One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

[SavannahMann]

In our constitution, you can not be deprived of life, liberty, or freedom without due process of law.

What if it wasn’t the Second Amendment we were talking about. What if it was the First? Let’s wonder what would happen if you were not allowed to speak because you were on a secret list. No one went to a Judge, they just decided you were on a list because of whatever reason they felt like. Perhaps your name was similar to one that was a suspected terrorist, or perhaps you said something someone did not like.

Well you could appeal, you could hire a lawyer and hope to find the truth. But you don’t have the right to an attorney, because you are on that list. You don’t have a right to your day in court, you are on a list.

Due process of law is the mechanism we use to deny people their rights. A person is not just declared incompetent because a daughter, husband, friend, or random acquaintance says so. There is a process to be followed. A process that seeks to determine the truth, and apply a wise judgement.

Due process of law allows for all the things you want to do. But you have to go through the process. You can’t take away the rights, and then decide that if they meet some administrative standard, then you will reconsider. That is an abomination of our system.

Due process of law first, and then the loss of life, liberty, freedom, or property. Due process first.

IF you want to determine that someone is in fact, insane. It isn’t the judgement call of some social worker, it is a legal determination, with far reaching consequences. That determination deserves the day in court, or at least a hearing to allow the accused to present evidence on their own behalf.

Otherwise who gets to decide? Would you allow me to decide who is crazy? I’m not a Psychiatrist. I am not a legal expert. I have no training in either field. Yet, the people you want making that determination are no more qualified than I to make it.

I had a discussion with a friend about what God wants or what God would think. I told him I had two truths in my heart. One, There is a God. Two, I’m not God. I don’t want the religion where I am the one deciding things. I don’t want to be the one who decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I also don’t want a world where I decide who is allowed to have rights, and who isn’t. I am arrogant, certainly. I am not so arrogant that I feel comfortable being the one voice who decides such things.

I will state my opinion, but it is one voice among many. It is one opinion among many. When serving on a Jury, I am one vote, among the others. Perhaps I can carry the day with my opinion, and perhaps I can change mine in the face of other arguments.

I swore an oath once, actually more than once, but you get the point. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constituion. That meant all of it. Not just the parts I agreed with. It meant every single section. You disagree with the Supreme Court on the decision about Heller, and the money in politics argument. I disagree with their decision on Kelo, and others. It is my opinion, and like everyone I have an opinion on somethings, and not on other issues.

Due process of law is one of those things I have a very strong opinion on. I am always opposed to Civil Asset Forfeiture. I believe it is an abomination. I am always opposed to restricting rights of the citizens. As for free speech, my answer is an old one. I may disagree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it.

I will always argue against depriving anyone of their life, freedom, or property without that due process. Always.

 

[FA_Q2]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

 

[P@triot]

Here is one major difference - Republicans would never allow so many to suffer, while progressives are willing to violate the law in order to steal elections...

Illegal immigrant breaks into NJ home, rapes 6-year-old girl, police say

 

[nat4900]

Here is one major difference - Republicans would never allow so many to suffer, while progressives are willing to violate the law in order to steal elections...

Illegal immigrant breaks into NJ home, rapes 6-year-old girl, police say

An idiot (like you) would concentrate on the acts of ONE fucked up individual and extrapolate that to an entire group......

Given THAT moronic "logic" we should still be killing off ALL Germans or Vietnamese, or Koreans. et al.

Crawl back into your hole, Patsy..... .

 

[nat4900]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

 

[FA_Q2]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.

I believe we are all in agreement that the line has to be drawn. What we differ on is where that line is. I really don't blame the bump stocks on this one. I do believe that the weapon used along with the large capacity clips are across the line. Today we might regulate the bump stocks but some other bright engineer type will find a way to get around the changing the semi auto AR style to fire automatic to fire like or similar to it's full auto cousin. The worst mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years have all been done by Civilian AR-15s with large capacity clips or Magazines. This one holds the record. The Shooter was better prepared with the money to do just about anything he wanted to do.

In the #2, the shooter was ill prepared, in an closed tightly packed field of fire with a 100 round mag. The AR mag jammed at about 50 rounds and he couldn't do the other 50. Otherwise, the kill rate would have been over 100. And he didn't use a bump stock.

