The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: edpc on August 04, 2019, 09:34:04 pm
-
Wrapping up an out-of-sight weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., President Donald Trump said Sunday that “perhaps†more needs to be done with respect to gun control.
“Hate has no place in our country and we’re going to take care of it,†Trump told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One to return to Washington, D.C.
Trump said he will make a statement Monday on the two mass shootings over the weekend and what can be done in response. Trump said he has also spoken with Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray about the mass violence.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-said-perhaps-more-needs-205235106.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-said-perhaps-more-needs-205235106.html)
-
I will NEVER figure out the mentality that attributes actions to inanimate objects.
-
National red flag law on the way.
-
National red flag law on the way.
That’d be a deal breaker.
-
I have been less than impressed with his last few statements on this subject. They have included holding an index card that reads ‘I hear you,’ asking Feinstein to include her gun grabbing legislation, and saying seize guns now, due process later. I guess we’ll see what’s next.
-
Perhaps more should be done about letting mentally ill people buys guns.
-
Perhaps more should be done about letting mentally ill people buys guns.
Perhaps the left should stop trying to use each of these tragedies for political ends. There are too many lunatics out there willing to take one for the team.
-
Perhaps more should be done about letting mentally ill people buys guns.
The PROBLEM is not with inanimate objects of any kind!
-
The PROBLEM is not with inanimate objects of any kind!
@Bigun
I agree. It's the mentally ill who are the problem. So damned obvious and so damned ignored by the democommies and their buddies in the media.
-
@Bigun
I agree. It's the mentally ill who are the problem. So damned obvious and so damned ignored by the democommies and their buddies in the media.
@austingirl
I don't disagree with any of that but I think there is much more to it starting with drugging active young boys to get them to conform instead of capturing their interests and teaching them how to channel their energy into positive pursuits. When I was growing up, admittedly long before most here, we didn't have TIME to think about how to engage in such things and there was never a day when guns were not readily at hand! I was given my first when I was 8 as a Christmas present.
-
"Mentally ill" can become a very wide category/definition very quickly. Mentally ill could include people who frequent "far right" sites like TBR in addition to truly mentally ill people under a Dem administration/Congress. Slippery slope.
The general "unwinding" of societal norms and the de-valuing of life will lead to more & more violence regardless of a "mentally ill" diagnosis. Unfortunately.
-
The repercussions of these attacks are going to be ugly. Most everyone, including Ted Cruz, is blaming these murders on white supremacy. The powers that be are going to be clamoring to do something now that they've identified the "enemy".
Ted Cruz
Verified account @tedcruz
As the son of a Cuban immigrant, I am deeply horrified by the hateful anti-Hispanic bigotry expressed in the shooter’s so-called ‘manifesto.’ This ignorant racism is repulsive and profoundly anti-American.
10:53 AM - 4 Aug 2019
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1158073608369070082
Ted Cruz
Verified account @tedcruz
We must speak clearly to combat evil in any form it takes. What we saw yesterday was a heinous act of terrorism and white supremacy. There is no place for this in El Paso, in Texas, or anywhere across our nation.
We are all Americans and we are all standing united with El Paso.
10:53 AM - 4 Aug 2019
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1158073609266638848
-
@austingirl
I don't disagree with any of that but I think there is much more to it starting with drugging active young boys to get them to conform instead of capturing their interests and teaching them how to channel their energy into positive pursuits. When I was growing up, admittedly long before most here, we didn't have TIME to think about how to engage in such things and there was never a day when guns were not readily at hand! I was given my first when I was 8 as a Christmas present.
The deterioration of our culture is coming hard and fast now. The leftists who became university professors, the democraps running the major cities, drugging kids with Ritalin and SSRIs, all played a role to change American life. I grew up in an idyllic neighborhood where no one ever thought to look to the government for answers to their problems. The only time you thought of the federal government was on tax day and the Fourth of July.
-
"Mentally ill" can become a very wide category/definition very quickly. Mentally ill could include people who frequent "far right" sites like TBR in addition to truly mentally ill people under a Dem administration/Congress. Slippery slope.
