(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)gdunn Wrote: But hey we're going to disband the NRA.
Shut down professional lobbyists.
FYP.
In all honestly, we all know these things won't happen, but it is within our power to not vote for the people who take money from these monster organizations to have their votes unduly swayed.
I agree. We need to cut them all out. Don't think I didn't notice you fixed my comment. I wonder if you did it because you agree with all lobbyist or if it was the ones I listed.
Without reading pass the first post I suggest that we do the following....
Not allow those under the age of 18 to own a smart phone. Not all those under the age of 18 to get on facebook, Twitter, or what ever is the gadget of today. It's very clear that the more connected these kids become. The more they kill and the more of those on the line of crazy are pushed.
BTW other than seeing the headlines....I haven't read one word about this latest kid that went over that "crazy line or what pushed him". But I bet he never got to that point if not for today's "being connected"
Addressing what is the key element on how kids are getting to that point is as concerning as what they use once they do cross the crazy line.
I'm not a gun owner and never have been
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2018 12:24 PM by WKUYG.)
02-15-2018 12:20 PM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
This kid was reported to the FBI about school shootings. He wanted to be a professional school shooter. That he was still able to buy both the AR 15 and the ammunition after that should be the only talking point out of the left. That's it. Hammer that home. They had this in print on a youtube video. You F up like that you can't buy a gun for 10 years. He publicly made a threat. Done.
Second thing. We need to tie some liability in with this. Some responsible gun ownership. I'm thinking a co signor. You lose your co signor you better find a new one or you lose your guns. They are just too loose in our society right now.We are having these school shootings once every 60 hours. 18 so far in 2018!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes we could and should do more. You could still have your RIGHTS and we still could put some common sense safety regulations together!!!! COMMON SENSE!
(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)gdunn Wrote: But hey we're going to disband the NRA.
Shut down professional lobbyists.
FYP.
In all honestly, we all know these things won't happen, but it is within our power to not vote for the people who take money from these monster organizations to have their votes unduly swayed.
I agree. We need to cut them all out. Don't think I didn't notice you fixed my comment. I wonder if you did it because you agree with all lobbyist or if it was the ones I listed.
For one thing, some of them weren't lobbyists in the first place (PP is, abortion clinics aren't).
Regardless, if the issue is with the arms of these orgs that aren't working with people for their causes, but solely paying off politicians to sway votes, it would be nice to do away with them. One can dream...
We can all throw out ideas and suggestions for how to fix the problem, and NONE of us knows what will actually work, but until these politicians start looking into it and having the same honest discussions we are, instead of saying this it's not the time to discuss it, nothing will change.
The only way to make that happen is to remove the gag from the politician's mouths who have had it placed there by the gun lobby/NRA. Thoughts & prayers are great, but "faith without works is dead."
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2018 12:36 PM by tigergreen.)
(02-15-2018 12:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: This kid was reported to the FBI about school shootings. He wanted to be a professional school shooter. That he was still able to buy both the AR 15 and the ammunition after that should be the only talking point out of the left. That's it. Hammer that home. They had this in print on a youtube video. You F up like that you can't buy a gun for 10 years. He publicly made a threat. Done.
Second thing. We need to tie some liability in with this. Some responsible gun ownership. I'm thinking a co signor. You lose your co signor you better find a new one or you lose your guns. They are just too loose in our society right now.We are having these school shootings once every 60 hours. 18 so far in 2018!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes we could and should do more. You could still have your RIGHTS and we still could put some common sense safety regulations together!!!! COMMON SENSE!
How do you turn this political if he was reported and nothing done? Background checks are done via the federal government, so that's not a political party's fault, this is an issue with our federal government background checks. Now buying ammo, how are you going to restrict that? The cashier at the gun shop, Bass Pro, Walmart, doesn't ask those questions, they ask for ID and payment.
(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)gdunn Wrote: But hey we're going to disband the NRA.
Shut down professional lobbyists.
FYP.
