happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 5, 2019 7:30:08 GMT -5
I'd prefer we help ourselves by requiring every adult to carry. No one is going to be dumb enough to open fire against a mall full of armed folks. The 2A has been a great success in that it has not be necessary to change our government.
In the Dayton shooting, there were six police officers in the area who heroically ran towards the gunfire.
The shooter was dead within 21 seconds of firing the first shot.
In that 21 seconds, however, the shooter killed 9 people and wounded 27 more. This was because he had an AK47 style assault weapon with two drum magazines with 100 rounds of ammunition.
Mentally ill people who are intent on committing suicide by cop do not care how many others they take out with them, and their whole intent is to get killed in the process, so it doesn't really matter how many people in that crowd had handguns, or how many cops were present, he was going to do what he did regardless. He just wanted his death to get attention, and he got that.
Here's a thought - why not ban assault style weapons? The second amendment leaves plenty of room to regulate gun rights. It only protects 'guns in common use' and I don't know of a single hunter who hunts with an assault weapon. The first ban wasn't that effective, but we can write a better ban, one on rate of fire, this time. Plus add in the Red Flag rule that says teens who write a hit list on their high school bathroom walls aren't allowed to buy guns at all, at least not until they undergo a psych evaluation.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 8:15:30 GMT -5
happy, any ban is an infringement.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 5, 2019 8:20:28 GMT -5
Then maybe the time has finally come to infringe.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2019 8:23:28 GMT -5
happy, any ban is an infringement. agreed. Which is why a repeal is necessary.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Aug 5, 2019 8:31:05 GMT -5
Bill, you just don't get it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2019 8:37:53 GMT -5
Bill, you just don't get it. Yeah, perhaps I don't. But when I attempt to gain understanding by asking questions for clarification, I am ignored.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 8:53:54 GMT -5
I'd prefer we help ourselves by requiring every adult to carry. No one is going to be dumb enough to open fire against a mall full of armed folks. The 2A has been a great success in that it has not be necessary to change our government.
In the Dayton shooting, there were six police officers in the area who heroically ran towards the gunfire.
The shooter was dead within 21 seconds of firing the first shot.
In that 21 seconds, however, the shooter killed 9 people and wounded 27 more. This was because he had an AK47 style assault weapon with two drum magazines with 100 rounds of ammunition.
Mentally ill people who are intent on committing suicide by cop do not care how many others they take out with them, and their whole intent is to get killed in the process, so it doesn't really matter how many people in that crowd had handguns, or how many cops were present, he was going to do what he did regardless. He just wanted his death to get attention, and he got that.
Here's a thought - why not ban assault style weapons? The second amendment leaves plenty of room to regulate gun rights. It only protects 'guns in common use' and I don't know of a single hunter who hunts with an assault weapon. The first ban wasn't that effective, but we can write a better ban, one on rate of fire, this time. Plus add in the Red Flag rule that says teens who write a hit list on their high school bathroom walls aren't allowed to buy guns at all, at least not until they undergo a psych evaluation.
The shooter killed himself, Again assault weapons account for less than 1% of the shootings. So we take the guns from law biding citizens? We remove 150 million guns from law, biding citizens, that have done nothing wrong?? That are involved in less than 1% of the shootings??
You going to stop there??
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 8:59:04 GMT -5
I'd prefer we help ourselves by requiring every adult to carry. No one is going to be dumb enough to open fire against a mall full of armed folks. The 2A has been a great success in that it has not be necessary to change our government.
In the Dayton shooting, there were six police officers in the area who heroically ran towards the gunfire.
The shooter was dead within 21 seconds of firing the first shot.
In that 21 seconds, however, the shooter killed 9 people and wounded 27 more. This was because he had an AK47 style assault weapon with two drum magazines with 100 rounds of ammunition.
Mentally ill people who are intent on committing suicide by cop do not care how many others they take out with them, and their whole intent is to get killed in the process, so it doesn't really matter how many people in that crowd had handguns, or how many cops were present, he was going to do what he did regardless. He just wanted his death to get attention, and he got that.