Focus on the mentally ill ... or give up your guns. Here's what unrestricted gun ownership is up against:
Timeline of mass shootings in the US since 2000 (through Nov 2018)
https://www.metro.us/news/map-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-2000/tmWmll---14WH11UWCww (https://www.metro.us/news/map-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-2000/tmWmll---14WH11UWCww)
-
"Mentally ill" can become a very wide category/definition very quickly. Mentally ill could include people who frequent "far right" sites like TBR in addition to truly mentally ill people under a Dem administration/Congress. Slippery slope.
The general "unwinding" of societal norms and the de-valuing of life will lead to more & more violence regardless of a "mentally ill" diagnosis. Unfortunately.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/02/21/catch-22-vets-concerned-with-loss-of-gun-rights-if-they-seek-treatment-for-ptsd/ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/02/21/catch-22-vets-concerned-with-loss-of-gun-rights-if-they-seek-treatment-for-ptsd/)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/16/fed-assails-seniors-right-bear-arms-column/71964766/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/16/fed-assails-seniors-right-bear-arms-column/71964766/)
These are examples of what you mean, even though the SSA rule was repealed.
-
That’d be a deal breaker.
Absolutely.
-
There isn't any law that is going to change one damned thing, other than making law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves.
-
There isn't any law that is going to change one damned thing, other than making law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves.
:amen: @dfwgator! And sadly, I'm very afraid we are too far gone as a nation to fix it.
Gonna post this ONE more time:
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
Henry David Thoreau
-
:amen: @dfwgator! And sadly, I'm very afraid we are too far gone as a nation to fix it.
I anticipate gun confiscation on a massive scale.
-
I anticipate gun confiscation on a massive scale.
Based upon what?
-
There isn't any law that is going to change one damned thing, other than making law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves.
Indeed. That's the point.
-
I have been less than impressed with his last few statements on this subject. They have included holding an index card that reads ‘I hear you,’ asking Feinstein to include her gun grabbing legislation, and saying seize guns now, due process later. I guess we’ll see what’s next.
This guy will go for what makes him play best in the press, in the end. The bump stock ban is just the camel's nose under the tent.
-
This guy will go for what makes him play best in the press, in the end. The bump stock ban is just the camel's nose under the tent.
As has been the case with most major issues, he’s been a bit shaky.
2000 "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun," he said. "With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.â€
2015 "Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reverses-stance-assault-weapons-policy-paper/story?id=33867505
-
As has been the case with most major issues, he’s been a bit shaky.
2000 "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun," he said. "With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.â€
2015 "Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reverses-stance-assault-weapons-policy-paper/story?id=33867505 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reverses-stance-assault-weapons-policy-paper/story?id=33867505)
2016Trump Administration Imposes Ban on Bump Stocks
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html)
He's already crossed the threshold once.
-
Here's what the President said. He spent more time praising law enforcement and talking about mental illness than gun control:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxabTBCOh94#)
-
Here's what the President said. He spent more time praising law enforcement and talking about mental illness than gun control:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxabTBCOh94#)
"We have to get it stopped ... and he's going to be making a statement tomorrow". He stated that he's been in touch with AG Barr and Congress. With what he said, the American public is now anticipating that something will be done to stop the mass shootings -- this can only mean one thing; some type of gun control.
Not good.
-
"We have to get it stopped ... and he's going to be making a statement tomorrow". He stated that he's been in touch with AG Barr and Congress. With what he said, the American public is now anticipating that something will be done to stop the mass shootings -- this can only mean one thing; some type of gun control.
Not good.
I suspect they'll end the sale of AR types of weapons in the very near future. Years ago all we had were hunting rifles and shotguns...now every little snotty nosed brat has an AR to play with. I have no use for them. I can't shoot a bird with one and shooting a deer with one is an over kill.
If the little brat that killed 20 in El Paso had used a handgun or rifle, I suspect the number killed would have been much less.
-
I suspect they'll end the sale of AR types of weapons in the very near future. Years ago all we had were hunting rifles and shotguns...now every little snotty nosed brat has an AR to play with. I have no use for them. I can't shoot a bird with one and shooting a deer with one is an over kill.
If the little brat that killed 20 in El Paso had used a handgun or rifle, I suspect the number killed would have been much less.
