|
Post by 32Green on Feb 15, 2018 12:01:17 GMT -5
And a thought - this guy was apparently expelled from two schools, Mayor saying he had been undergoing treatment, all the social media posts, potentially on the FBI radar - and he passed a background check within the last year. Seems like we need better reporting upwards to flag people? Not to sound cold with this comment, but playing devils advocate, if you ban the weapon he used, he'd just buy another type of gun if he can pass these background checks. Slower fire, less capacity. Maybe the death toll is 5 instead of 17. But its still a tragedy for those involved until the death toll becomes 0. Agreed. I need a time line on when and if he actually came on the FBI radar...and when he bought that AR as well. If the FBI interviewed an 18 year old kid with his flags..and closed the case with the AR still in the house...that's criminal in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by tkasper01 on Feb 15, 2018 12:01:59 GMT -5
I have absolutely no problem with your sister if she feels the need to protect herself with a handgun. Assuming she obtained it legally, of course. Shotgun might be a better choice for home defense? I have one of those as well. Pistol grip. The Glock I keep hot. The shotgun I want to rack if I need it. The sound of the gun being racked is an international language for Get the fuck out now.
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Feb 15, 2018 12:10:51 GMT -5
I have absolutely no problem with your sister if she feels the need to protect herself with a handgun. Assuming she obtained it legally, of course. Shotgun might be a better choice for home defense? thats what Biden said...
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Feb 15, 2018 12:15:42 GMT -5
Well stated. Im a conservative and small l libertarian myself, and a supporter of the second amendment fully, but Im at the point where we need to move the line of what can and cant be owned, since we pretty much ignore the mental health issues. We already define certain weapons as not-for-civilian purchase, it might be time to define additional weapons as military only or allow them to be owned by registered businesses like gun clubs, for shooting purposes, but not for personal ownership. Agreed. The 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms against the militia. No where does it say citizens need to carry or own assault rifles. I think it is nuts that any 18 year old can go in a buy one of these, even if deemed mentally stable. The NRA would be smart to get behind, or ahead of this and lead support for that type of legislation. the 2nd amend.doesn't say we have the right to bear arms against the millitia...its two separate statements...
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Feb 15, 2018 12:54:12 GMT -5
Agreed. The 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms against the militia. No where does it say citizens need to carry or own assault rifles. I think it is nuts that any 18 year old can go in a buy one of these, even if deemed mentally stable. The NRA would be smart to get behind, or ahead of this and lead support for that type of legislation. the 2nd amend.doesn't say we have the right to bear arms against the millitia...its two separate statements... A well regulated militia has the right to bear arms. The well regulated milita is supposed to be The People.
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 15, 2018 12:58:06 GMT -5
Such a potentially open ended phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" those founding father muthaf'ers.
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Feb 15, 2018 13:06:28 GMT -5
Technically, you should be able to have grenades, anti aircraft missles, etc. even nukes if you can build one yourself.
Those are all arms.
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 15, 2018 13:16:32 GMT -5
i have an ar-15. i am not going to murder a bunch of sheep anytime soon i also have a v8 dodge ram 1500 that i could use to kill 50 people tomorrow if i was so inclined, if i decided to drive into the shithole city i take the train into every day it's not a gun issue. it's a fucking mental defect issue. hollywood and the video game industry and media and pharma dooshes have more to do with this shit than smith & wesson common Yet the crazy ones pretty much always seem to pick the AR15. Strange. But if you wouldn't do it, I guess that solves that. They could pick any of these and pretty much do the same damage.
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 15, 2018 13:20:27 GMT -5
Technically, you should be able to have grenades, anti aircraft missles, etc. even nukes if you can build one yourself. Those are all arms. True... although we have said that civilians cant own fully automatic weapons, and grenades, bombs, rockets, etc. (as "destructive devices") so the precedent for restriction is there.
|
|
|
Post by tkasper01 on Feb 15, 2018 13:24:51 GMT -5
the 2nd amend.doesn't say we have the right to bear arms against the millitia...its two separate statements... A well regulated militia has the right to bear arms. The well regulated milita is supposed to be The People. This!!
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Feb 15, 2018 13:28:24 GMT -5
Yet the crazy ones pretty much always seem to pick the AR15. Strange. But if you wouldn't do it, I guess that solves that. They could pick any of these and pretty much do the same damage. I'm no gun expert, but i only see one that's able to hold magazines with a lot of bullets. How many rounds do those other guns fire without having to reload? Can you reload just as fast with those other guns as the AR15? And why is it the AR15 every single time? Because it looks intimidating? Seems to be the weapon of choice in every one of these situations. But if you ask me, anything that can cause similar type damage that the AR15 causes needs to be gone for anyone outside the police or military. I don't care what it's called and what it looks like. Enough with defending weapons like this. There's absolutely no need for the average citizen to own something that can fire off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds and then reload for more. None.
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 15, 2018 13:40:09 GMT -5
An interesting perspective:
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 15, 2018 13:55:15 GMT -5
They could pick any of these and pretty much do the same damage. I'm no gun expert, but i only see one that's able to hold magazines with a lot of bullets. How many rounds do those other guns fire without having to reload? Can you reload just as fast with those other guns as the AR15? And why is it the AR15 every single time? Because it looks intimidating? Seems to be the weapon of choice in every one of these situations. But if you ask me, anything that can cause similar type damage that the AR15 causes needs to be gone for anyone outside the police or military. I don't care what it's called and what it looks like. Enough with defending weapons like this. There's absolutely no need for the average citizen to own something that can fire off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds and then reload for more. None. The Ruger Mini 14 in the first picture can have a 30 round clip - its just not displayed in the picture, maybe on purpose. Both fire .223 ammo. Both are semi automatic, so they fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Rate of fire, capacity, power, they're all basically the same BUT the Ruger Mini 14 is specifically exempted from the assault weapons ban because it has a wooden stock that doesn't move. And no pistol grip. And no threaded barrel. For all intents and purposes, the Mini 14, AR-15, Bushmaster - they're all just as deadly pretty much, but we ban the scary looking ones. Which in all fairness, scary or cool looking is probably the reason all these guys pick those style weapons, that, and that its probably a big copy-cat thing - "the others used a big black AR-15, so now I will."
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 15, 2018 14:07:43 GMT -5
And why is it the AR15 every single time? Because it looks intimidating? Seems to be the weapon of choice in every one of these situations. But if you ask me, anything that can cause similar type damage that the AR15 causes needs to be gone for anyone outside the police or military. I don't care what it's called and what it looks like. Enough with defending weapons like this. There's absolutely no need for the average citizen to own something that can fire off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds and then reload for more. None. And thats where the discussion, I think, has to start. What rate of fire is acceptable? What capacity is acceptable before having to reload? Almost ALL guns today are semi-automatic - handguns and rifles. The semi-automatic handgun used in the Fort Hood shooting was equipped to shoot 20 rounds in 5.3 seconds. So they all have a high rate of fire, generally speaking. Now, do you limit magazine size? I could get behind that. It at least would force shooters to reload more often, although an experienced, prepared mass shooter could make that reload time almost negligible? Or do you roll things way back and only let people own revolvers and single action rifles? People act like there are easy answers, but technology has made it a complex discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Feb 15, 2018 15:10:34 GMT -5
|
|