Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-06-2022, 09:06 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,525,305 times
Reputation: 8094

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Waltz View Post
A small price to pay to provide a crisis that can be exploited to suppress people's rights.
That’s so true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2022, 09:14 AM
 
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,249 posts, read 5,606,838 times
Reputation: 4743
The police chief, the scene commander, is a Beto supporter and contributor. Chew on that just a little bit. There were a lot of bad things aligned that allowed this to happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,672,022 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
What?

The following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.


https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/11012...-mass-shooting
The act of possessing an AR-15 did not cause any harm in any mass shooting. The act of owning an AR-15 or any other firearm has never, not one time, been a harmful act. The use that the AR-15s were put to, which is already illegal due to actually being intentionally harmful, was the cause of harm, not the ownership or carrying of the AR-15. Had those acts been done with a hammer, they would have still been illegal.

The argument that the restriction of firearms is constitutional because other rights have limitations is a specious argument. Every restriction on rights prohibits you from using that right to cause harm, not from the actual right itself. The act of owning and carrying a firearm is the protected right, not the act of using it to intentionally cause harm to others.

The intent to cause harm is what should be the issue, not the ownership of firearms.

Back on topic, we now have an automatically locking door that didn’t lock instead of a teacher that left the door open, police with budget walkie-talkies maybe or maybe not actually inside the school, a school district police chief acting as the patsy in the most epic government failure in recent history, and a teenager who was nuttier than a jar of chunky peanut butter that managed to save enough working fast food to equip himself like an action movie star and slip through the cracks because either nobody reported his nuttiness to the proper authorities or the proper authorities failed to act. Am I caught up?

Oh, and a police officer who not only stopped a citizen from going after the nutty teenager but then remained outside the school to make sure that the citizen didn’t stop him instead of trying to stop the nutty teenager himself. That’s a rather big story in my opinion. I think that’s all I have, anyone got anything new?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 09:57 AM
 
1,826 posts, read 625,478 times
Reputation: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
So you can't answer the question why anyone would need an AR-15, is it because they need it for home defense?
Is not the point of weapons is to at least achieve parity, if not superiority, over your attacker? Technically, I do not 'need' an AR-15 for home defense, but because of that point, it implies a sort of 'need'. I grew up in a time when the police were just fine with the standard issue .38 revolver. When I joined the USAF back in 1983, Honolulu Police Dept was still issuing the .38 revolver, Hickam SPs were still guarding the base with the .38 revolver, but it escalated over time to now that pistol is relegated to being a nightstand weapon.

We made the limit at full auto. We made it difficult enough that it discourages MOST gun owners and MOST guns. If I can chose, even though the attacker may have a blunderbuss, I would pick up the AR-15 instead of my .40 pistol. I do not want merely an advantage, I want overwhelming advantages and if the AR-15 is the limit, I will use it. As a man, I can already imagine what I do not want to happen to me, but I can easily up that level of imagination for any woman who thinks about her safety. She would not care if a home invader have a knife, just like you in Viet Nam against the NVA/VC, she want overwhelming advantages over the criminal.

So yes, there is a 'need' for the AR-15.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,672,022 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Tell me how need to die in mass shootings before it becomes a problem, 20 a week, 30? What's your number.
Personally, the number is 1. I wish the Democrats would stop gaslighting the issue by blaming it on inanimate objects and agree to do something that would work.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
So you can't answer the question why anyone would need an AR-15, is it because they need it for home defense?
The founding fathers protected the right to keep and bear arms so that citizens would have parity with government soldiers. If you go by the reasoning of the people who wrote the Constitution, citizens should be able to own any weapon that a soldier can carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I served a tour in the infantry in the 25th division in Vietnam in 1969 so what would I know about the AR-15. Hard to believe that an 18 year old can buy the same gun as the M16.
My father served 3 tours (technically two and a half) in Vietnam. To his dying day he maintained that Vietnam was both proof that properly armed and motivated civilians could defeat any government in the world and a hidden but pressing reason that gun control in the form of disarming citizens became an issue for some politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,036 posts, read 7,169,015 times
Reputation: 9953
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
No. Driving a vehicle on public roads is neither a protected right nor a necessity. It’s a privilege that is granted by the government which you can lose if you break the law. Any of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, though, should be protected equally at whatever age we as a society decide adulthood begins. Yes, that means if we lower voting age to 16 as some have suggested then we should allow firearms purchase at the age of 16.

ETA: I live in Florida, where it is now illegal to buy a firearm until 21. I disagree with that law for the exact reason I stated. A protected right is a protected right, and all protected rights should be treated equally.
What protected right? You have been misled that the 2nd amendment gives unrestricted access to firearms.