The line is in the weapon itself and size of mags. Those two, together, are the issue. Even with the 30 round mag, the AR can fire at least 2 mags in less than 5 seconds. If he has 4 mags then he can fire at least 120 rounds in less than 10 seconds and this is without something like the Bump Stock. With the Bump STock, it doesn't really get much worse in a closed target rich environment. You aren't limited in whether it's a full or simulated auto or not. You are limited to the number of clips or mags you can carry. Knowing that,. where do we draw that line?

 

[Spare_change]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.

I believe we are all in agreement that the line has to be drawn. What we differ on is where that line is. I really don't blame the bump stocks on this one. I do believe that the weapon used along with the large capacity clips are across the line. Today we might regulate the bump stocks but some other bright engineer type will find a way to get around the changing the semi auto AR style to fire automatic to fire like or similar to it's full auto cousin. The worst mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years have all been done by Civilian AR-15s with large capacity clips or Magazines. This one holds the record. The Shooter was better prepared with the money to do just about anything he wanted to do.

In the #2, the shooter was ill prepared, in an closed tightly packed field of fire with a 100 round mag. The AR mag jammed at about 50 rounds and he couldn't do the other 50. Otherwise, the kill rate would have been over 100. And he didn't use a bump stock.

The line is in the weapon itself and size of mags. Those two, together, are the issue. Even with the 30 round mag, the AR can fire at least 2 mags in less than 5 seconds. If he has 4 mags then he can fire at least 120 rounds in less than 10 seconds and this is without something like the Bump Stock. With the Bump STock, it doesn't really get much worse in a closed target rich environment. You aren't limited in whether it's a full or simulated auto or not. You are limited to the number of clips or mags you can carry. Knowing that,. where do we draw that line?

No, as a matter of fact we don't agree about the line being drawn.

We can't address the problem until we agree what the problem is. The problem ISN'T the weapon. The problem is the shooter. Until we agree on that, there is no need for further conversation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.

I believe we are all in agreement that the line has to be drawn. What we differ on is where that line is. I really don't blame the bump stocks on this one. I do believe that the weapon used along with the large capacity clips are across the line. Today we might regulate the bump stocks but some other bright engineer type will find a way to get around the changing the semi auto AR style to fire automatic to fire like or similar to it's full auto cousin. The worst mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years have all been done by Civilian AR-15s with large capacity clips or Magazines. This one holds the record. The Shooter was better prepared with the money to do just about anything he wanted to do.

In the #2, the shooter was ill prepared, in an closed tightly packed field of fire with a 100 round mag. The AR mag jammed at about 50 rounds and he couldn't do the other 50. Otherwise, the kill rate would have been over 100. And he didn't use a bump stock.

The line is in the weapon itself and size of mags. Those two, together, are the issue. Even with the 30 round mag, the AR can fire at least 2 mags in less than 5 seconds. If he has 4 mags then he can fire at least 120 rounds in less than 10 seconds and this is without something like the Bump Stock. With the Bump STock, it doesn't really get much worse in a closed target rich environment. You aren't limited in whether it's a full or simulated auto or not. You are limited to the number of clips or mags you can carry. Knowing that,. where do we draw that line?

No, as a matter of fact we don't agree about the line being drawn.

We can't address the problem until we agree what the problem is. The problem ISN'T the weapon. The problem is the shooter. Until we agree on that, there is no need for further conversation.

We can only regulate what we can regulate. You can't regulate a nut case. So we need to find another way. To think otherwise is just allowing every nutcase with a vengeance the tools to do what they want to do.

Now, how can we regulate the nutjobs when we have no idea who they are? it could be your quiet next5 door neighbor or the pizza delivery dude or any number of people you would never suspect. Yes, we can do a better job in ....... actually, no we can't unless you wish to completely throw out the constitution.

But we can regulate the toys. It was done in 1934 and has been very successful ever since. If you believe that there are a ton of fully auto weapons on the streets, step slowly away from your TV set because that's the only place the bad guys have access to fully auto weapons.

 

[Spare_change]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

 

[Brain357]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.

