CDZ Do "liberals" really want to ban the AR-15 ?

[JQPublic1]

You know that the AR15 has the same rate of fire as a revolver, right?
As fast as you can pull the trigger.

You do know that a revolver can't be used to fire 30 rounds without reloading, right? You will also notice that the sheriff's demonstration didn't involve revolvers.

After you ban firearms that you consider 'assault rifles' because of the victims pictures I'm sure that next you could display pictures of victims of 30-06 or 30-03 rifles, which are not considered by such as you as assault rifles, so you can have them banned next.

The logic of this argument is inane and full of holes.

I could but those guns ( 30-06 or 30-03 rifles,) aren't capable of being used by one person to kill 30 people in less than a minute. There is nothing inane about recognizing that! Graphics of the carnage left in the wake of a mass killing using an Assault TYPE rifle or semi-automatic pistol would be worse than one where one or two people were killed by a high powered bolt action rifle.

While in turn you can not even remain civil over the concept of limiting all government officials who are not military to the same level of firearms you demand that all private citizens be limited too.

Here's a novel concept... Enforce the existing laws with maximum punishments.

I think I am very civil in restraining myself after being called all kinds of names by you and others here. I wonder if respecting rules is just for some people and not others around here..

But existing gun laws can't prevent mass murders because , as we have seen, some of the killers had no prior record that would separate their proclivity towards violence from any other typical male behavior. Should only women be allowed to purchase weapons due to their innate benevolence?

So now you're suggesting that good people can't own guns?

Looks like you're also suggesting that only Christians can be good people.

Sounds like a lot of discrimination on your part to me especially since I don't consider myself Christian.

Well I don't think any of the the Popes had a gun nor did Mother Teresa! And there are Muslims who don't own guns/ There are buddhists and atheists who don't own guns . So when you introduced the term 'good people"in an earlier post just who do you think are "good people.?"

So does this mean in your eyes I'm going to go to Hell because I not only have firearms but don't follow your Christian values and therefore am a bad person?

You do like tying yourself up in knots don't you?

I want to know your definition of "good people." Do you have one?

So now you're saying that all black people are progressive liberals?.... I seriously doubt that.

Well, I don't think t most of them vote the way you do.

The only hate I'm seeing is your constant hate for RW white males. You appear to have a lot of it.

If that is your interpretation, I don't care. But for the record I don't hate anyone. I hate the behavior of some people but not the person. Angry RW White males have a lot of BEHAVIOR to hate and they are hoarding guns for nefarious purposes.

If you want to go this route then all people that work in law enforcement and security both public and private, who are not military, should be held to the same standards.

So that would mean those SWAT guys are going to have to give up their assault type weapons also right

I disagree. Cops are paramilitary and the National Guard is also a State governmental entity that is headed by the governors in each state and THEY have tanks and other heavy weapons. If you want to give civilians firepower parity with those government forces so you can facilitate a violent overthrow or something with your illegal paramilitary civilian group, good luck with that!

So if the local police force or sheriffs department are all a bunch of conservatives aren't you already putting your life in in the hands of some 'responsible' conservative 'good guy' who happened to pass a background check?

Martin Luther King unveiled that reality before television cameras back in the '60s. And the present day shootings of unarmed black men by police officers validates that reality further. RW White males almost always side with the cops in such shootings. Conservatism at it's finest!

Perhaps you should move to Harlem, South Chicago, or some other place like that to be out of the reach of those kind of guys so you can be 'safe' from all those RW conservative white males.

You can't escape them. They saturate the police forces everywhere and are like occupying forces in Black neighborhoods. There are very few like the cop who got Muhammad Ali started in boxing! We need more of that kind!

What makes you think a guy that is familiar with the firearm needs to take his eyes of his targets to reload his firearm?

Your ignorance in the use of firearms is telling.

The guy in the sheriff's video must have influenced me to say that since he did it. And here is a tip the sheriff and his posse don't know wthat they are talking about.. A real pro would tape two 20 rd clips together with the bullet feeders of the mags facing opposite directions (diametrically opposite). Tape the mags where they overhang each other to allow space for full insertion when you flip. Most veterans already know that…its no secret.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

After you ban firearms that you consider 'assault rifles' because of the victims pictures I'm sure that next you could display pictures of victims of 30-06 or 30-03 rifles, which are not considered by such as you as assault rifles, so you can have them banned next.