@mrpotatohead
I said this to you yesterday and apparently you didn’t have the intellectual honesty to follow up...so I’ll try again
Do a google search for “Stephen Willefordâ€
Or “ar 15 stops home invasionâ€
And then get back to me. Until then you’re just being an emotional nitwit or a tyrant wannabe who thinks he knows what’s best
-
If the little brat that killed 20 in El Paso had used a handgun or rifle, I suspect the number killed would have been much less.
History says differently....
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/massacre-at-virginia-tech-leaves-32-dead (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/massacre-at-virginia-tech-leaves-32-dead)
It’s not necessarily the weapon, it’s time, reliability, and proficiency. The shooter at the Aurora theater used an AR with a large drum that jammed. He killed a dozen. The DC naval yard shooter killed more with a shotgun and the Ft Hood shooter killed more with a handgun.
-
@mrpotatohead
I said this to you yesterday and apparently you didn’t have the intellectual honesty to follow up...so I’ll try again
Do a google search for “Stephen Willefordâ€
Or “ar 15 stops home invasionâ€
And then get back to me. Until then you’re just being an emotional nitwit or a tyrant wannabe who thinks he knows what’s best
Wouldn't my hunting rifle with a scope do the same thing as his AR-15? He put 2 bullets into the guy. He's a true hero no doubt.
-
Perhaps more should be done about letting mentally ill people buys guns.
Who is the decider wrt the definition of mentally ill?
How does that work? Do I have to have a shrink sign off before I can buy a gun?
Not that I would. I'll just go get the gun on the street instead, which I am likely to do anyway.
-
Wouldn't my hunting rifle with a scope do the same thing as his AR-15?
Without all the man-candy tin bolted on, that ar-15 IS your hunting rifle.
-
I suspect they'll end the sale of AR types of weapons in the very near future. Years ago all we had were hunting rifles and shotguns...now every little snotty nosed brat has an AR to play with. I have no use for them. I can't shoot a bird with one and shooting a deer with one is an over kill.
If the little brat that killed 20 in El Paso had used a handgun or rifle, I suspect the number killed would have been much less.
You don't want one, I get that.
As for handguns, there is no guarantee that the body count would have been any less, and could have been more. It's more concealable, and reloading is easy. Magazines are lighter, too, enabling even more ammo to be carried. BTW, the AK-47 and the AR-15 ARE rifles.
Shooting a deer with a standard AR-15, 5.56 ammo is forbidden by law in my state. Prairie dogs and other varmints, including coyotes are fair game, but a deer requires (by law) a round of at least .25 caliber.
A multitude of other variants built on the same Stoner (AR) concept work just fine, in higher calibers. You can take a deer with an AK-47, if you choose. You can even lug around a 30 round magazine full of ammo if you want, but you'd better not shoot more than your tag limit (1). Fish and Game here get upset about that.
But because you don't want one, the rest of the country has to bend to your likes?
That isn't how Rights work.
Yesterday, somewhere between 9,999,999 and 4,999,999 Ar-15s were not used to slaughter people. I can't find any figures on the number of semiautomatic AK variants there are in the US, but the vast majority of those were apparently well behaved as well.
Still, in the off chance that some mob may come down my street, I don't want to jack in 5 and have to reload. Chances are with a mob, that they won't notice the damage and you'll be overrun--and oddly enough, all the Leftists/Liberals have been pushing for just that--mob violence, and during the last Administration, they even got some (Baltimore and Fergusson). Don't think that couldn't visit where you live.
I don't want a Ferrari. Got no use for one. Should they be prohibited? How about Hummel figurines? Beanie Babies? Lalique glassware? Rolex watches (after all, your dumb phone can keep track of time. You don't even need a smartphone). Should they be banned?
You decide what you want, and I'll stand up for your Right to do so, but kindly don't stand in between me and my Right to own what I want.
Two firearms out of millions were used in those incident. Two. For that millions of people who have done nothing wrong should suffer consequences?
Oh, Hell NO!
-
"We have to get it stopped ... and he's going to be making a statement tomorrow". He stated that he's been in touch with AG Barr and Congress. With what he said, the American public is now anticipating that something will be done to stop the mass shootings -- this can only mean one thing; some type of gun control.
Not good.
I really didn't get that from what the President said .... if you listen to his answer at the end of the video to the one question asked about gun control he shifted very quickly and was very strong that this is a mental health problem.