In all honestly, we all know these things won't happen, but it is within our power to not vote for the people who take money from these monster organizations to have their votes unduly swayed.
I agree. We need to cut them all out. Don't think I didn't notice you fixed my comment. I wonder if you did it because you agree with all lobbyist or if it was the ones I listed.
For one thing, some of them weren't lobbyists in the first place (PP is, abortion clinics aren't).
Regardless, if the issue on both sides is with the arms of these orgs that aren't working for their causes, but solely paying off politicians to sway votes, it would be nice to do away with them.
You're opening Pandora's box, calling to disband an organization. If we do it to one, we do it to all. No matter the political affiliation. Murder is murder.
(02-15-2018 11:57 AM)gdunn Wrote: But hey we're going to disband the NRA.
Shut down professional lobbyists.
FYP.
In all honestly, we all know these things won't happen, but it is within our power to not vote for the people who take money from these monster organizations to have their votes unduly swayed.
I agree. We need to cut them all out. Don't think I didn't notice you fixed my comment. I wonder if you did it because you agree with all lobbyist or if it was the ones I listed.
For one thing, some of them weren't lobbyists in the first place (PP is, abortion clinics aren't).
Regardless, if the issue on both sides is with the arms of these orgs that aren't working for their causes, but solely paying off politicians to sway votes, it would be nice to do away with them.
You're opening Pandora's box, calling to disband an organization. If we do it to one, we do it to all. No matter the political affiliation. Murder is murder.
My statement was sarcasm in response to paul whatever-his-name is post. We all know the NRA isn't going to be disbanded - the power lies in not voting for the people who take their money.
(02-15-2018 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: More stringent gun control will only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, etc. It's not like the criminals will actually apply lawfully for a gun.
Again, the studies that I posted in another thread said that EXACTLY that happened. Fewer criminals got guns with more stringent laws. To boot, fewer suicides as well.
With gun control, eventually the numbers of guns that are available (legally or illegally) would drop, and there are a LOT of lazy criminals in this country. They simply won't pay the money or go through the extra hoops to get one.
hey ding-ding......guess what would happen if you banned alcohol and ciggy butts???
murder/death/kill is murder/death/kill when someone has gone to the depths of hell by giving up.....
guess which party promotes self-worth vs. status welfare
welcome to the real world sonny..... nobody gives two shites about that bs....the msm only wants you to cry and pine.....
this will wane like all the others.....
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2018 01:15 PM by stinkfist.)
(02-15-2018 09:23 AM)gdunn Wrote: Repealing 2nd amendment won't help. Those who want to harm will find a way to get guns or other tools as put earlier in the thread.
Repealing the Second Amendment almost certainly would have stopped this shooting. This kid had no access to anything dangerous except firearms. He wasn't going to build a bomb, or go on a stabbing spree because he's a coward. It was guns or nothing.
I truly, honestly believe it is time for the the politicians to float repealing the Second Amendment. Why are control advocates so afraid of this conversation? Let's see how the country divides up. Roll them bones, as they say.
In view of the FBI and Democrats effort to undermine the Constitution and spy on citizens, I think the 2nd Amendment is more critical than ever.
Guns don't kill people. People do.
Gun control is simply a "we have to do something" solution. There are a ton of guns already here. If you can't get them here, you can get them from Mexico. Its really true. If law abiding citizens don't have guns, only criminals will have guns.
These mass shootings keep happening, not because of guns, but because of two things we refuse to do anything about:
1) Mental health in this country. There are big issues and they seem to be getting worse. Why are they getting worse? Nobody is talking about it. What do you do with the people with problems-again, nobody really talking about it.
2) Media encouraging these things. People need to start boycotting media that gives too much emphasis to these things. There is one columnist in the AJC who never mentions the name of shooters as a matter of principle. Wouldn't it be nice if most of the media self-policed on that. The fact is that these are copy-cat killings. Nuts are inspired by the 24/7 nonstop media coverage. Media, of course, never talks about their role in encouraging these mass killings.