I believe we are all in agreement that the line has to be drawn. What we differ on is where that line is. I really don't blame the bump stocks on this one. I do believe that the weapon used along with the large capacity clips are across the line. Today we might regulate the bump stocks but some other bright engineer type will find a way to get around the changing the semi auto AR style to fire automatic to fire like or similar to it's full auto cousin. The worst mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years have all been done by Civilian AR-15s with large capacity clips or Magazines. This one holds the record. The Shooter was better prepared with the money to do just about anything he wanted to do.

In the #2, the shooter was ill prepared, in an closed tightly packed field of fire with a 100 round mag. The AR mag jammed at about 50 rounds and he couldn't do the other 50. Otherwise, the kill rate would have been over 100. And he didn't use a bump stock.

The line is in the weapon itself and size of mags. Those two, together, are the issue. Even with the 30 round mag, the AR can fire at least 2 mags in less than 5 seconds. If he has 4 mags then he can fire at least 120 rounds in less than 10 seconds and this is without something like the Bump Stock. With the Bump STock, it doesn't really get much worse in a closed target rich environment. You aren't limited in whether it's a full or simulated auto or not. You are limited to the number of clips or mags you can carry. Knowing that,. where do we draw that line?

No, as a matter of fact we don't agree about the line being drawn.

We can't address the problem until we agree what the problem is. The problem ISN'T the weapon. The problem is the shooter. Until we agree on that, there is no need for further conversation.

And you want the mass shooter to be as well armed as possible.

 

[Brain357]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

 

[Brain357]

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats give a fuck about the poor, disabled and old
Republicans want all their money and legal protections gone

Republicans sold America out to mexico and China...This is what little old Trump won't tell you and you're too stupid to consider yourself.

 

[Brain357]

Virtually non-stop shooting...

 

[Brain357]

Yeah why make them reload often...

 

[Spare_change]

And passing laws not based in fact but rather based in emotion that will not have a positive outcome is irresponsible as well.

That is what the gun control laws that are constantly introduced these days are.

Another screwed up right winger DEMANDS that military style weaponry.....designed to kill MORE people in the LEAST amount of time possible, be in the hands of ANYONE who can afford to buy one.....

The similarities between these fuck heads and the Taliban or A-Q, are uncanny.

I didn't demand anything - just pointed out a simple truth. One that you prove yet again as you fly off the handle with emotional rage absent a single logical point.

I believe we are all in agreement that the line has to be drawn. What we differ on is where that line is. I really don't blame the bump stocks on this one. I do believe that the weapon used along with the large capacity clips are across the line. Today we might regulate the bump stocks but some other bright engineer type will find a way to get around the changing the semi auto AR style to fire automatic to fire like or similar to it's full auto cousin. The worst mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years have all been done by Civilian AR-15s with large capacity clips or Magazines. This one holds the record. The Shooter was better prepared with the money to do just about anything he wanted to do.

In the #2, the shooter was ill prepared, in an closed tightly packed field of fire with a 100 round mag. The AR mag jammed at about 50 rounds and he couldn't do the other 50. Otherwise, the kill rate would have been over 100. And he didn't use a bump stock.

The line is in the weapon itself and size of mags. Those two, together, are the issue. Even with the 30 round mag, the AR can fire at least 2 mags in less than 5 seconds. If he has 4 mags then he can fire at least 120 rounds in less than 10 seconds and this is without something like the Bump Stock. With the Bump STock, it doesn't really get much worse in a closed target rich environment. You aren't limited in whether it's a full or simulated auto or not. You are limited to the number of clips or mags you can carry. Knowing that,. where do we draw that line?

No, as a matter of fact we don't agree about the line being drawn.

We can't address the problem until we agree what the problem is. The problem ISN'T the weapon. The problem is the shooter. Until we agree on that, there is no need for further conversation.

And you want the mass shooter to be as well armed as possible.

Why don't you practice being asinine?

Nobody said anything about that ... but that doesn't stop half-wits like you, who have nothing to add to the conversation, but feel the need to puff up your flagging ego so you say stupid bullshit in the vain hope that nobody will notice.

Believe me, we notice ....

 

[Spare_change]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Brain357]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

 

[Brain357]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

We sure found out how well not having to reload often worked in Orlando and Vegas.