But who knows what'll happen between now and tomorrow morning. :shrug:
@libertybele
-
You don't want one, I get that.
As for handguns, there is no guarantee that the body count would have been any less, and could have been more. It's more concealable, and reloading is easy. Magazines are lighter, too, enabling even more ammo to be carried. BTW, the AK-47 and the AR-15 ARE rifles.
Shooting a deer with a standard AR-15, 5.56 ammo is forbidden by law in my state. Prairie dogs and other varmints, including coyotes are fair game, but a deer requires (by law) a round of at least .25 caliber.
A multitude of other variants built on the same Stoner (AR) concept work just fine, in higher calibers. You can take a deer with an AK-47, if you choose. You can even lug around a 30 round magazine full of ammo if you want, but you'd better not shoot more than your tag limit (1). Fish and Game here get upset about that.
But because you don't want one, the rest of the country has to bend to your likes?
That isn't how Rights work.
Yesterday, somewhere between 9,999,999 and 4,999,999 Ar-15s were not used to slaughter people. I can't find any figures on the number of semiautomatic AK variants there are in the US, but the vast majority of those were apparently well behaved as well.
Still, in the off chance that some mob may come down my street, I don't want to jack in 5 and have to reload. Chances are with a mob, that they won't notice the damage and you'll be overrun--and oddly enough, all the Leftists/Liberals have been pushing for just that--mob violence, and during the last Administration, they even got some (Baltimore and Fergusson). Don't think that couldn't visit where you live.
I don't want a Ferrari. Got no use for one. Should they be prohibited? How about Hummel figurines? Beanie Babies? Lalique glassware? Rolex watches (after all, your dumb phone can keep track of time. You don't even need a smartphone). Should they be banned?
You decide what you want, and I'll stand up for your Right to do so, but kindly don't stand in between me and my Right to own what I want.
Two firearms out of millions were used in those incident. Two. For that millions of people who have done nothing wrong should suffer consequences?
Oh, Hell NO!
Concern for the likelihood of maim/run-off vs kill?
-
Still, in the off chance that some mob may come down my street, I don't want to jack in 5 and have to reload. Chances are with a mob, that they won't notice the damage and you'll be overrun
Ain't even that... a .223 semi-auto (long clips, banana style) is a brilliant coyote gun... You can double-tap and find another... You'll get three or four where a bolt action would get one. It's fun for gophers too, though normally I use a .22LR semi-auto for that... Cheaper ammo, and you don't have to worry as much about the downrange...
-
National red flag law on the way.
Kasich is on CNN right now, pushing it.
-
Who is the decider wrt the definition of mentally ill?
How does that work? Do I have to have a shrink sign off before I can buy a gun?
Not that I would. I'll just go get the gun on the street instead, which I am likely to do anyway.
Seems like every time I go into see my doctor they are pushing me to say I'm depressed or feel some sort of fear, all out of a desire to help me.................................yeah right! I see it as all part of building a record of who can be tagged as 'mentally ill' so their rights can be nullified at some future point, considering the socialists total control of California I suspect it would be in the very near future.
-
I see it as all part of building a record of who can be tagged as 'mentally ill' so their rights can be nullified at some future point, considering the socialists total control of California I suspect it would be in the very near future.
That's probably right... My emphasis would be on the futility of such a measure - In your scenario, a man is deemed unfit and denied(whether he is actually unfit or not)... But 500 bucks in your city, or any other in these fair states will get you what you want, and without a shred of paperwork or background check. And that will never change.
-
Kasich is on CNN right now, pushing it.
Can’t wait. A few years ago my next door neighbor called Ca Air Resources on me because I burned a Duraflame log on Christmas Eve.
A red flag gun law ought to work out great here.
-
Concern for the likelihood of maim/run-off vs kill?
That's the main reason for limiting deer hunting to the higher calibers (.25 or higher).
Tracking in prairie grass can be a SOB, especially in the dark and if the blood trail isn't really good.
While a .22 Long Rifle can certainly drop a whitetail at ranges under 100 yards, shot placement has to be just right.
I prefer a .30 caliber rifle, even on something as relatively small as whitetail, just to have the energy downrange. Some would say that is overkill, but I don't think so.