(02-15-2018 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: As someone who has never owned a gun and only shot a pistol, 22 rifle, and a 12 gauge what are the uses for an AR-15? Is it used for any type of hunting?
Personally I wouldn't deer or hog hunt with an AR15 chambered in the most common 5.56mm/.223 caliber round because despite the hype it is not an especially high powered round and the light bullet weight makes your margin for error in shot placement for a clean kill very small. I know plenty of people who do deer hunt with it and they have success, but I personally prefer my larger and much more powerful .30-06.
(02-15-2018 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: More stringent gun control will only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, etc. It's not like the criminals will actually apply lawfully for a gun.
Again, the studies that I posted in another thread said that EXACTLY that happened. Fewer criminals got guns with more stringent laws. To boot, fewer suicides as well.
With gun control, eventually the numbers of guns that are available (legally or illegally) would drop, and there are a LOT of lazy criminals in this country. They simply won't pay the money or go through the extra hoops to get one.
hey ding-ding......guess what would happen if you banned alcohol and ciggy butts???
murder/death/kill is murder/death/kill when someone has gone to the depths of hell by giving up.....
That's the point - a lot of these people haven't "gone to the depths of hell by giving up." For most criminals, guns are a quick & easy answer for them, and when they don't have that easy access, they think twice, and as the studies have shown, a significant percentage decide against it altogether. Same with those who are suicidal.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2018 01:39 PM by tigergreen.)
(02-15-2018 11:09 AM)Old Dominion Wrote: Ban guns!! Please stop being so disingenuous. We all know nobody's talking about that so why can't you move on from it? Do you work for the NRA? cause you sound more and more like one of their shills. Bogey man. Their coming to take my guns!! wahh wahh wahh
So you want to ban guns?
How do you propose to do this? Do you just stop? Do you ban all guns? What about service revolvers for our LEOs? What about people who already have guns? What's your plan there?
We're having dialogue. LS didn't attack, he's trying to have a debate.
Sorry, I should have quoted Dunk. I'm being facetious about banning guns. It's never gonna happen so why worry about it. It's a red herring designed to forestall any discussion.
Many of you on this board abhor government interference. OK, fair enough. Why not start at church on sunday? How about preachers starting a dialogue? Why not at school board meetings? Why don't individuals step up to the plate and acknowledge we have b no place in our society for violence as a solution, particularly assault style rifles. ( I can't say assault rifles cause some wahoo on here will correct me) Why not consider voting for politicians who are openly opposed to these types weapons?
The bottom line is until enough people speak out and take a stand against automatic, assault STYLE rifles, we'll continue to see these massacres. It's the change in the country's collective attitude toward guns that will make the difference, not anything the Govt. does.
Just a couple of points from a lawyer familiar with guns (me).
First, automatic weapons are already banned and tightly regulated. You need a special ATF license to own one. Second, "assault rifle" or "assault style rifles" are nonsense terms. Many legal privately owned rifles are semi-automatic rifles with legitimate uses such as hunting. Semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet when the trigger is pulled. Rifles that are described or labeled as assault Rifles are functionally no different than other semi automatic hunting Rifles. So banning "assault style"rifles based upon scary looking comestic features is silly. For example, did you know that the "A" in AR-15 stands for Armalite the company that originally invented it and not "assault"?
There are no military fully auto "assault rifles" used in these school shootings. Basically it usually a semi-automatic rifle that is that equivalent of any other semi-auto hunting rifle out there. Even if you banned semi-auto rifles there are still shotguns, semi-auto handguns and other homemade weapons like pipe bombs which can do as much damage. Not to mention the fact that it would be unconstitutional to ban semi-auto rifles in bulk. That's why an honest conversation should always involve are will willing to revoke the 2nd amendment? Otherwise, it's all just noise requesting that the government violate the constitution. Most of the noise coming from a segment of society with no experience with firearms.