Here's a thought - why not ban assault style weapons? The second amendment leaves plenty of room to regulate gun rights. It only protects 'guns in common use' and I don't know of a single hunter who hunts with an assault weapon. The first ban wasn't that effective, but we can write a better ban, one on rate of fire, this time. Plus add in the Red Flag rule that says teens who write a hit list on their high school bathroom walls aren't allowed to buy guns at all, at least not until they undergo a psych evaluation.
How about a psycho evaluation on anyone that posts on the Current and Political threads, There is really something wrong with them mentally.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Aug 5, 2019 9:00:41 GMT -5
I was between two guys yelling at each other - I have a mouth, I can yell, but I didn't. I saw two people throwing punches at one another, and I have fists, but I didn't start hitting anyone. I called the cops. If I saw two people about to shoot each other, even if I had a gun, I wouldn't start shooting. this is not about two people. this is about one person attempting to inflict maximum damage.
so, really, it is between you and the shooter. and yeah, if I have a gun, I shoot that bastard. the problem is, that if I am a lousy shot, I might accidentally kill some innocent bystander. OR, in the confusion, I might mistake someone who pulled their gun for the shooter.
adding more guns to a gunfight, especially with people who have no tactical training, is an incredibly bad idea, imo. the last thing I need is a bunch of f(*king amateurs messing up a defensible situation, if there is one.
Or the cops show up, see you (the “good guy with a gun”) think you are the shooter and shoot you.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Aug 5, 2019 9:02:54 GMT -5
happy, any ban is an infringement. Bullshit. Remember the “well regulated”militia? But I agree with Bill. Repeal is what needs to happen. Then common sense regulations including a ban of assault weapons.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,113
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Aug 5, 2019 9:21:01 GMT -5
Yes and that's the National Guard where people are trained and guns are locked in an armory until needed. Not these wacko militia groups.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Aug 5, 2019 9:22:50 GMT -5
Given the make-up of the supreme court, I think repealing/amending the 2nd is the only realistic path forward. I fear that any attempt at even the most modest of laws trying to put sensible restrictions on guns/gun ownership, wouldn't be upheld by the conservative court.
That said, there is likely an even smaller chance there are enough votes in the house, or the state legislatures, to get it done. The Republican party has so gerrymandered the states that they hold enough control to sink just about anything proposed. And frankly, neither side, except a vocal few, have shown any real interest in passing ANY kind of reform.
Guess we just have to get used to more blood in the streets, schools, and churches.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 9:30:18 GMT -5
happy, any ban is an infringement. Bullshit. Remember the “well regulated”militia? But I agree with Bill. Repeal is what needs to happen. Then common sense regulations including a ban of assault weapons. You do know that less than 1% of shooting are mass shootings, Not all mass shooting involved an assault weapon.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 9:31:36 GMT -5
Yes and that's the National Guard where people are trained and guns are locked in an armory until needed. Not these wacko militia groups. Where does that say that in the Second Amendment??
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 5, 2019 9:31:47 GMT -5
Given the make-up of the supreme court, I think repealing/amending the 2nd is the only realistic path forward. I fear that any attempt at even the most modest of laws trying to put sensible restrictions on guns/gun ownership, wouldn't be upheld by the conservative court.
That said, there is likely an even smaller chance there are enough votes in the house, or the state legislatures, to get it done. The Republican party has so gerrymandered the states that they hold enough control to sink just about anything proposed. And frankly, neither side, except a vocal few, have shown any real interest in passing ANY kind of reform.
Guess we just have to get used to more blood in the streets, schools, and churches.
Just waiting for the 100th monkey.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,427
|
Post by andi9899 on Aug 5, 2019 9:32:10 GMT -5
In the Dayton shooting, there were six police officers in the area who heroically ran towards the gunfire.
The shooter was dead within 21 seconds of firing the first shot.
In that 21 seconds, however, the shooter killed 9 people and wounded 27 more. This was because he had an AK47 style assault weapon with two drum magazines with 100 rounds of ammunition.
Mentally ill people who are intent on committing suicide by cop do not care how many others they take out with them, and their whole intent is to get killed in the process, so it doesn't really matter how many people in that crowd had handguns, or how many cops were present, he was going to do what he did regardless. He just wanted his death to get attention, and he got that.