The logic of this argument is inane and full of holes.

I could but those guns ( 30-06 or 30-03 rifles,) aren't capable of being used by one person to kill 30 people in less than a minute. There is nothing inane about recognizing that! Graphics of the carnage left in the wake of a mass killing using an Assault TYPE rifle or semi-automatic pistol would be worse than one where one or two people were killed by a high powered bolt action rifle.

You might be surprised what damage a 30-30 or 30-06 can do in 60 seconds.

While in turn you can not even remain civil over the concept of limiting all government officials who are not military to the same level of firearms you demand that all private citizens be limited too.

Here's a novel concept... Enforce the existing laws with maximum punishments.

I think I am very civil in restraining myself after being called all kinds of names by you and others here. I wonder if respecting rules is just for some people and not others around here..

I'm not the one who was banned or whatever from my Gun Control thread for being abusive......

That was you.

But existing gun laws can't prevent mass murders because , as we have seen, some of the killers had no prior record that would separate their proclivity towards violence from any other typical male behavior. Should only women be allowed to purchase weapons due to their innate benevolence?

If the existing gun laws can't prevent mass murders what makes you think more gun laws will?

So now you're suggesting that good people can't own guns?

Looks like you're also suggesting that only Christians can be good people.

Sounds like a lot of discrimination on your part to me especially since I don't consider myself Christian.

Well I don't think any of the the Popes had a gun nor did Mother Teresa! And there are Muslims who don't own guns/ There are buddhists and atheists who don't own guns . So when you introduced the term 'good people"in an earlier post just who do you think are "good people.?"

I'm new to this discussion you're the one who's talking about good people and how they're Christian and such...

Good people owning guns? Are there any good people owning guns, especially assault rifle type guns? Jesus didn't carry a gun but none of us are like Him. I think liberals are closer than conservatives who love guns designed to assist in violating the Commandment that reads: THOU SHALT NOT KILL!

...Can we stay focused please and address my questions about what you've stated?

So does this mean in your eyes I'm going to go to Hell because I not only have firearms but don't follow your Christian values and therefore am a bad person?

You do like tying yourself up in knots don't you?

I want to know your definition of "good people." Do you have one?

I'm more interested in your definition since you haven't answered my questions on what you've stated about good people.

Are good people abusive and attempt to derail other peoples threads?

So now you're saying that all black people are progressive liberals?.... I seriously doubt that.

Well, I don't think t most of them vote the way you do.

I don't think you have a clue which way a black military member votes.

The only hate I'm seeing is your constant hate for RW white males. You appear to have a lot of it.

If that is your interpretation, I don't care. But for the record I don't hate anyone. I hate the behavior of some people but not the person. Angry RW White males have a lot of BEHAVIOR to hate and they are hoarding guns for nefarious purposes.

Is that why your posts were pulled in my thread about Gun Control in the CDZ?

Because you have such a good behavior record?

If you want to go this route then all people that work in law enforcement and security both public and private, who are not military, should be held to the same standards.

So that would mean those SWAT guys are going to have to give up their assault type weapons also right

I disagree. Cops are paramilitary and the National Guard is also a State governmental entity that is headed by the governors in each state and THEY have tanks and other heavy weapons. If you want to give civilians firepower parity with those government forces so you can facilitate a violent overthrow or something with your illegal paramilitary civilian group, good luck with that!

The National Guard is answerable to the Joint Chiefs as military members whereas the police, or cops as you put it, are not.

The police and other public officials in law enforcement and secuity are nothing more than civilians who hold a position in government but not in the military.

Therefore the latter should be answerable and obey the same laws as any other civilian or non-military individual.

So if the local police force or sheriffs department are all a bunch of conservatives aren't you already putting your life in in the hands of some 'responsible' conservative 'good guy' who happened to pass a background check?

Martin Luther King unveiled that reality before television cameras back in the '60s. And the present day shootings of unarmed black men by police officers validates that reality further. RW White males almost always side with the cops in such shootings. Conservatism at it's finest!