-
That's probably right... My emphasis would be on the futility of such a measure - In your scenario, a man is deemed unfit and denied(whether he is actually unfit or not)... But 500 bucks in your city, or any other in these fair states will get you what you want, and without a shred of paperwork or background check. And that will never change.
But that's the problem with any gun control measure. If criminals followed laws, there would be no shootings. Passing another law isn't going to change the fact that they don't follow laws. It just puts lawbreakers at an advantage.
These crazies seem to pick areas where the average person who is law abiding won't be carrying their weapon, by virtue of one law or another. They know it is the presence of firearms which renders them in peril, as the Dayton shooter found out. They might be crazy, but they aren't stupid. Making more free fire zones by depriving people of arms isn't going to improve the situation, it just gives the scofflaw nutcases more venues to choose from.
What firearms did police use to end the rampage in Dayton?
-
The repercussions of these attacks are going to be ugly. Most everyone, including Ted Cruz, is blaming these murders on white supremacy. The powers that be are going to be clamoring to do something now that they've identified the "enemy".
Well we know that these groups exist. They should be scouring every bit of information about who and what influence this idiot had. This isn't just mental health I believe it is domestic terrorism and they need to find the root. And stop it. This is where freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech but advocating terrorism. This 22 year old did not get all of this by himself.
As for Trump and gun control, NO! Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
-
And Texas apparently has the most hate groups.
https://www.keranews.org/post/there-are-84-active-hate-groups-texas-most-any-state (https://www.keranews.org/post/there-are-84-active-hate-groups-texas-most-any-state)
Does anyone believe that banning guns will stop these groups from having them?
-
Shall NOT be infringed is all I have to say... All one needs to know unless you vote to change the constitution... opps, the right is from God, not man.
-
But that's the problem with any gun control measure. If criminals followed laws, there would be no shootings. Passing another law isn't going to change the fact that they don't follow laws. It just puts lawbreakers at an advantage.
Well, yes, more or less... I don't know about everywhere, but here at least, what I suggest is perfectly legal... and of a better economy. Very little of what I have (of any nature, gun or not) was bought new, to include my pots and pans, the fan in the window, and the pickup in the driveway.
I don't buy new anyhow. Why would I go buy a new gun and go through all that trouble, when I can buy something slightly used fora substantial savings?
It's just second nature to me. And that market will always be there - Even after all y'all are cashless, There will still be barter or trade for services. Registering guns is futile from the start, and in that, psycho exams as a prerequsite to purchase is equally futile.
Even though, I might add, It was already a prerequisite in the questions asked for my last application for a new rifle some 10 years ago.
-
That’d be a deal breaker.
Pretty much.
-
In Texas one can hunt deer with an AR-15 in .223/5.56.
In Texas, white-tailed deer, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and pronghorn may NOT be hunted with rimfire ammunition of any caliber. Rimfire ammunition does not possess enough velocity at longer ranges for clean shots on big game.
The smallest I have used for deer has been my .243. I have 2 AR-15s, but they are chambered in 6.5 Grendel and .358Yeti. I selected those calibers for hunting. I also have a .22 Hornet, but I haven't used it for deer hunting even though I know it was commonly used by the Eskimo for taking polar bear. Shot placement is everything.
-
Kasich is on CNN right now, pushing it.
And Trump just talked about it at the WH.
-
You don't want one, I get that.
As for handguns, there is no guarantee that the body count would have been any less, and could have been more. It's more concealable, and reloading is easy. Magazines are lighter, too, enabling even more ammo to be carried. BTW, the AK-47 and the AR-15 ARE rifles.
Shooting a deer with a standard AR-15, 5.56 ammo is forbidden by law in my state. Prairie dogs and other varmints, including coyotes are fair game, but a deer requires (by law) a round of at least .25 caliber.
A multitude of other variants built on the same Stoner (AR) concept work just fine, in higher calibers. You can take a deer with an AK-47, if you choose. You can even lug around a 30 round magazine full of ammo if you want, but you'd better not shoot more than your tag limit (1). Fish and Game here get upset about that.
But because you don't want one, the rest of the country has to bend to your likes?
That isn't how Rights work.