Here's a thought - why not ban assault style weapons? The second amendment leaves plenty of room to regulate gun rights. It only protects 'guns in common use' and I don't know of a single hunter who hunts with an assault weapon. The first ban wasn't that effective, but we can write a better ban, one on rate of fire, this time. Plus add in the Red Flag rule that says teens who write a hit list on their high school bathroom walls aren't allowed to buy guns at all, at least not until they undergo a psych evaluation.
How about a psycho evaluation on anyone that posts on the Current and Political threads, There is really something wrong with them mentally. Let's start with you.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 9:41:03 GMT -5
I noticed that several here that normally post on the Left side of this board admit to having guns themselves, Does the "Common Sense" solution include them? Or is this just for "Crazy People" that need the psycho valuation, restricted access, no large cap mags, need to be locked in that demanded gun safe, ammo stored separately,
ABSOLUTELY NO ALCOHOL.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 5, 2019 9:43:43 GMT -5
How about a psycho evaluation on anyone that posts on the Current and Political threads, There is really something wrong with them mentally. Let's start with you. Andi, I m the most mentally stable person that posts here, just ask me...
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,427
|
Post by andi9899 on Aug 5, 2019 9:45:21 GMT -5
Andi, I m the most mentally stable person that posts here, just ask me... That actually made me laugh. 😂
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 5, 2019 9:54:17 GMT -5
I was between two guys yelling at each other - I have a mouth, I can yell, but I didn't. I saw two people throwing punches at one another, and I have fists, but I didn't start hitting anyone. I called the cops. If I saw two people about to shoot each other, even if I had a gun, I wouldn't start shooting. this is not about two people. this is about one person attempting to inflict maximum damage.
so, really, it is between you and the shooter. and yeah, if I have a gun, I shoot that bastard. the problem is, that if I am a lousy shot, I might accidentally kill some innocent bystander. OR, in the confusion, I might mistake someone who pulled their gun for the shooter.
adding more guns to a gunfight, especially with people who have no tactical training, is an incredibly bad idea, imo. the last thing I need is a bunch of f(*king amateurs messing up a defensible situation, if there is one.
Yes, but if every adult, no matter how crazy, no matter the "anger issues", no matter how bad of a day they are having, is carrying a gun, it will be between two people. As much as we hear about these mass shootings, the numbers are absolutely dwarfed by suicides, accidents, domestic and single shootings. Even if giving everyone a gun solves these idiots doing these mass shootings (which it won't) it is highly likely that MORE people die from all the other classifications of gun deaths. Everyone having a gun, doesn't mean the angry guy at the bus stop won't escalate the fight. It just assures that at least 1 person will end up dead. And most people having a gun doesn't mean they will join the situation anymore than they do now.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,113
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Aug 5, 2019 10:03:47 GMT -5
What do you consider "a well regulated militia"?
Read "The Federalist Papers" where Hamilton goes further explaining what the founding fathers were trying to express briefly.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 5, 2019 10:06:37 GMT -5
Bullshit. Remember the “well regulated”militia? But I agree with Bill. Repeal is what needs to happen. Then common sense regulations including a ban of assault weapons. You do know that less than 1% of shooting are mass shootings, Not all mass shooting involved an assault weapon. You do know less than 1% of the world's deaths are caused by commercial airplane crashes. That does't mean we shouldn't find the cause of the crash and fix it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 5, 2019 10:28:55 GMT -5
In the Dayton shooting, there were six police officers in the area who heroically ran towards the gunfire.
The shooter was dead within 21 seconds of firing the first shot.
In that 21 seconds, however, the shooter killed 9 people and wounded 27 more. This was because he had an AK47 style assault weapon with two drum magazines with 100 rounds of ammunition.
Mentally ill people who are intent on committing suicide by cop do not care how many others they take out with them, and their whole intent is to get killed in the process, so it doesn't really matter how many people in that crowd had handguns, or how many cops were present, he was going to do what he did regardless. He just wanted his death to get attention, and he got that.
Here's a thought - why not ban assault style weapons? The second amendment leaves plenty of room to regulate gun rights. It only protects 'guns in common use' and I don't know of a single hunter who hunts with an assault weapon. The first ban wasn't that effective, but we can write a better ban, one on rate of fire, this time. Plus add in the Red Flag rule that says teens who write a hit list on their high school bathroom walls aren't allowed to buy guns at all, at least not until they undergo a psych evaluation.