This is your usual standard non-answer. So have you packed your bags and moved to Ferguson, MO yet? I hear police protection is pretty scanty there yet so you should be safe from those police.

Perhaps you should move to Harlem, South Chicago, or some other place like that to be out of the reach of those kind of guys so you can be 'safe' from all those RW conservative white males.

You can't escape them. They saturate the police forces everywhere and are like occupying forces in Black neighborhoods. There are very few like the cop who got Muhammad Ali started in boxing! We need more of that kind!

So now you're saying there are good white cops?.....

You really need to make up your mind.

What makes you think a guy that is familiar with the firearm needs to take his eyes of his targets to reload his firearm?

Your ignorance in the use of firearms is telling.

The guy in the sheriff's video must have influenced me to say that since he did it. And here is a tip the sheriff and his posse don't know wthat they are talking about.. A real pro would tape two 20 rd clips together with the bullet feeders of the mags facing opposite directions (diametrically opposite). Tape the mags where they overhang each other to allow space for full insertion when you flip. Most veterans already know that…its no secret.

You probably saw that watching some movie.....

Is that why you think you're a veteran?...

Because you watched some war movies?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Wilbur Right]

It isn't people with criminal records that are committing these unprovoked mass murders , it is people off the criminal radar. You can't really stop people like that with cursory background checks.

Most of the mass shooters are men under 30. Raise the age of being able to walk into a gun store and buy whatever you want to the age of 30.

It wouldn't stop all mass shooters. But it would stop a lot. And not harm anyone.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Should only women be allowed to purchase weapons due to their innate benevolence?

Until a young man reaches 30, yes.

There is something about the maturity level obtained by reaching the age of 30 that makes the shooters lives more valuable. To them. Testosterone is down by 30. The ability to be manipulated by others decreases by 30.

Young men could still shoot. They just couldnt buy a weapon till they were 30.

Think how easy the background check would be.

 

[JQPublic1]

It isn't people with criminal records that are committing these unprovoked mass murders , it is people off the criminal radar. You can't really stop people like that with cursory background checks.

Most of the mass shooters are men under 30. Raise the age of being able to walk into a gun store and buy whatever you want to the age of 30.

It wouldn't stop all mass shooters. But it would stop a lot. And not harm anyone.

That correlation has been overlooked. It could help. But when grandpa dies, guess who inherits his guns. Often it is someone under 30.Your suggestion has limited application but it is a start.

 

[JQPublic1]

Should only women be allowed to purchase weapons due to their innate benevolence?

Until a young man reaches 30, yes.

There is something about the maturity level obtained by reaching the age of 30 that makes the shooters lives more valuable. To them. Testosterone is down by 30. The ability to be manipulated by others decreases by 30.

Young men could still shoot. They just couldnt buy a weapon till they were 30.

Think how easy the background check would be.

Great suggestions, in theory. But watch out for those older guys who take testosterone supplements.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No.

What impact would be had by having this weapon and allowing (among others) and MP5 or Uzi or whatever?

You’ve got to accept 2 truths. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. And with or without it, there is ALWAYS a potential of a mass shooting as long as firearms exist. We can’t uninvent them so they will exist; just like as long as there are large rocks and room for them to move in accordance to the laws of gravity, you’ll have people crushed by the rocks. Now one is a law of nature and it is immutable. One was set up by our founders 240 years ago and (for some reason), our nation (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, democrats, republicans, indies, greens, men, women, kids, elderly, young, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, possibly native American, tall, short, fat, thin, left handed, right handed, well spoken, toothless hick, GLBT, LGBT, and even Dennis Rodman) lives in total fear of changing a word of what they wrote!!! Sure, the average business may have to update it’s business plan every 6 months on the short end, every 5 years on the high end but for some reason, most Americans wouldn’t think of changing our nation’s business plan after 240 years!!! I don’t get it but it never-the-less is the truth. If you’re watching this behavior from Mars, you’re rolling on your back laughing at us. I’m pretty sure sickos in Europe are laughing at us too.