Yesterday, somewhere between 9,999,999 and 4,999,999 Ar-15s were not used to slaughter people. I can't find any figures on the number of semiautomatic AK variants there are in the US, but the vast majority of those were apparently well behaved as well.
Still, in the off chance that some mob may come down my street, I don't want to jack in 5 and have to reload. Chances are with a mob, that they won't notice the damage and you'll be overrun--and oddly enough, all the Leftists/Liberals have been pushing for just that--mob violence, and during the last Administration, they even got some (Baltimore and Fergusson). Don't think that couldn't visit where you live.
I don't want a Ferrari. Got no use for one. Should they be prohibited? How about Hummel figurines? Beanie Babies? Lalique glassware? Rolex watches (after all, your dumb phone can keep track of time. You don't even need a smartphone). Should they be banned?
You decide what you want, and I'll stand up for your Right to do so, but kindly don't stand in between me and my Right to own what I want.
Two firearms out of millions were used in those incident. Two. For that millions of people who have done nothing wrong should suffer consequences?
Oh, Hell NO!
Where does it end though? Ok...some people want AR's...fine. What if I want a hand grenade? Artillery gun? Tank? Cruise missile? Where do you draw the line?
-
Where does it end though? Ok...some people want AR's...fine. What if I want a hand grenade? Artillery gun? Tank? Cruise missile? Where do you draw the line?
DriveTanks.com is the world’s premier historical military vehicle and weapon experience. Located in Uvalde Texas on the Ox Ranch we are the only place in the world where you can drive and shoot real tanks, artillery, and machine guns in one location.
https://www.drivetanks.com/ (https://www.drivetanks.com/)
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2Ex1d0oMU&pbjreload=10#)
-
DriveTanks.com is the world’s premier historical military vehicle and weapon experience. Located in Uvalde Texas on the Ox Ranch we are the only place in the world where you can drive and shoot real tanks, artillery, and machine guns in one location.
https://www.drivetanks.com/ (https://www.drivetanks.com/)
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2Ex1d0oMU&pbjreload=10#)
You can't own a machine gun in Texas without waiting 6 months for a permit. Why not do the same thing with AR guns? Anyone see the harm?
-
You can't own a machine gun in Texas without waiting 6 months for a permit. Why not do the same thing with AR guns? Anyone see the harm?
It leaves the door wide open then why not extend waiting times for 9mm, .45's, .50 cal, etc., etc. Once you start specifying different weapons, they will continue to find reason for others.
-
It leaves the door wide open then why not extend waiting times for 9mm, .45's, .50 cal, etc., etc. Once you start specifying different weapons, they will continue to find reason for others.
The kind of thinking that MPH is espousing is what will lead to a complete ban on private gun ownership.
You can't give the left an inch on this stuff because they'll take three miles.
-
You can't own a machine gun in Texas without waiting 6 months for a permit. Why not do the same thing with AR guns? Anyone see the harm?
Shall NOT be infringed....
Funny Obama was the gun salesman of the century.... Perhaps Trump should claim the title.
Guns are not for hunting, that was a given. Guns are for protection from an overbearing government... and we are to be little if any less prepared than the sitting army. In our founding, it was the civilians that could outgun the army.
-
Shall NOT be infringed....
Funny Obama was the gun salesman of the century.... Perhaps Trump should claim the title.
Guns are not for hunting, that was a given. Guns are for protection from an overbearing government... and we are to be little if any less prepared than the sitting army. In our founding, it was the civilians that could outgun the army.
Exactly!
-
I suspect they'll end the sale of AR types of weapons in the very near future. Years ago all we had were hunting rifles and shotguns...now every little snotty nosed brat has an AR to play with. I have no use for them. I can't shoot a bird with one and shooting a deer with one is an over kill.
If the little brat that killed 20 in El Paso had used a handgun or rifle, I suspect the number killed would have been much less.
You should try taking on a herd of wild hogs destroying your pastures. You would change your mind.
Then try defending your store property from a rioting crowd.
The 2nd amendment wasn't written for hunting.
-
You can't own a machine gun in Texas without waiting 6 months for a permit. Why not do the same thing with AR guns? Anyone see the harm?
Yeah. You are basically talking about every semiautomatic by the time you are done, because that is the only delineation that makes sense... And that is basically everything nowadays.
