Active shooters are twice as deadly when a semiautomatic weapon is used (money, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Minus just a few, most of the mass shooters of the last 20 years would have passed both universal background checks and mental health screenings.
Next idea?
The screening required to buy explosives are extremely comprehensive. When was the last time you heard of someone legally buying dynamite then using it in a crime? You are telling me that we can't do the same for guns? Please.
The screening required to buy explosives are extremely comprehensive. When was the last time you heard of someone legally buying dynamite then using it in a crime? You are telling me that we can't do the same for guns? Please.
Not without substantially infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, which is a glaring violation of the second amendment. You may want to start your quest with having the 2A repealed, overwritten, abolished, etc. Nothing too serious can pass while that pesky annoyance in the Bill of Rights is foiling legislative plans.
And that's the intellectually honest path anyway. Clearly, you believe the right to keep and bear arms should be severely infringed, so state that outright, and state the obvious first step necessary to do so - abolishing that amendment that says you can't.
Forget all the minutia about lethality, statistics, children, mental health, blah blah. You want to severely infringe upon the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, and the 2A says nay no. Gotta get rid of 2A as a necessary precursor to all you other hopes and dream of disarming the citizenry.
Not without substantially infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, which is a glaring violation of the second amendment. You may want to start your quest with having the 2A repealed, overwritten, abolished, etc. Nothing too serious can pass while that pesky annoyance in the Bill of Rights is foiling legislative plans.
And that's the intellectually honest path anyway. Clearly, you believe the right to keep and bear arms should be severely infringed, so state that outright, and state the obvious first step necessary to do so - abolishing that amendment that says you can't.
Forget all the minutia about lethality, statistics, children, mental health, blah blah. You want to severely infringe upon the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, and the 2A says nay no. Gotta get rid of 2A as a necessary precursor to all you other hopes and dream of disarming the citizenry.
- A bazooka is a firearm.
- Ownership of bazookas are highly restricted.
- Thus, according to your reasoning, the restrictions against ownership of bazookas is a violation of 2nd amendment rights.
The same could be said of any kind of cannon, tank, and basically, anything that can be used as a firearm.
I don't see you objecting to restrictions on ownership of bazookas, cannons, tanks, etc.
- A bazooka is a firearm.
- Ownership of bazookas are highly restricted.
- Thus, according to your reasoning, the restrictions against ownership of bazookas is a violation of 2nd amendment rights.
The same could be said of any kind of cannon, tank, and basically, anything that can be used as a firearm.
I don't see you objecting to restrictions on ownership of bazookas, cannons, tanks, etc.
You clearly don't read enough of my posts then, because I do object to any such restrictions.
If the agents of tyranny can possess a thing, every citizen in the country the agents of tyranny seek to oppress should be able to possess those things as well. I am 100%, rock solid consistent on that point. Always have been. When people fear the government, you have tyranny; when government fears the people, you have liberty.
I am more libertarian on that than version 1 (pre-sellout to Hamilton) of Patrick Henry. If I want to own a bazooka, why should I not be able to? The agents of tyranny can own them, and my inability to own them turns my government servant (remember, government SERVES THE PEOPLE) into my master. Wait, what? Not in the Constitution, not in the Federalist Papers, not in any definition of liberty does government get to outgun the citizenry.
And to make it easy on you so you don't have to fire back a dozen or so "yeah, what about" appeals to ridicule, I mean ANYTHING THEY CAN POSSESS, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO POSSESS.
1. Nobody accused *you* of wanting to ban cars or knives. The fact that you aren't looking to do so, in fact, supports *my* claim: If nobody is trying to ban knives (or chairs, or cars, or ...), then you don't need a *gun* as a weapon. Plenty of other things will suffice.
Now that's what I call some tier 1 mental gymnastics.
It doesn't support your claim you dolt.
On the basis of gun fatalities via accident at 461 deaths vs car accident, cars are at 37,461.
You are less likely to die in a firearm related accident than a car accident.
CDC PDF screen shot.
IIHS screenshot.
My point. Following your logic. We should be banning cars on the basis of lethality in accidents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
2. Everything you just accused me of regarding logic and emotion, I can accuse *you* of. *You* are afraid your rights will be restricted - that is a position based on emotion, not logic. *You* are afraid a method of defending yourself will be restricted - that is an emotional position, not a logical one. It's all about fear - an emotion - on your part.