Anyway, back to weapons…

Celebrated Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that there are limits on rights that can be placed by society. If you use Scalia as a sage on the topic, that would indicate that legal minds are calibrated to allow limits to the 2nd Amendment. When you start banning weapons from the public (even though its a comical argument that someone hunting deer needs such a robust weapon or that you need such a robust weapon to defend your home), you are going down the wrong track. Hell, someone could invent an AR-17 tomorrow with twice the firepower…then you start the legislation all over again.

What is possible is that you put barriers between people and acquisition to where if you really want a gun and can pass the appropriate background checks, you get one. These are the limitations we’re talking about.

Of course there are limits that can be placed. Those limits should be on the people themselves , rather than the weapon available to them.

Here's two truths that some ignore (and I'm glad to see you aren't one of them)

There are MANY people who own what are known as "assault weapons" and even full assault rifles (me for example) who will NEVER present any danger to anyone. And there are other people "like Mateen) who simply shouldn't have ever been allowed to own so much as a .38 revolver. Banning him from owning an assualt weapon is of course a great idea, but banning him from owning a .38 would also be a good idea. One life saved is one life saved. And I guarantee you one life is at far more of a risk by a guy like Mateen having a .38 than it is from a guy like me owning an automatic machine gun.

 

[JQPublic1]

No.

What impact would be had by having this weapon and allowing (among others) and MP5 or Uzi or whatever?

You’ve got to accept 2 truths. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere. And with or without it, there is ALWAYS a potential of a mass shooting as long as firearms exist. We can’t uninvent them so they will exist; just like as long as there are large rocks and room for them to move in accordance to the laws of gravity, you’ll have people crushed by the rocks. Now one is a law of nature and it is immutable. One was set up by our founders 240 years ago and (for some reason), our nation (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, democrats, republicans, indies, greens, men, women, kids, elderly, young, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, possibly native American, tall, short, fat, thin, left handed, right handed, well spoken, toothless hick, GLBT, LGBT, and even Dennis Rodman) lives in total fear of changing a word of what they wrote!!! Sure, the average business may have to update it’s business plan every 6 months on the short end, every 5 years on the high end but for some reason, most Americans wouldn’t think of changing our nation’s business plan after 240 years!!! I don’t get it but it never-the-less is the truth. If you’re watching this behavior from Mars, you’re rolling on your back laughing at us. I’m pretty sure sickos in Europe are laughing at us too.

Anyway, back to weapons…

Celebrated Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote that there are limits on rights that can be placed by society. If you use Scalia as a sage on the topic, that would indicate that legal minds are calibrated to allow limits to the 2nd Amendment. When you start banning weapons from the public (even though its a comical argument that someone hunting deer needs such a robust weapon or that you need such a robust weapon to defend your home), you are going down the wrong track. Hell, someone could invent an AR-17 tomorrow with twice the firepower…then you start the legislation all over again.

What is possible is that you put barriers between people and acquisition to where if you really want a gun and can pass the appropriate background checks, you get one. These are the limitations we’re talking about.

Of course there are limits that can be placed. Those limits should be on the people themselves , rather than the weapon available to them.

Here's two truths that some ignore (and I'm glad to see you aren't one of them)

There are MANY people who own what are known as "assault weapons" and even full assault rifles (me for example) who will NEVER present any danger to anyone. And there are other people "like Mateen) who simply shouldn't have ever been allowed to own so much as a .38 revolver. Banning him from owning an assualt weapon is of course a great idea, but banning him from owning a .38 would also be a good idea. One life saved is one life saved. And I guarantee you one life is at far more of a risk by a guy like Mateen having a .38 than it is from a guy like me owning an automatic machine gun.

I have to wonder if you have ever been angered to the point of violence. With all due respect, I don't think it would be wise of me to trust your benevolence just because you say you are sweet and kind. The very fact that you have a full automatic weapon raises a red flag. But beyond that, what happens to those weapons when you die? Are your benefactors as mentally stable as you claim to be?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are MANY people who own what are known as "assault weapons" and even full assault rifles (me for example) who will NEVER present any danger to anyone. And there are other people "like Mateen) who simply shouldn't have ever been allowed to own so much as a .38 revolver. Banning him from owning an assualt weapon is of course a great idea, but banning him from owning a .38 would also be a good idea.