Finally, it would be practically impossible to confiscate the 350+ million guns in this country. We outlaw all kinds of drugs but drug use is rampant and drugs readily available. I don't see prohibition working for guns either.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2018 01:58 PM by Jugnaut.)
(02-15-2018 11:22 AM)VA49er Wrote: More stringent gun control will only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, etc. It's not like the criminals will actually apply lawfully for a gun.
Again, the studies that I posted in another thread said that EXACTLY that happened. Fewer criminals got guns with more stringent laws. To boot, fewer suicides as well.
With gun control, eventually the numbers of guns that are available (legally or illegally) would drop, and there are a LOT of lazy criminals in this country. They simply won't pay the money or go through the extra hoops to get one.
hey ding-ding......guess what would happen if you banned alcohol and ciggy butts???
murder/death/kill is murder/death/kill when someone has gone to the depths of hell by giving up.....
That's the point - a lot of these people haven't "gone to the depths of hell by giving up." For most criminals, guns are a quick & easy answer for them, and when they don't have that easy access, they think twice, and as the studies have shown, a significant percentage decide against it altogether. Same with those who are suicidal.
oh boy.....you easily whiffle balled that one....
if you go to that world, it doesn't fk'n matter.....there are always ones that will.....
you're attempting to fight the fight the wrong way......
you'll lose.....so will those that choose your illogical path....
(02-15-2018 08:24 AM)Old Blue Wrote: The choice of whether we have significant gun control, with the frequency of these mass shottings, has been taken out of our control. Believe me, I do not come to this decision easily. I am the first in line when it comes to the rights of a free and law-abiding citizen to be able to own a gun. I totally buy into the argument that the gun is an inanimate object needing the human to operate. I totally agree with the premise that as a guard against tyranny, an armed population is the last line of defense. But the only argument concerning mass shootings, besides ignore them, that seems to make any sense at all, is more stringant gun control. So the conversation must now start. Not whether to have gun control, but rather, what is the fairest way to implement it.
Americans have always been armed. School shootings are a fairly recent (30 years?) occurrence.
I've thought about this a little bit lately, and I don't think we need any new restrictions on gun ownership. We need tougher penalties on crimes.
Someone shoots up a school, the only penalty is death. If it's a minor that did so, he gets the death penalty. If he stole his parent's gun to use, the parent get the death penalty also.
Teachers need to be trained and allowed to carry in the classroom. Security in schools needs to be former military or others that won't hesitate the shoot to kill, even if the shooter is a kid.
I'd support putting any incident at a school involving a threat against another student or the school into the FBI background database. Of course this means that each and every threat will have to be reported to police (IMO they should be anyways).
Don't punish the millions of firearm owners that will never break the law for a handfull of fuckups each year.
02-15-2018 01:47 PM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
This kid bought all of this stuff LEGALLY! That's the point. The right likes to say enforce the laws on the books. No current law in the books would stop this. This kid publicly threatened to be a school shooter. Still able to buy an AR 15 and ammo. A person on a terrorist watch list. Same thing. That's inexusable in my opinion.
(02-15-2018 01:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: This kid bought all of this stuff LEGALLY! That's the point. The right likes to say enforce the laws on the books. No current law in the books would stop this. This kid publicly threatened to be a school shooter. Still able to buy an AR 15 and ammo. A person on a terrorist watch list. Same thing. That's inexusable in my opinion.
Mach I agree, but yes enforce the laws. If he was on a watchlist and they still allowed him to buy a gun, this is not a political party's fault. Our federal government failed.
(02-15-2018 01:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: This kid bought all of this stuff LEGALLY! That's the point. The right likes to say enforce the laws on the books. No current law in the books would stop this. This kid publicly threatened to be a school shooter. Still able to buy an AR 15 and ammo. A person on a terrorist watch list. Same thing. That's inexusable in my opinion.
Give me your opinion of your students Mach.
Don’t answer
I would never put that on you.
Liability is a ***** and comes with guilt.
