robberies in his name, before this....

So you support just letting someone with a deadly weapon rob you and let them go? Sorry that is anarchy and it can't stand. If I was those women I would have an issue with someone pointing a loaded weapon at me and stealing my hard earned money just to let them go on their way. I would have been armed and shot him. Maybe if more people did less people like him would hold up liquor stores and get a job.

As far as I know, robbing someone isn't a capital offense, but I could be wrong in the US. Anarchy? I would say if you start shooting at a suspect, that is anarchy, letting the police and the justice system handle it, it is definitely not. Money isn't worth someones live, but that is just me.

lightsaber : in France you can own 12 firearms with 1000 rounds for each. You need to pass a medical (psychological assessment, basically), you need to have not been convicted of violent acts, and to not have been committed involuntarily to a psych hospital. You need to be 18. And finally, you need to have a valid sport shooter license. Semi-auto handguns are legal to own in this context, semi-auto rifles too, with a 3 rounds magazine limit for the latter (21 for the former).

Does that seem reasonable to you or not ?

With these rules, outside of hunters (rules are different for hunting rifles), a majority of people don't own guns. Many do, but they're often WW1 or WW2 memorabilia, either inherited or collected.

If I wanted guns I could pass these hoops without trouble, I might even do it one day, I used to shoot a bow, I'm sure I'd like shooting a handgun.

Yet most crimes in this country are committed without firearms, and that means that 99,99% of the time nobody dies, unless the crime is premeditated murder of course. Even if that case, it's much more difficult to kill your spouse with a knife than with a gun.

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

Guys, stop with the gas lighting. It's not fooling anyone. The last Democratic President is on record calling for an Australian style mandatory gun buyback policy.

Let's say it actually passed somehow and armed agents went door to door confiscating firearms.

Gun rights supporters can now 3D print metallic AR-15 style firearms in their basement. Your dreams of disarming people you don't like are already doomed to failure.

Anti-gun advocates need to decide if their intent is stop mass shootings, or if it's to disarm gun owners simply out of malice. If it's the former, reasonable actions can be taken to address it. If it's the latter, then nothing will be accomplished, since millions will still just be gunsmithing and 3D printing in their own homes. And a 2nd civil war might be sparked in the interim.
Adjust your reality accordingly.

There we go again ... essentially being threatened by a gun owner.

I'm not a gun owner.

But I would imagine gun owners would feel as welcoming to people trying to strip away their rights as anyone else would. They're not going to just sit there and take it.

Would you tell a gay person to just docilely accept it if a GOP politician tried to eliminate gay marriage at this point?

seb146 wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

We don't have to have a need. It's a Constitutionally-protected right. You should be desiring to protect the rights that others value. I want to protect the rights you value, whether I use or value them or not.

And semi-automatic firearms are not alone in "need". There's countless examples. One is that we don't "need" alcohol. It's a powerful, sometimes destructive, and too often indirectly deadly substance. Yet it's also lawful under restrictions, and no one needs a reason to consume it.

Right, nobody needs permission to exercise rights.

Really? Because Blacks, women and LGBTQI community would disagree. Why does your "right" to carry an optional piece of equipment outweigh my right to live how I want to live?

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is how the Amendment starts. It does NOT start with bear arms. The Founding Fathers wrote it that way for a reason. They put WELL REGULATED MILITIA first.

Because nobody needs your permission to exercise their rights. If that makes you upset, good.

wingman wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

If the legal gun owners of America were a problem, you would know it. I've owned guns for 30+ years and have never had less than a thousand rounds of ammo; why should I give up a right and hobby?

Lightsaber

There's a huge problem with your point. Most guns that kill people were or are in fact legally purchased. Any person can buy a weapon at a gun show. Any person can circumvent state restrictions by simply crossing state lines to buy. The Florida killer legally owned his weapon of mass murder. What sane Americans want is dialogue around tightening up the definition of "legal". Over the course of our history, and especially with the advent of the NRA as the sole power broker in this national debate, millions upon millions of guns have been legally manufactured and sold in the US. Those numbers keep going up but the mass death doesn't go down (so teachers with guns is an absolutely moronic approach to this problem, witness the fact that there was an actual trained armed officer at the school and he didn't do shit to stop it..so what makes people think that Larry the math teacher and Suzie from English Lit are going to stop the next Columbine with their Glocks...please Jesus where is the sanity?).

Asians, Africans, Europeans, Latinos are all EXACTLY the same. They all have the same mental problems, watch the same violent TV and play the same insane video games. You've seen the charts, despite this fact one country stands out from all others (including countries that have their own LEGAL gun ownership traditions). Which country is the outlier and what is the singular scientific fact that makes it different from all others? The answer is the United States, guns and mass shootings that now take place practically every fucking quarter.

You're a nice guy Lightsaber, a genuine law-abiding American with a clean record. Aren't you willing to try a new tactic in this tragedy by going through a process as painless as buying and operating a motor vehicle, closing the gun show loophole, initiating a massive national buy back campaign to get guns off the streets, prevent cross state purchases and travel with weapons unless specifically allowed? No one in American history has EVER threatened to take any anyone's guns. Despite the fear mongering shoved down your throat and the throats of all gun owners, the number of guns just keeps going up. Isn't 1000 dead kids worth a conversation, one that doesn't instantly devolve into this idiotic screaming about " from my cold dead hands"?