Prior to 6-12, Mateen had dome nothing that would prevent him from legally owning a firearm.
On what grounds should his right to own a gun be denied?

 

[JQPublic1]

There are MANY people who own what are known as "assault weapons" and even full assault rifles (me for example) who will NEVER present any danger to anyone. And there are other people "like Mateen) who simply shouldn't have ever been allowed to own so much as a .38 revolver. Banning him from owning an assualt weapon is of course a great idea, but banning him from owning a .38 would also be a good idea.

Prior to 6-12, Mateen had dome nothing that would prevent him from legally owning a firearm.
On what grounds should his right to own a gun be denied?

I agree. But he was on the "no fly list:" another rule (not a law) that erodes our Constitutional rights
based on some bureaucrats interpretation of data collected surreptitiously on people. This is punishment without the benefit of Due Process..

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There are MANY people who own what are known as "assault weapons" and even full assault rifles (me for example) who will NEVER present any danger to anyone. And there are other people "like Mateen) who simply shouldn't have ever been allowed to own so much as a .38 revolver. Banning him from owning an assualt weapon is of course a great idea, but banning him from owning a .38 would also be a good idea.

Prior to 6-12, Mateen had dome nothing that would prevent him from legally owning a firearm.
On what grounds should his right to own a gun be denied?

Under MY plan he would have almost certainly failed an FBI background check.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are MANY people who own what are known as "assault weapons" and even full assault rifles (me for example) who will NEVER present any danger to anyone. And there are other people "like Mateen) who simply shouldn't have ever been allowed to own so much as a .38 revolver. Banning him from owning an assualt weapon is of course a great idea, but banning him from owning a .38 would also be a good idea.

Prior to 6-12, Mateen had dome nothing that would prevent him from legally owning a firearm.
On what grounds should his right to own a gun be denied?

Under MY plan he would have almost certainly failed an FBI background check.

All well and good, but you did not answer the question.

 

[Wilbur Right]

That correlation has been overlooked. It could help. But when grandpa dies, guess who inherits his guns. Often it is someone under 30.Your suggestion has limited application but it is a start.

Grandpa may leave behind an AR15 and a thousand rounds. But chances are it will be noted in the estate, and who got the gun etc.

No, raising the age to 30 would help with accidental child shootings. Domestic violence with a gun. Straw buyers.

And what harm would be done? Under 30 could range shoot, private shoot, hunt etc.

They just couldn't get some crazed idea about going out and buying a gun and killing a bunch of people for nothing. All in a matter of days. Unless they were over 30.

You ain't going to stop ALL the crazies..but that idea would cut into the unnecessary deaths. And I could live with that.

That shit.has to stop.

 

[JQPublic1]

That correlation has been overlooked. It could help. But when grandpa dies, guess who inherits his guns. Often it is someone under 30.Your suggestion has limited application but it is a start.

Grandpa may leave behind an AR15 and a thousand rounds. But chances are it will be noted in the estate, and who got the gun etc.

No, raising the age to 30 would help with accidental child shootings. Domestic violence with a gun. Straw buyers.

And what harm would be done? Under 30 could range shoot, private shoot, hunt etc.

They just couldn't get some crazed idea about going out and buying a gun and killing a bunch of people for nothing. All in a matter of days. Unless they were over 30.

You ain't going to stop ALL the crazies..but that idea would cut into the unnecessary deaths. And I could live with that.

That shit.has to stop.

I know plenty of people with guns who died intestate!

 

[OldLady]

They do.

They cannot present a sound argument as to why; all of their arguments to that effect are rooted in fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

No "sound" argument is needed if pictures of assault type rifle victims are dis[played as vividly as those displayed by abortion protestors or the gory scenes of traffic fatalities shown in high school driver's ed classes.

If it were your brother killed in Orlando or your daughter killed in Newtown, would you really want pictures of their mutilated dead bodies ogled by millions of people in perpetuity? I guess if you really believed in fighting against guns, you might, but most family members just couldn't abide that.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Great suggestions, in theory. But watch out for those older guys who take testosterone supplements

Why not try it for 5 years. End all other talk about restrictions, no banning weapons nothing but raising the age men could buy a gun to 30.