Nope. There's no fear in acknowledging a Constitutionally protected civil liberty to keep and bear arms. Nothing emotional about it. Pure logic.
Your basis is that of emotion. Period. Me? I'm going to not only defend that civil liberty, I encourage it. I've paid for some of my employees to get their CCW if they didn't have one.
I also advocate for the repeal of Hughes and the NFA.
What was it feebly said before? 30% of the population that's 96,900,000 armed individuals if you believe that low of a number, has the again rookie number of 300 million firearms?
98-18 293,581,016 background checks for firearms.
This does not take into consideration for transferring multiple firearms on a 4473. Why in 2016 alone there were many transactions where I purchased 4 or 5 firearms on a single background check.
This doesn't take into consideration the states that do not perform a NICS check for that states concealed carry permit holders.
This does not take into consideration 80% receivers builds.
That's 293 million background checks. It was guesstimated and quite low at that, for how many firearms are in private hands and in circulation.
I would say more like 45-50% of the population owns firearms.
I would say there's closer to 800 million firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
You think you have the moral high ground, but you don't.
Oh sweetheart I don't only think I hold the moral high ground, I know I hold the moral high ground... Heres why... Your focus is on implements. My focus is on individuals. Their Motive incentive and intent.
You look at the totals for homicide. Here they are again.
For a country that has 320ish Million people.
Homicide totals involving a firearm as reported by the FBI UCR
2012- 8,897
2013- 8,454
2014- 8,312
2015- 9,778
2016- 11,004
Assume there's 1 gunman for every firearm fatality.
That's an average of 9,289 violent homicidal individuals in society. You want to support subjectively reviewing the rights of 320ish Million people. For the actions of 9,289 criminals? That's like punishing a classroom, scratch that, an entire school worth of students for the actions of 1 or 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
3. I don't know where you pulled rifles from. Out of thin air, it appears. Nobody's asking hunters to turn in their rifles. We were talking about the validity of owning firearms as a means of protecting ones self, and of using them as a means to fight back against a tyrannical government. What does that have to do, specifically, with rifles? Nothing.
Oh my you are touched. I'm going to attempt to address your incoherent rambling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
3. I don't know where you pulled rifles from. Out of thin air, it appears. Nobody's asking hunters to turn in their rifles.
LOL what is the basis of the OP and this thread?
Quote:
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle
Here's one of my hunting rifles. It's semi automatic.
But you want it banned. It's a hunting rifle because it's semi automatic it should be banned? oh you shift the goal posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
We were talking about the validity of owning firearms as a means of protecting ones self, and of using them as a means to fight back against a tyrannical government. What does that have to do, specifically, with rifles? Nothing.
What weapons do you think would be used in defense from a tyrannical government? Rifles. Militaries around the world arm their troops with Rifles. Thus it would stand, civilians should be able to acquire the same weapons the government has. Hence.
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well regulated-in well working order, not government intervention.
Quote:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Militia-
Quote:
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
Free state-Free state of being, void of being oppressed harassed threatened.
The right of the people-people comprise militias.
To keep and bear arms-To posses adequate weapons and corresponding munitions.
Shall not be infringed-actively break the terms of a law, agreement, or to limit or undermine.
Gun control = unconstitutional. As gun control undermines, limits, and breaks the the terms of the people's right to keep and bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
It would appear you know absolutely nothing about 1989. Nobody "surrendered" to Reagan.
And what followed there after? Why the dissolve of the communist Soviet Union of course...
Quote:
Only in Romania did the events turn violent. Nicolae Ceausescu, an increasingly idiosyncratic relic of Stalinist times, refused any reforms. On December 17 in Timisoara, the army and police fired into crowds protesting government policies, killing dozens. Protests spread to other cities, with hundreds killed when Ceausescu ordered the violent repression of demonstrations on December 21. By the next day, Ceausescu was forced to flee Bucharest and was arrested by Army units in the countryside. The interim government, led by a reformist communist Ion Iliescu, held a quick mock trial and Ceausescu and his wife were executed on December 25.