The supreme court has repeatedly ruled in favor of laws restricting access to firearms when challenged claiming 2nd amendment. The way to get around the 2nd amendment is to place enough restriction that most won't bother with the process like California has done with the microstamping law.

Vietnamese were heavily supplied weapons from Russia, and China saying that a population who is armed could win a war without being resupplied is false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,672,022 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490 View Post
What protected right? You have been misled that the 2nd amendment gives unrestricted access to firearms.

The supreme court has repeatedly ruled in favor of laws restricting access to firearms when challenged claiming 2nd amendment. The way to get around the 2nd amendment is to place enough restriction that most won't bother with the process like California has done with the microstamping law.

Vietnamese were heavily supplied weapons from Russia, and China saying that a population who is armed could win a war without being resupplied is false.
You have been misled if you think that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right. Numerous quotes from the people who wrote it have been posted here which refute that argument. All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute and may only be restricted to a citizen after due process. Actions taken while exercising those rights may be restricted, but not the exercise of the right itself.

Even assuming reasonable restrictions are allowed, you would need to prove that said restriction is reasonable. Use in a tiny percentage of crime or the fact that it holds “x” number of rounds is not a reasonable reason to restrict anything.

Glad to see someone admit that they think the United States should be more like California. At the rate we’re going, it may happen. Probably won’t work out well for the average American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,073 posts, read 26,036,019 times
Reputation: 15531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar View Post
so ban all guns so NO more shootings. Isn't that your logic?





So you fought in Vietnam but can't tell the difference between an AR-15 to M-16/ AK-47.? I'm a Navy Vet that came after Nam and even I know the huge difference and my specialty was hunting Soviet nuclear submarines.

Not to get into the Vietnam war but you just proved the point of owning at least semi-automatics. You went in a foreign country with an M-16 to kill the Natives in their own country and you ask why somebody needs a semi-automatic weapon to defend their homes. Natives in Nam were being attacked by 2 armies with AK-47 and M-16 (automatic weapons) and you ask why somebody should have a semi- automatic at least? A Vietnam veteran of all people? O.K.
Who said ban all guns, never stated it was a perfect solution but certain restrictions in the face of these shootings is rational.

So people need these AR-15's for home defense or they need them for a pending invasion of a foreign country, is Mexico or Canada planning to attack. Our $1B defense department isn't enough we need to arm citizens with AR-15's, you sure that's enough. How about an M60 machine gun and some claymore mines for the perimeter.

The M16 is identical to the AR-15 in every way but one, the AR-15's don't have full auto but there are exceptions.

Well at least I got my answer why an 18 year old would need an AR-15, not that it makes any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Arizona
13,036 posts, read 7,169,015 times
Reputation: 9953
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
You have been misled if you think that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right. Numerous quotes from the people who wrote it have been posted here which refute that argument. All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute and may only be restricted to a citizen after due process. Actions taken while exercising those rights may be restricted, but not the exercise of the right itself.

Even assuming reasonable restrictions are allowed, you would need to prove that said restriction is reasonable. Use in a tiny percentage of crime or the fact that it holds “x” number of rounds is not a reasonable reason to restrict anything.

Glad to see someone admit that they think the United States should be more like California. At the rate we’re going, it may happen. Probably won’t work out well for the average American.

How many gun control laws been overturned by the 2nd amendment since 1900? One time.

District of Columbia v. Heller overturned DC law prohibiting citizens from keeping a handgun in their own home. The SC reaffirmed 2A does not allow unrestricted access to firearms this ruling should not be taken that way.

2A is not going to save you from gun control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2022, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,073 posts, read 26,036,019 times
Reputation: 15531
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
Personally, the number is 1. I wish the Democrats would stop gaslighting the issue by blaming it on inanimate objects and agree to do something that would work.




The founding fathers protected the right to keep and bear arms so that citizens would have parity with government soldiers. If you go by the reasoning of the people who wrote the Constitution, citizens should be able to own any weapon that a soldier can carry.


My father served 3 tours (technically two and a half) in Vietnam. To his dying day he maintained that Vietnam was both proof that properly armed and motivated civilians could defeat any government in the world and a hidden but pressing reason that gun control in the form of disarming citizens became an issue for some politicians.
Boy can those inanimate objects do some harm when they are in the wrong hands, are hand grenades inanimate objects, claymore mines?

The amendment was written over 200 years ago when we had no standing army and they used muzzle loaders and swords, they could have never predicted where we are today, people need to stop living in the past.

North Vietnam won the war with the help of the Vietcong in the south, are we expecting an invasion to the point that we need civilians to have military style arms, where does that end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top