You know how I picked 30? I definitely believed I would not live to see 30. And I was not a young man you would want to have high powered weapons for much of any reason. A shotgun was bad enough. Crazy, no.good judgement, hot headed. Yes sir that sounds like a great gun owner right there.

I got a son. 23. He has no fucking business with a gun. But he's looking.

I talked about this with a guy who is a life long NRA member, retired military, hate Obama Hillary, pro Second A,.the whole nine yards.

He thought it a good idea and wondered why it hasn't been explored. Surprised the shit out of me. But it ain't gonna happen.

The reason being that gun sales to men under 30 probably represents a considerable amount of money.

End of story.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why not try it

Frankly, I'd be willing to try just about anything for five years, provided that in doing so objective measures are established such that they are used a lustrum out to determine whether whatever was tried worked to a predefined extent.

If the approach tried works, fine, keep it in place for another lustrum. If it didn't work, scrap it and try something very different from it, "very different" because the actual ideal solution may well be between the two, but one cannot objectively determine whether it is or isn't without trying something meaningfully different. For example, if the image below (just the line, not the statement below the line) depicts the spectrum of possible solution approaches, try A or B first, and if whichever is tried first didn't succeed, try the other next. At the end of a decade, one will know whether to move farther left of A or farther right of B or to some point between the two.

 

[JQPublic1]

They do.

They cannot present a sound argument as to why; all of their arguments to that effect are rooted in fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

No "sound" argument is needed if pictures of assault type rifle victims are dis[played as vividly as those displayed by abortion protestors or the gory scenes of traffic fatalities shown in high school driver's ed classes.

If it were your brother killed in Orlando or your daughter killed in Newtown, would you really want pictures of their mutilated dead bodies ogled by millions of people in perpetuity? I guess if you really believed in fighting against guns, you might, but most family members just couldn't abide that.

You are missing the fact that a precedent has been set. You've seen the mutilated bodies of traffic accident victims in high school drivers ed classes. You've seen the RW anti-abortion graphics showing mutilated bodies of fetuses or babies displayed openly for all to see. Can it be that liberals are too civil to reciprocate with images of mass carnage wrought by SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS? The right certainly had no such inhibitions when showing their anti-abortion graphics.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Frankly, I'd be willing to try just about anything for five years, provided that in doing so objective measures are established such that they are used a lustrum out to determine whether whatever was tried worked to a predefined extent.

The violence that I believe would be greatly reduced would be mass shootings with semi auto rifles, children finding dads gun and shooting themselves or someone else, domestic violence using a gun, gang violence with guns, straw buyers, murder committed by men under 30.

All categories very measurable.

Suicide by gun would not be effected. Most of those are men over 30.

 

[OldLady]

They do.

They cannot present a sound argument as to why; all of their arguments to that effect are rooted in fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

No "sound" argument is needed if pictures of assault type rifle victims are dis[played as vividly as those displayed by abortion protestors or the gory scenes of traffic fatalities shown in high school driver's ed classes.

If it were your brother killed in Orlando or your daughter killed in Newtown, would you really want pictures of their mutilated dead bodies ogled by millions of people in perpetuity? I guess if you really believed in fighting against guns, you might, but most family members just couldn't abide that.

You are missing the fact that a precedent has been set. You've seen the mutilated bodies of traffic accident victims in high school drivers ed classes. You've seen the RW anti-abortion graphics showing mutilated bodies of fetuses or babies displayed openly for all to see. Can it be that liberals are too civil to reciprocate with images of mass carnage wrought by SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS? The right certainly had no such inhibitions when showing their anti-abortion graphics.

Those were fetuses, unborn and unnamed. No one would recognize one as theirs. BTW, I never saw the mutilated bodies of traffic accident victims in drivers' ed, either. This has nothing to do with being political or liberal. You show a picture of my Dad or my brother dead on the ground, after they've been riddled with bullets, to sensationalize your cause, I'd be pretty darned tempted to shoot YOU. (Not really, never owned a gun--but it would not be acceptable.)