-
After reading this thread, not much to say.
The two sides on this are irreconcilable, short of resolution by physical conflict.
I did post this earlier today regarding the recent shootings and the Second Amendment:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370983.msg2026108.html#msg2026108 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,370983.msg2026108.html#msg2026108)
One thing's for certain:
weapon and ammunition sales are probably headed for another surge upwards...
-
Whatever would get "done" would only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
-
Where does it end though? Ok...some people want AR's...fine. What if I want a hand grenade? Artillery gun? Tank? Cruise missile? Where do you draw the line?
That’s such a bullshit chicken shit argument just so you can justify giving up your God given right of self preservation. But I’ll entertain your ridiculous notion:
What was the most powerful weapon available at the time of the Revolution? The cannon. It was capable of killing multiple people with every single shot and in fact was frequently loaded with ammunition to do just that.
What sparked the Revolution? Why did the battles on Lexington Green and Concord occur? Because the British were trying to confiscate a cache of PRIVATELY owned weapons, powder and ammunition...including several cannons...the MOST POWERFUL WEAPON AVAILABLE.
So where do I draw the line? Pretty much nowhere...if it’s good enough for the Founders, it’s good enough for me.
-
Where does it end though? Ok...some people want AR's...fine. What if I want a hand grenade? Artillery gun? Tank? Cruise missile? Where do you draw the line?
We have pretty much drawn the line at crew served weapons, but here is the rub. You CAN own a tank, a hand grenade, an artillery piece. It can be fully functional, Ammunition for the tank and artillery piece, individually is classified as a destructive device, as is the hand grenade, and subject to the transfer tax on a per round basis. That transfer tax, the price of the round, and the costs incurred to properly store and move the round of ammunition to where it is to be fired all go up in smoke the moment it is fired. Not to mention much of it has to be custom made, so it is darned expensive. https://www.drivetanks.com/big-guns/ (https://www.drivetanks.com/big-guns/)
Most tanks have demilitarized (non functional) main guns, but they can be fully functional if you are willing to undergo the permitting process, and if your pocket is deep enough, although local laws may apply, and road weight restrictions count in that. There are a lot of hoops to jump through, and some considerable expense, but it can be done.
I guess the question is one of whether you think your neighbor with the M4 Sherman tank is going to shoot up your lawn gnomes late at night, or even you. Really, the sort of folks who can afford such things (tanks, not lawn gnomes) aren't likely to endanger their Liberty by misusing them. Not only that, they'd lose their neat gadget, too, if they did. They usually either own or have access to land suitable for such a hobby, and chances are they'd lose that, too. They 'have skin in the game', so to speak.
When you get right down to it, that is a big reason that those devices aren't used in such a fashion as to create an outcry, aside from basic moral constraints (that the same people who decry our Right to Keep and Beak Arms consider outmoded, archaic, and even "racist", because anything which might shed light on, and provide a counter to, their libertine tendencies is considered thus).
Keep in mind that 99.99996+% (assuming only 5 million AR-15s are in the US, the number may well be double that) of AR-15s were NOT used to commit crimes on the day the two shooters decided to make their mark on our culture. Likely more AR-15s were used to stop crimes in the same day than to commit them, and not by police or the military, but by ordinary citizens, but that seldom makes headlines, and certainly NOT on the MSM channels.
So, the question comes of whether it is fair, in any sense, to deprive millions of people of the ability to defend themselves because 2 people out of 330,000,000, or, as a more limited sample, the 5,000,000 (minimum) who possess such arms decided to go on a killing spree, an event unusual in itself, because these nutcases seem to want all the limelight for themselves.
Keep in mind that the sort of armour (tanks, armored cars) we were talking about ordinary citizens owning is relatively primitive compared with the current US MBTs, and even the MRAPs that police departments are getting across the country, and wouldn't last a New York Second in a drawdown with an Abrams. It's also vulnerable to virtually any hand launched RPG or antitank weapon.
What, you don't have one of those? Well, maybe that's why you're feeling a mite intimidated by the idea of your neighbor having a tank. But the rifles we are talking about Government taking away are not a new design for military use, they are degraded knock offs of a design over 50 years old. What other constraints would such a Government unleash once that threshold is crossed?