Not without substantially infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, which is a glaring violation of the second amendment. You may want to start your quest with having the 2A repealed, overwritten, abolished, etc. Nothing too serious can pass while that pesky annoyance in the Bill of Rights is foiling legislative plans.
And that's the intellectually honest path anyway. Clearly, you believe the right to keep and bear arms should be severely infringed, so state that outright, and state the obvious first step necessary to do so - abolishing that amendment that says you can't.
Forget all the minutia about lethality, statistics, children, mental health, blah blah. You want to severely infringe upon the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, and the 2A says nay no. Gotta get rid of 2A as a necessary precursor to all you other hopes and dream of disarming the citizenry.
Technically your 2A rights are already being infringed upon and always has. You can't legally acquire a whole plethora of what could be consider "arms". By its execution the 2A is a limited right. Its not an all or nothing right like some of the others.
Since your 2A rights are already limited, how would it be in infringement if additional arms are added to that list. How would not being allowed to own an RPG not be an infringement of the 2A but an AR-15 is?
- A bazooka is a firearm.
- Ownership of bazookas are highly restricted.
- Thus, according to your reasoning, the restrictions against ownership of bazookas is a violation of 2nd amendment rights.
The same could be said of any kind of cannon, tank, and basically, anything that can be used as a firearm.
I don't see you objecting to restrictions on ownership of bazookas, cannons, tanks, etc.
LOL
A bazooka is a destructive device! They're not banned. I can make one on a form 1 or form 4 get the tax stamp from the ATF upon approval and have a bazooka or rpg and it's corresponding ammo, on seperate form 1 or form 4s... pay the crown their tax await the approval receive stamp and have my destructive devices. Just the same as it was for me for suppressors waiting 18 months...
And yeah I object to banning the following.
Bazooka/RPG
Machine guns
Grenades
Cannons
Tanks
Fighter jets
Helicopters
I own land. I should be able to operate whatever I want to on that land. If I want an M1 Abrams, I should be able to buy it. Buy rounds for it. Take junk cars out on my property and shoot them with the tank.
Or have a cobra/apache gunship and fly up and nail it with missiles and machine guns.
Or strafe a line of junk cars with an A10 warthog.
I'm not bothering anyone by doing that. I'm not putting anyone's life at risk if I did that. So who are you or .gov to say I cant? It's my money. I'll spend it however I want.
If I want to invite No_Recess, BentBow, rebeldor, 1AngryTaxpayer, hell even you and KenFresno out to shoot up junk cars, I should be able to with whatever weapons we want. Who are we hurting? Nobody. Who are we killing? Wounding? Nobody.
But ya'll follow this emotional drivel, associate the implement with the individual that commits heinous violent acts with conflation and false equivalency.
Oh... someone likes something I dont. Ban it! It's inherently dangerous! It means that individual is a blood listing psychopath!
Technically your 2A rights are already being infringed upon and always has. You can't legally acquire a whole plethora of what could be consider "arms". By its execution the 2A is a limited right. Its not an all or nothing right like some of the others.
Since your 2A rights are already limited, how would it be in infringement if additional arms are added to that list. How would not being allowed to own an RPG not be an infringement of the 2A but an AR-15 is?
With the right supreme Court justices in place, the right congress critters and senators and governors...
There will be belt feds and bazookas for everyone.
- One revolution turned violent.
- In East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Albania were bloodless.
- That's six against one.
- That's six countries in which unarmed citizens overturned governments.
It's an inconvenient fact for the gun rights folks that arms are unnecessary to overturn tyrannical governments. In fact, unarmed citizens have overturned governments many times.
- One revolution turned violent.
- In East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Albania were bloodless.
- That's six against one.
- That's six countries in which unarmed citizens overturned governments.
It's an inconvenient fact for the gun rights folks that arms are unnecessary to overturn tyrannical governments. In fact, unarmed citizens have overturned governments many times.
If you're that uncomfortable with us owning firearms, go live in one of those gun free utopias. I'll put 50k in a Go fund me campaign and pay your way there. Moving expenses, pay off your mortgage. The works. You can live in a gun free society.
We can fill your vacancy with someone who appreciates the right to keep and bear arms.
Win-Win.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh you shift the goal posts.