The shooter killed himself, Again assault weapons account for less than 1% of the shootings. So we take the guns from law biding citizens? We remove 150 million guns from law, biding citizens, that have done nothing wrong?? That are involved in less than 1% of the shootings??
You going to stop there??
OC you're being a hysterical snow flake.
I said ASSAULT WEAPONS - are you going to tell me that there are 150 million ASSAULT WEAPONS in the US?
They can't be used for hunting. They have one purpose - mass casualties. There is no legitimate reason for a citizen to own one, other than 'it would be cool to own one.'
I'd like to own a tiger and a tank - maybe a tiger tank. My liberties are being infringed on because I can't own either in my subdivision. Sometimes, national safety has to outweigh personal desire. But you know that, you just can't admit you know that.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 5, 2019 10:29:08 GMT -5
Boy you anti gun libs are terrified. If you walk into a room and you know at least half the people are armed would you really be dumb enough to start shooting? I bet most of these nuts aren't that dumb. So, your premise here is that the people who commit random mass shootings would stop doing it if there was a possibility the outcome would be negative for them?? Because they are critical thinkers who weigh all their options and choose the scenario where no harm can come to them in the commission of their crime? And your other premise is that the people who desperately feel the need to have a loaded weapon on them at all times are LESS fearful than people who aren't scared to go out in public unarmed? So many logical fallacies in so few words.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 10:49:44 GMT -5
The Second Amendment allows for there to be weapons for a well regulated militia. Our National Guard has weapons, and their use is not infringed. Furthermore, we have several armed forces who are also- well armed. The Second Amendment does NOT expressly permit every tom dick and harry to carry lethal anti-personnel weapons. It is a failure of interpretation. Perhaps the 2nd Am should thus be re-worded? the second amendment has been subverted since Wilson, and I can prove it.
but this has never been tested in the courts.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 10:50:29 GMT -5
Yes and that's the National Guard where people are trained and guns are locked in an armory until needed. Not these wacko militia groups. Where does that say that in the Second Amendment?? first four words.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 10:53:39 GMT -5
In the Dayton shooting, there were six police officers in the area who heroically ran towards the gunfire.
The shooter was dead within 21 seconds of firing the first shot.
In that 21 seconds, however, the shooter killed 9 people and wounded 27 more. This was because he had an AK47 style assault weapon with two drum magazines with 100 rounds of ammunition.
Mentally ill people who are intent on committing suicide by cop do not care how many others they take out with them, and their whole intent is to get killed in the process, so it doesn't really matter how many people in that crowd had handguns, or how many cops were present, he was going to do what he did regardless. He just wanted his death to get attention, and he got that.
Here's a thought - why not ban assault style weapons? The second amendment leaves plenty of room to regulate gun rights. It only protects 'guns in common use' and I don't know of a single hunter who hunts with an assault weapon. The first ban wasn't that effective, but we can write a better ban, one on rate of fire, this time. Plus add in the Red Flag rule that says teens who write a hit list on their high school bathroom walls aren't allowed to buy guns at all, at least not until they undergo a psych evaluation.
The shooter killed himself, Again assault weapons account for less than 1% of the shootings. So we take the guns from law biding citizens? We remove 150 million guns from law, biding citizens, that have done nothing wrong?? That are involved in less than 1% of the shootings??
You going to stop there??
no. you already did the math. you remove 1%
shootings happen all the time. though reprehensible, they are not the subject of this thread, or our anger. it is the mass killings that bother us. get rid of those, and most people would be content to leave the rest of this debate alone.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 10:54:46 GMT -5
Andi, I m the most mentally stable person that posts here, just ask me... I hope you are aware of how Trumpian that sounds.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2019 10:57:27 GMT -5
What do you consider "a well regulated militia"? Read "The Federalist Papers" where Hamilton goes further explaining what the founding fathers were trying to express briefly. the other place you can read it is the letters between Jefferson and Madison. it is not just clear, but without any contradiction what they intended the 2nd Amendment for. and it was not so people could own assault weapons for fun.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 5, 2019 11:10:01 GMT -5
Andi, I m the most mentally stable person that posts here, just ask me...
|
|