Considering that some of our representatives in Government have proclaimed they want a monopoly on even a downgraded knock-off of a basic infantry arm, something wholly inadequate to take on the equipment fielded daily by that same Government in warfare, which pales in capability compared to the new fully automatic models available only to Government, by decree (law), that means the balance of power between those who are supposedly there to safeguard our rights and those of us who have those rights (us) is already seriously skewed. So, why the paranoia?
It isn't about OUR safety. The same people who are suddenly so interested in protecting us from ourselves have made certain the border remains open to infiltration by people who have such weapons and better ones, who are organized at least in tribal type units, who have no compunction about using those weapons, and who wield the WMDs of illicit drugs as part of their stock in trade. Now, they are suddenly so worried about us all they want to take away OUR RIGHTS to "keep us safe"?
Bullshit. They just want to stack the odds in their own favor, as they ever have, only with a new incident and an old excuse to do so.
To permit this infringement of a fundamental Civil Right denigrates and devalues the sacrifices of millions of American troops over centuries to safeguard those same Rights.
The Government also has significant air superiority, and the ability to put steel on target with a minimum of collateral damage--even using concrete filled JDAMs as a kinetic energy weapon to take out specific houses without doing serious structural damage to adjacent buildings in Iraq.
Nothing I, nor you, as an individual, could afford would pose a serious threat. Only millions of these rifles in the hands of a populace determined to remain free pose any threat to the Globalist/Communist machinations which we daily decry here.
Now, I really don't know what the government would have to say about private ownership of a cruise missile, likely, they'd be seriously afraid of that. But the tech is out there, and sooner or later someone will build one in their garage. Then what? It would have to be registered as a destructive device, same hoops as
In the meantime, we have the WMDs of fentanyl and other drugs brought in, from the more commonly known to designer drugs of unknown effect, coming across a poorly secured border along with any world class individual weapons that can be smuggled in as well. The weight of this material is measured in tons.
Maybe the government should do that job, the one it is Constitutionally tasked with of securing the border, and leave the Rights of American Citizens alone.
Bottom line, though, the question isn't one of what people have, it is one of what they do with it.
The discussion that isn't being had, the thing simply not being condemned is murder, by whatever means, although the one-sided discussion of the sort of mindset that contributes to incidents like these has begun in earnest, the honesty needed to reach a solution is a distant and perhaps unattainable goal, especially with the sort of politicians involved we have today, hired by the very people they and the media manipulate. Would you remand the safety and security of your Rights to a mob? Especially one which has partisan goals which, as stated, include looting the fruits of your labors to enrich themselves?
In the face of such an onslaught, I an especially recalcitrant when it comes to any infringements of my Rights.
I have done no wrong, harmed no one, and will not yield my liberty or property on account of someone else's misdeeds. Such flies in the face of our Constitution, our Rights, and the very foundations of this Republic.
It's time to dial back the shrill rhetoric, the hate speech that is given a pass daily while yet another group is being assaulted, verbally, culturally, and even physically, day in and day out, nonstop, in the media, and on the streets. Fomenting such an environment of hatred toward any people will have repercussions, so let's really level the playing field and take a step toward civility and honesty.
The hardware doesn't harm anyone without a human either acting out of malice or ignorance, and I have done neither.
I own no class III weapons, no destructive devices, legal or otherwise, but I refuse to surrender what I legally possess today tomorrow because someone, anyone, unconstitutionally declares that property illegal.
As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safetyâ€
Those who are bent on mayhem will continue to devise means of reaching their goals. The only way to reduce that is to reduce the reasons they cite for accomplishing their crimes, and to catch the people who abuse their Rights to perpetrate them, preferably before they accomplish those ends. Making one tool or another unavailable to the general population to defend against such mayhem has already been done, with disastrous results. The Texas shooting was done in an area where those who might have been able to do something were disarmed by their compliance with the rules of the store. We see what effect that had. It cost lives by making an area effectively a free-fire zone where effective resistance to the evil machinations of a nutcase was prohibited.
Only in Dayton, we see the nutcase stopped, but that was done with guns, all of which I'd wager were semiautomatic firearms. Denying that capability to people will only predictably increase the body count and further the agenda of those who would disarm the American People, and thus make sheep of us all.