Apply the same level of rational thought you tend to display in these forums and tell me what you think.

I'll flip the question back to you anti-gun folks. Do you:

1) seek to end mass shootings and figuring out ways to that end?
or
2) seek to disarm the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners because you don't like guns or gun owners, and feel you can just exert raw power over other citizens?

Increasingly the answer is 2. Well, 2 is never going to happen. Even if a law was ever on the books, guns can now be 3D printed and done so untraceably.

So again, adjust your reality accordingly.

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

Guys, stop with the gas lighting. It's not fooling anyone. The last Democratic President is on record calling for an Australian style mandatory gun buyback policy.

Let's say it actually passed somehow and armed agents went door to door confiscating firearms.

Gun rights supporters can now 3D print metallic AR-15 style firearms in their basement. Your dreams of disarming people you don't like are already doomed to failure.

Anti-gun advocates need to decide if their intent is stop mass shootings, or if it's to disarm gun owners simply out of malice. If it's the former, reasonable actions can be taken to address it. If it's the latter, then nothing will be accomplished, since millions will still just be gunsmithing and 3D printing in their own homes. And a 2nd civil war might be sparked in the interim.
Adjust your reality accordingly.

There we go again ... essentially being threatened by a gun owner.

I'm not a gun owner.

But I would imagine gun owners would feel as welcoming to people trying to strip away their rights as anyone else would. They're not going to just sit there and take it.

Would you tell a gay person to just docilely accept it if a GOP politician tried to eliminate gay marriage at this point?

Oh so now you people are equating the rights of lgbtq people and same sex marriage with the right and need of some people to own guns? Last time I checked, no one's born with such an irrational fear of the world that they need a gun to function in society.

bagoldex wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

There we go again ... essentially being threatened by a gun owner.

I'm not a gun owner.

But I would imagine gun owners would feel as welcoming to people trying to strip away their rights as anyone else would. They're not going to just sit there and take it.

Would you tell a gay person to just docilely accept it if a GOP politician tried to eliminate gay marriage at this point?

Oh so now you people are equating the rights of lgbtq people and same sex marriage with the right and need of some people to own guns? Last time I checked, no one's born with such an irrational fear of the world that they need a gun to function in society.

Both are civil rights, so yes, I absolutely am equating them.

No one is born with "an irrational need to get married" but I would never deny someone that right, just as I would never deny anyone the right to carry and defend themselves.

bagoldex wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

There we go again ... essentially being threatened by a gun owner.

I'm not a gun owner.

But I would imagine gun owners would feel as welcoming to people trying to strip away their rights as anyone else would. They're not going to just sit there and take it.

Would you tell a gay person to just docilely accept it if a GOP politician tried to eliminate gay marriage at this point?

Oh so now you people are equating the rights of lgbtq people and same sex marriage with the right and need of some people to own guns? Last time I checked, no one's born with such an irrational fear of the world that they need a gun to function in society.

Well baglodex beat me to it, but seriously, FF.

Let me recap this for you.

What is being tossed about is some form of gun control legislation.

The only real "proposals" I've heard being discussed since Parkland are:

-Minimum age to buy guns

-Universal background checks

-Force states to report to federal background check database

-Some sort of restrictions on people with mental health issues buying guns

-Assault weapons ban

-Bump stocks ban

-Arming teachers

-Adding security to schools

Congress (or states) can pass laws that regulate gun ownership. (Whether or not they will do so is another question.)

The constitutionality of these laws can be tested by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has already said--Scalia included!--that the Second Amendment does not preclude the regulation of gun ownership. Details to be determined one day. (Of course not if the NRA has its way.)

We have people on here (yourself included) literally saying that the above process is not possible. Forget about efficacy--you are literally saying it's not possible.

And on top of that you're saying it doesn't matter anyway as there would be a second civil war.

I hope that the above process does happen and the gun nutters do go out and revolt.

Then I hope their a*ses get thrown in jail since they think they're above the law because they own a gun and can thereby threaten people.

Beyond being insulting, your equivalency of an "unlimited right to own a gun," which has essentially already been shot down by the Supreme Court, with gay marriage, which has also been settled by the Supreme Court and thereby legislation cannot be enacted to the contrary, says that you really don't have a flipping clue what you're talking about. Why not say to an African-American person, "How would you feel if a Congressman tried to legalize segregation again?" or to a woman, "How would you feel if a Congressman tried to take away your right to vote?"

You guys are CUCKOO.

FreequentFlier wrote:

Even if a law was ever on the books, guns can now be 3D printed and done so untraceably.

Anarchist much? Even if there's a law on the books against kidnapping and false imprisonment, parents can still lock their kids in the basement for a decade and put them in chains until one of them escapes. So better take that kidnapping law off the books!

Do you have any clue what you're saying?

FreequentFlier wrote:

So again, adjust your reality accordingly.

No thank you. Your argument is absolutely flawed and beyond fallacious.

FreequentFlier wrote:

Both are civil rights, so yes, I absolutely am equating them.

WRONG AGAIN, FF.

Suggest you look up "civil right."